Russia's Terrorist Energy Sector Fuels the DOD.

7/1/2023

 

A Letter Addressed to the US House Rules Committee:

Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK)    
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), Vice Chair    
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA)    
Rep. Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)    
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)      
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC)      
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)      
Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN)      
Rep. Nicholas A. Langworthy (R-NY)
Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA)
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández(D-NM)

Submitted Electronically to Jennifer Belair of the Committee staff at Jennifer.Belair@mail.house.gov

Re:  H.R. 2670, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which the House Rules Committee will provide for floor consideration on July 10th

 

Russia's Terrorist Energy Sector Fuels the US Department of Defense.   

Duty, integrity, ethics, honor,
courage, and loyalty

These are the core values of the United States Department of Defense (DOD).

But who would have known that shrouded beneath it's core, was the Russian Federation's energy sector?

The US military, through the DOD, purchases Fossil Fuels supplied by Russia’s government-controlled energy sector, which in turn funds the Russian government’s military, wherein that same Russian government targets Energy infrastructure to commits acts of war and “terrorism”, otherwise defined as “unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”.

Put more simply, the Dept. of Defense funds Russia's Energy terrorists.

 

1. There is a gaping, blown out loop hole in US Sanctions on Russia

I am writing in regards to the proposed bill up for review by Congress titled “H.R. 2670, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024”.

The 2024 National Defense bill provides ample exceptions for the United States Department of Defense to enter into contracts with the Defense (DOD) for fossil fuels with the  Russian Federation and it’s energy sector affiliates. Under “SEC. 807. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH PERSONS THAT HAVE BUSINESS OPERATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION OR THE RUSSIAN ENERGY SECTOR”, the provision explicitly begins by outlining loopholes which allow Russia’s energy sector to circumvent sanctions.

In fact, the the provision explicitly begins with the very word “Except”. 

(Emphasis provided:)

"Except as provided under subsections (b), (c), and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not enter into a contract for the procurement of goods or services with any person that has business operations with (1) an authority of the Government of the Russian Federation; or (2) a fossil fuel company that operates in the Russian Federation, except if the fossil fuel company transports oil or gas—
(A) through the Russian Federation for
sale outside of the Russian Federation; and
(B) that was extracted from a country
other than the Russian Federation with respect
to the energy sector of which the President has
not imposed sanctions as of the date on which
the contract is awarded.

(b) EXCEPTIONS .—(1) IN GENERAL .—The prohibition under subsection (a) does not apply to a contract that the Secretary of State jointly determine—
(A) is necessary—
(i) for purposes of providing humanitarian assistance to the people of Russia;
(ii) for purposes of providing disaster relief and other urgent life-saving measures;
(B) is vital to the military readiness, basing, or operations of the United States or the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization; or
(C) is vital to the national security interests of the United States.

(3) OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL LICENSES .—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to a person that has a valid license to operate in Russia issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury or is otherwise authorized to operate in Russia by the Federal Government notwithstanding the imposition of sanctions.
(4) AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC MISSION IN RUSSIA .—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to contracts related to the operation and maintenance of the United States Government’s consular offices and diplomatic posts in Russia.
(c) APPLICABILITY .—This section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and apply with respect to any contract entered into on or after such effective date."
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20230710/RCP_xml.pdf

2. We’ve been doing business with Russia’s oligarchs all along

Notably, under paragraph (3), the provision does not apply to persons related to the Russian Federation who have license with the OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL with the US Treasury. An example of authorized activities by sanctioned person include those listed in Russia's license #8G of the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations:

"all transactions prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 involving one or more of the following entities that are related to energy are authorized, through 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time, November 1, 2023:
(1) State Corporation Bank for Development and Foreign Economic Affairs
Vnesheconombank;
(2) Public Joint Stock Company Bank Financial Corporation Otkritie;
(3) Sovcombank Open Joint Stock Company;
(4) Public Joint Stock Company Sberbank of Russia;
(5) VTB Bank Public Joint Stock Company;
(6) Joint Stock Company Alfa-Bank;
(7) Public Joint Stock Company Rosbank;
(8) Bank Zenit Public Joint Stock Company;
(9) Bank Saint-Petersburg Public Joint Stock Company;
(10) Any entity in which one or more of the above persons own, directly or indirectly,
individually or in the aggregate, a 50 percent or greater interest; or
(11) the Central Bank of the Russian Federation"
(https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/931721/download?inline )

It's hard to believe that the US Dept. of Defense pays the "Central Bank of the Russian Federation" to fuel the US military, but it's true.

The proposed National Defense bill will enable the DOD to continue to contract Russian-owned and operated pipeline systems, port operations and fuel depots in order to support U.S. forces worldwide.

While most Americans were under the impression that the US cut off Russia's gas and oil industry - there is no reason to believe that the DOD has ever even ceased engagement in Russia’s bulk supply chain across the globe. In fact, the 2024 provision is a mirror image of the 2023 provision, hidden in plain sight.

In 2022, Congress passed federal law “H.R.6968 Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act”. 

US President Joe Biden also passed "Executive Order 14066 Prohibiting Certain Imports and New Investments With Respect to Continued Russian Federation Efforts To Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine”.

Both of these laws only banned Russian energy "imports" on US soil, as well as “new contracts”. We can assume that old contracts were "grandfathered in".

But both of these domestic "Russian sanctions" laws can be circumvented across a wide array of specific circumstances and industries. You can browse the extensive lists of companies and persons under which the Russian government is currently licensed to conduct American business: https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/russian-harmful-foreign-activities-sanctions

3. The US Military is energy dependent on the Terrorist state of Russia

There are serious conflicts of interest in the DOD dealing with Russia's energy, even within the exceptions outlined in the proposed 2024 National Defense Bill. 

By the DOD purchasing fossil fuels from Russia, we are lining the pockets of the Russian Federation, which in turn funds the war in Ukraine.

No wonder the Secretary of State has refused the US Senate's request to designate Russia as a state-sponsor of Terror. We are in bed with the Terrorist. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-resolution/623/text

This is not only contradictory for Americans - it is contradictory for Russian people, too.

In his infamous Feb 23, 2022 Declaration of War speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin notoriously insinuated that the US-NATO alliance was the provocateur of war.

“In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.” https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declaration-of-war-on-ukraine/

Paradoxically, Russia’s government-controlled energy sector is the current supplier of most of the fossil fuels consumed by the US military in Europe.

The fact that Russia is “open for business” for the DOD and NATO, suggests that self-aggrandizement is more important to Russian Federations’ energy sector than the “defense of it’s borders” against NATO.

But if self-aggrandizement is more important to the Russian Federation than NATO, then shouldn't the DOD and NATO stop buying into it?

How can we, when the US military is dependent on Russia's fuel? According to an APRIL 28, 2022 report by Brown University, the DOD’s “energy dependence” on Russia has created a national security threat.

“The U.S. military’s dependence on fossil fuels has created a crucial security threat for its European bases. American taxpayers could inadvertently be helping to fund the Russian war effort to the tune of a million dollars a week. https://watson.brown.edu/climatesolutionslab/research/2022/mapping-us-military-dependence-russian-fossil-fuels

You cannot have one without the other. US military's increased presence in the European NATO territory is directly related to the heightened threat of Russian aggression. Yet, Russia's energy sector is used to fuel NATO’s military-related energy needs—and as NATO ramps up it’s military presence along its eastern territory, so does it's voracity for Russia's fossil fuels.

4. The US Congress is sitting on it’s hands while Russia destroys Ukraine

Factors which relate to “Energy Dependence” can either be an instrument for negotiation, or a source of corruption, according to a study titled “The Politics of Energy Dependency: Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania between Domestic Oligarchs and Russian Pressure".

“Yet such assets, in principle crucial instruments for the management of energy dependency, can be used either for the purpose of moderating and negotiating this dependency, or of increasing energy rents for private actors." (Balmaceda, 2013) https://cejiss.org/the-politics-of-energy-dependency-ukraine-belarus-and-lithuania-between-domestic-oligarchs-and-russian-pressure

It is not clear whether the US government uses the DOD’s position as a major client of the Russian energy sector to pressure Russia to withdraw its troops in Ukraine.

What is clear, is the language of the proposed 2024 National Defense bill would expressly enact loopholes for Russian energy interests to contract with the DOD, as soon as the passage of the bill. It would also protect any prior energy contracts prior to the passage of the bill. (One thing worth looking into is if this protection extends to contracts between Russian energy lobbyists and Americans, and their transactions with American politicians.)

The proposed Defense bill has a provision which requires the DOD in order to provide a “plan” to congress on how it will “encourage” increased support from our “allied partners”. The specifics of what this “plan” might look like, remains to be seen.

SEC. 1225. PLAN AND REPORT RELATING TO ALLIED AND14
PARTNER SUPPORT TO UKRAINE. (a) PLAN AND REPORTS REQUIRED .—
The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees—“The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees—(1) a plan to encourage increased total contributions made by allied and partner countries to meet the military contributions of the United States; and (2) every 90 days after the submission of the plan described in paragraph (1) until the date described in subsection (c): (A) a report on all contributions to Ukraine in absolute and relative terms, disaggregated by country, in the preceding 90-day period; and (B) an update on efforts under the such plan.”

While Congress did indeed made an effort in the National Defense Bill to specifically outline a wide open backdoor for Russia’s energy sector, they neglected their duty of political office to exert pressure on “allied partners”, such as—Hungary—who has refused to participate in sanctions on Russia’s energy sector and simultaneously provided absolutely zero defense support to Ukraine.

Instead, Congress deflects the burden of “political pressure” onto the DOD, and asks them to get back to Congress with a “plan” of “encouragement”—at a later date.

 As far as "pressure" goes, it seems there is really "no pressure".  

5. Russia’s energy sector is associated with political instability, blackmail, and corruption

According to it’s website, it's the DOD’s policy to competitively acquire direct supply natural gas under the natural gas program when cost effective and the program has the same degree of supply reliability as other practical alternative energy sources. https://www.dla.mil/Energy/Services/Bulk-Petroleum-Services/

However, one must wonder about the “degree of supply reliability”, when Russia has habitually used “energy terrorism” for political purposes.

In 2021, as Russia massed more than 100,000 combat-ready troops on Ukraine’s border in what European officials and energy experts said was an attempt by Moscow to pressure Brussels over its support for Kyiv, Kremlin-controlled Gazprom began cutting natural-gas exports to the bloc, causing prices to jump,
Russia then further slashed natural-gas exports in 2022 to punish the EU for imposing sanctions on its economy following its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February. The 2022 EU sanctions did not directly target Russian gas exports, although since Feb 2023, the EU’s energy sanctions have gone into effect. https://www.rferl.org/a/hungary-orban-russia-sanctions-lifted-ukraine/32046405.html

Since at least 2004, Russia has threatened to cut off energy supply in Belarus, and the ongoing crisis eventually has led to Belarus becoming a “union state” with Russia, pushing the former soviet republic back into Russia’s orbit of influence. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-belarus-union/putin-to-belarus-no-gas-discount-before-union-state-is-advanced-idUSKBN1YN1Y1

Belarus' President Lukashenko, head of Russia's "puppet" regime, then tried threatening Europe to cut off it's Russia-piped energy in 2021. https://www.politico.eu/article/lukashenko-gas-threat-eu-belarus-russia/

Then you have the Trojan Horse of Europe. Russia has leveraged it’s ultra secretive PAKS II nuclear powerplant deal to buy out the Hungarian government—for $10 billion Euros.

“This Paks deal is camouflage,” said Zoltan Illes, a former lawmaker in the ruling Fidesz party who was a state secretary for the environment until 2014. “This is a financial transaction, and for the Russians this is buying influence.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-europe-hungary-specialreport/special-report-inside-hungarys-10-8-billion-nuclear-deal-with-russia-idUSKBN0MQ0MP20150330

This top secret influence campaign came in the past decade as Hungary saw an increase in black propaganda which parallels Orban’s ethnocentric “Greater Hungary” to Putin’s language-centric “Russian World”  – theories which both governments use to stoke political separatism in surrounding countries, most notably the Ukraine’s Western and Eastern territories during war. (In other words, if you are an ethnic Hungarian or speak Russian, then you actually belong to Hungary and Russia.)

Putin has used his Hungarian trojan horse to attempt to block sanctions on Russia, to block humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and to block other countries from joining NATO. Devoid of rational toward the "greater good", we cannot actually think these were sovereign decisions for Hungarians.

6. Russias energy sector is the mechanism for terrorism in Ukraine

Out of all of the Eastern European countries, Ukraine has suffered most from Russia’s energy terrorism. In Ukraine, it began with cutting off gas supplies during the dead of winter to punish Ukrainian people for their “orange revolution”.

“An illustrative example of how this gas trade has undermined Ukraine’s sovereignty was Viktor Yanukovych’s extension of Russia’s lease on the Sevastopol naval base for another 25 years in April 2010 in return for an alleged gas price discount. Another example was his agreement with Russian president Vladimir Putin on December 17, 2013, to abandon the European Association Agreement again in exchange for a gas price discount of one-third; the Kremlin, however, suddenly withdrew this discount in early April 2014. Additional examples are Russia’s cutting gas supplies to Ukraine twice during the Orange period in January 2006 and January 2009. Apparently, the Kremlin was more interested in corruption and in undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, or geopolitics, than in the commercial viability of Gazprom. (Åslund 2010b).”

Since then it’s gotten much worse.

    • In 2022, when Russia launched it’s full scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia bombed Ukraine’s electric energy grid, depriving millions without heat, energy, or internet communications - during the freezing winter.  https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2023/02/europe/putin-ukraine-energy-infrastructure-attack/index.html
    • Russia bombed Ukraine’s Hydroelectric Khakhova dam. “Tens of thousands of people have lost their homes. Thousands are stranded in 12 foot-deep flood zones. Millions have no potable water. At least 150 metric tons of oil and countless volumes of chemicals have leaked out into the Dnieper River en route to the Black Sea. More will join it from flooded gas stations, factories, and sewage facilities.” https://time.com/6285811/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-bombing-impact-essay/
    • And Russia hijacked Ukraine’s nuclear powerplant in Zaporizhizhia—the largest in Europe, with the terrorist threat of nuclear catastrophe growing by the minute. “The situation has never been as severe as now,” Kyryllo Budanov said just this past week, on June 23, 2023. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2023/06/russia-plan-blow-up-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-plant-drafted-approved
      

7. Politicians don’t even care, (should we?)

"You should be scared," according to an Eastern European energy policy expert, Suriya Jayanti. “The loss of the Kakhovka Reservoir puts the besieged Zaporizhzhye NPP at greater risk of a meltdown because it relied on the dam for water to cool the reactors and spent fuel.”https://time.com/6285811/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-bombing-impact-essay/

It is unfathomable that Hungary can feel safe with Russia building additional nuclear reactors at the PAKS powerplant, after Russia’s nuclear terrorits hijacked Ukraine’s Zaporizhihia nuclear plant this year.

Amid Russia’s energy terrorism which has caused Ukraine the humanitarian, ecological, economic crisis, it would seem that right now is the time to put “politics” aside and address the need for “urgent life-saving measures”.

But somehow, our “allied partner” feels that it is simply a matter of “political preference” to sanction Russia, and that these preferences do not outweigh the need for the continued flow of Russian energy.

"The security of Hungary's energy supply requires uninterrupted transportation of gas, oil and nuclear fuel," Szijjártó said at a press conference following the talks. "To meet these three conditions, Hungarian-Russian energy cooperation must be uninterrupted. It has nothing to do with political preferences." https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-ukraine-russia-gas-deal-urges-eu/

A similar precedent has been set in the states, where some leaders feel “political reasons” should not outweigh “best interests” from doing business with Russia.

“That would violate your fiduciary duty, if you liquidated at massive losses for political reasons rather than for the best interests of the beneficiaries,” Florida Governor Ron Desantis said, as he refused to divest $300,000,000 of Florida state pension funds invested in Russian assets. (Aug. 27, 2022) https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/27/russia-divestment-promises-by-us-states-go-largely-unfulfilled-.html

As hypocrisy would have it, our government has given it’s “blessing” to protect investments such as these. See Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations 31 CFR Part 587, GENERAL LICENSE NO. 38, which authorizes transactions “ordinarily incident and necessary to the processing of pension payments to U.S. persons prohibited under EO 14024, provided the only involvement of blocked persons is the processing of funds by financial institutions blocked pursuant to EO 14024.” (June 2, 2022). https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/924221/download?inline

Through government-related contracts with Russia executed by firms outside of the American taxpayer dollars purview, the government deliberately ties American people to Russia’s assets—in order for these vested Americans to win, Russia needs to win, too. For all we know, Russia may be on the verge of collapse. Meanwhile the American taxpayers interest is also vested in the defense of Ukraine against Russia. 

The DOD’s continued consumption of Russian energy due to “National security interest” sets this very precedent of “political expediency”. In the same way, through the DOD purchasing energy from Russian energy sector, America’s “national security interests” are tied to Russia’s financial “benefit”, as Russia continues to pose incredible security threat, and economic loss across the world.

 

8. The US owes Ukraine, big time

Here's how we can look at the "private" sector. 

"In April 2022, revelations came to light that BP was signing a contract with Russian-based energy company. “If completed, this sale would represent the transfer of more than $1 billion in Russian cash into Shell’s accounts. That would be blood money, pure and simple” . . .“We call on Shell to put any Russian sale or dividend proceeds to work for the victims of the war — the same war that those assets have fuelled and funded,” said Oleg Utsenko, an adviser to Ukrainian President Zelensky" https://www.politico.eu/article/shell-ukraine-russia-war-vladimir-putin-volodymyr-zelenskyy-hand-over-russian-blood-money/

One would think the duty to offset any gains from the "defense sector" would be even more critical.

Something we should ask ourselves is, would Russia have the funding to wage war in Ukraine without the DOD buying into Russia's energy sector?

The US is in a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, where we depend on Russian energy companies to fuel our military needs, and where Russia cannot feasibly transport gas to anywhere but Europe, because that’s where all of the pipelines are designed to go. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/occasional-papers/europes-dependence-russian-natural-gas-perspectives-and-recommendations-long-term-strategy-0

Strictly from an energy perspective, as NATO’s lead contributor, the US military plays a tremendous role in Russia’s energy sector, and therefore has a tremendous responsibility to support Ukraine, to stop Russian aggression, and to end it’s mutual relationship with Russian energy.

In 2022, the US military used it’s European energy stockpiles to assist Ukraine.
“In support of U.S. European Command efforts in Ukraine, DLA Energy Europe & Africa provided over 350 million gallons of various fuel products to the Warfighters, allies, NATO partners in support of the efforts to deter Russian aggression and bolster NATO’s defense.” https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/News/News-Article-View/Article/3259160/dla-energy-year-in-review/

But is it enough for the US to “offset” the DOD’s investment in Russia's energy? Let’s face it, the lives that are lost can never be purchased or replaced. And there is a serious conflict of interest when “national security interest” requires Russia's fossil fuels to be pumped into our defenses.

The US is "doing good" in Ukraine, but would we have been put in the position to have to "do good" if it wasn't for the DOD business pumping funds into Russia's energy machine?

If the US does not pull heavy weight in the support for Ukraine, and continues our status quo of purchasing fossil fuels from Russia, then we basically tip the scale to Russia.

9. If there's enough political will from people, this could be the beginning of the end to Russia's terrorism

According to the 2022 study by Brown University, “Until the U.S. invests in sustainable energy sources and base electrification, these threats will continue.” (https://watson.brown.edu/climatesolutionslab/research/2022/mapping-us-military-dependence-russian-fossil-fuels)

The threats are posed by the Russian Federation, who’s regular global political strategy has been to unreservedly exert “military force”, coersion, and corrupt environment.

In order for the US military to stop buying into Russia’s energy terrorism and war, business cannot continue as usual.

The US must tap into another source of energy. The other source of energy must be pure, clean, untouched by Russia, or anyone that has even come close to touching Russia.

There is no other option which would allow for US to continue to engage in  Russia's Energy sector without funding terrorism. 

Except there is maybe one other possibility-

Russia's energy sector would have to be completely sawed off from the Russian Federation.

Naturally -  this separation of Russia's Energy Sector from the government would require a complete political collapse, as the energy sector is deeply embedded in Russia's government.

The recent mutinies bubbling out of the warzone reveal that the self-destruction of Russia's government is a plausible manifestation.

Don't let the spinmasters bury the facts. The mutiny of the “Wagner Group” mercenaries was first sparked by a mutiny of the "Russian Armed Forces", who began shelling the “Wagner Group” on May 17 during the mercenary groups exit in Bakhmut. https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/06/05/prigozhin-s-press-service-says-wagner-fighters-captured-intoxicated-russian-commander-after-clashing-with-defense-ministry-troops 

By Jun 24, 2023, it spiraled into a full-fledged mutiny against the government, as the “Wagner Group” marched from Ukraine toward Moscow.  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/prigozhin-orders-wagner-mercenaries-to-halt-march-on-moscow-retreat-from-russia

The fall of the Russian Federation seemed inevitably creeping toward it’s doorsteps, until it was derailed and diverted by"Prigozhin", who’s “leadership” doesn’t go much further than the “bad cop” alter-ego of Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Instead of prosecuting a relentless and prevailing opposition against Russia's current regime, “Prigozhin” severed the uprising into a faction against Military of Defense Minster Shoigu, as if parsing out politicians in the current regime would actually topple it. From there, the coup was a carefully choreographed shuffle where “Prighozin” halted the troops from advancing toward Moscow, and brokered with the Kremlin to relocate them to Belarus, Russia's puppet state, far enough for Putin to feel safe.

In June 2023, CIA Director William Burns actually called the Kremlin to assure "the mutiny had nothing to do with the U.S."  https://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-chief-william-burns-called-to-reassure-kremlin-after-wagner-mutiny-a5016557

Of course who could doubt this, when it is far more likely the Russian Armed Forces will abandon the front-line, turn back around, join hands with the "barrier units", march into Moscow, and destroy the Kremlin? To be sure, that's what has already begun to take place. They are already armed and organized and very close to Russia's borders. So long as they are still alive, they can think for themselves.

Nobody would like us to believe more than the Russian Federation - that only the US could have concoted a mutiny against the Russian government.

But we should have a little more faith in the people of Russia than their government does. They can bring the whole diseased corrupt temple down on the regime's heads. Certainly, the Ukrainians proved it was possible during Maidan.

10. All roads to war follow Russia's gas pipelines

It's reasonable to believe that not even the most extensive brainwashing by Russia's state-controlled media can can convince the grieving Russian mothers, wives, and children from the villages of the major gas-pumping region of Samara, that hundreds of their men were conveniently stationed in one unit, and who died all at once in Matviika on New Years Eve, all for Putin's so-called "denazification" of Ukraine. 

But it wasn't just for a lost case. They did it for the motherland. Or, at least the motherland's natural resources. 

After all, aside from moving to Moscow or St. Peterborough, military service is the only "lifeline" in regions on Russia's economic periphery where social mobility is greatly restrained, as Russia's force generation falls along regional and territorial lines.https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-9

Typically along those lines, the only development the Russian government ever cared about was mining the earth of it's natural resources and peddling it to the rest of Europe.

Of course, now with dwindling population enhanced by war, those gas-pump regions will be even more accessible to the Russian Federation.

11. Beyond gas and nukes, the Russian Federation doesn't have a pot to piss in

The idea that the Russian people are helpless over their government is a facade. What is holding Russia together at this point is not all that great.

“The destruction of Russia as a state that can pursue its own policies will open up the vast area of its 11 time zones to internal conflict and to outside intervention at the time when there are 15,000 and more nuclear weapons on its territory.” said former secretary of State Henry Kissinger in Jan 2023.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/17/russia-needs-opportunity-to-rejoin-an-international-system-kissinger-says.html

Fears of and coersion by Russia’s terrorist energy sector and the threat of nuclear weapons has been the glue which binds the Russian Federation.

The Soviet Union fell overnight without nuclear catastrophe, and so we should have reason to believe that Russia’s fall would not necessitate a nuclear event.

Compared to Russia’s nuclear saber rattling, energy terrorism has been Russia’s most active threat. Keeping the status quo only makes it easier and more predictable for “global energy interests” to transact with Russia’s energy interests.

12. Sanctions are a contradiction when they are specifically designed to allow business with Russia

“The fact Russian oil continues to flow round the world is a feature, not a bug, of Western sanctions," said Mai Rosner." Governments offered the fossil fuel industry a wide-open back door, and commodity traders and big oil companies are exploiting these loopholes to continue business as usual."  https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-oil-vladimir-putin-ukraine-war-wide-open-back-door-to-europe-critics-say/

The legislative loopholes created by Congress not only perpetuates Russia’s global energy power, but could even encourage worse behavior.

For instance, the “exception” in the new bill enables DOD contract procurement within Russia’s energy sector, so long as Russia acts as a “transit” country, delivering fuel sourced only from other unsanctioned countries, so long as the country had no sanctions at the time of “contract”.

This provision locks the US into business with a sanctioned country like Belarus, who has just  installed Russian nuclear warheads on it’s territories. Meanwhile, it’s legal to conduct energy trade with them so long as the source of fossil fuels is from another country besides Russia which was not sanctioned at the time of contract (i.e.: Belarus via the Druzhba II)

Ofcourse, countries even without sanctions can deliver Russian fossil fuels. An example  of this is the potential route into Europe is through Azerbaijan, which borders Russia and is the starting point of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, operated by BP. (Of note, Turkey’s Ceyhan port is a major hub on the energy supply chain, and it is suspected that Russian oil gets shipped into Europe through Ceyhan.)

But importing Russian oil from Azerbaijan is not exactly illegal in Europe because the contract was grandfathered in before the sanctions. “The official also pointed out that data cited by Bellamy on Azerbaijani oil transactions, the most recent publicly available, “happened before the sanctions entered into force so there is no question of evasion of sanctions there.” https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-oil-vladimir-putin-ukraine-war-wide-open-back-door-to-europe-critics-say/

13. Sanction loopholes embolden Russia’s energy terrorism

As a last hope, Europe is looking to Azerbaijan’s Southern Gas Corridor as one of the few pipelines which does not cross over Russian territory. But Russia threatens the stability and security of this option, as about 2000 Russian troops occupy the region just south of the pipeline in the Nagorno Karabakh region, in a so-called Russian “peacekeeping mission” between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-peacekeepers-deploy-to-nagorno-karabakh-after-truce-as-political-crisis-hits-armenia/30940268.html

As Azerbaijan’s contract with Europe pushes through, there is no telling if Russia will see the “Southern Gas Corridor” as a military opportunity to self-aggrandize the Russian energy sector. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2023/06/25/eu-worries-russia-will-try-thwarting-lucrative-gas-deal-with-azerbaijan/?sh=6715df9f18cf

It’s possible that the loopholes which permit Russia to serve as a “transit” state for fossil fuels sourced from other countries might even encourage Russia to occupy even more territories throughout Europe and Eurasia.

Historically, Russia has long capitalized on the energy resources from territories destabilized or occupied by Russia:

    • Ukraine’s Druzhba II oil pipeline
    • the Dzuarikau–Tskhinvali pipeline and Baku-Supsa pipeline  in Georgia
    • the trans-Balkan pipeline system in Modolva
    • the Grozny–Tuapse oil pipeline in Chechnya
    • and the Baku Novorossisk which flows through Chechnya from Azerbaijan

All of these pipelines were illegally obtained by Russia through forcible means and war.

14. We cannot fail another history lesson.

After the Soviet Union fell in 1990, the first of the post-Soviet states to be invaded by Russia was  Moldova, which ended in its occupation of Transistria since 1992.

The First and Second Chechnyan Wars were from 1994 to 2009. It began as the Chechen people’s quest for self-governance like many post-Soviet nations did after the fall of the Soviet Union. But it ended with the entire ethnic group of freedom-loving Chechens being painted as terrorists. It has a chilling resemblance to the way Russia paints Ukrainian nationalists as “Nazis”. Russia toppled the Chechen government, and turned Chechnya into a Republic of Russia.

Before 9/11, Russia was considered by the US as the top security national threat. Russia faced serious political backlash after it’s “Battle of Grozny” had left Chechnya the “most destroyed city on Earth”. At the time, former President Clinton criticized Yeltsin, to which former Russian President Boris Yeltsin threatened his nuclear capability.

“Clinton allowed himself to pressurise Russia yesterday," the Russian president told reporters in Beijing after meeting China's leaders. "He must have forgotten for a moment what Russia is. We have a full arsenal of nuclear weapons." https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/dec/10/russia.chechnya

Of note, at the onslaught of his career Clinton helped Yelstin broker the transfer of 1900 nuclear warheads from Ukraine to Russia. This was a mistake Clinton recently publicly regretted.

“'I feel terrible about it because Ukraine is a very important country and I feel a personal stake because I got them to agree to give up their nuclear weapons.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11942467/Bill-Clinton-admits-terrible-mistake-forcing-Ukraine-nuclear-weapons.html

But it’s not the only regretable mistake made during those years.

When 9/11 occurred, Russia’s security threat had been de-scoped by the new Bush administration, and the focus was now on “Islamic extremism”. An opportunist for terror, Putin joined hands with the US to fight “side by side” the Russians in search for the “Islamic extremists” and “weapons of mass destruction” which Russia claimed were in the Pankisi Gorge, a mountaneous region which separates Chechnya and Georgia.  Russia ultimately occupies territories of these countries today—the US intervention in Pianski Gorge enabled Russia to further destabilize Georgian and Chechen territories. The Pankisi Gorge crisis lasted from 2001 to 2003, from which point the US pivoted toward Iraq, in search of more “weapons of mass destruction” that were never found.

Putin cynically invoked this blot on US history on Feb 23, 2022 in his infamous Declaration of War in Ukraine.

“However, a special place in this series is occupied, of course, by the invasion of Iraq, also without any legal grounds. As a pretext, they chose reliable information allegedly available to the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As proof of this, publicly, in front of the eyes of the whole world, the US Secretary of State shook some kind of test tube with white powder, assuring everyone that this is the chemical weapon being developed in Iraq. And then it turned out that all this was a hoax, a bluff: there are no chemical weapons in Iraq. Unbelievable, surprising, but the fact remains. There were lies at the highest state level and from the high rostrum of the UN. And as a result: huge casualties, destruction, an incredible surge of terrorism.” https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/full-text-putin-s-declaration-of-war-on-ukraine/

And right there, the failures of the US became Putin’s pretext for war.

The “test tube of white powder” refers to Former Secretary of State Colin Powel’s 2003 speech to the UN to announce the decision to go to war with Iraq, to hunt down those “weapons of mass destruction” which Russia used to bait the US to Pianski Gorge.

Powell publicly regretted his decision recently. “But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.  And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.” https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4992558

And then there were more mistakes worth looking back on and regretting.

In 2008, there was the Russo-Georgian war which resulted in Russia’s occupation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia’s pretext was the direct result of NATO’s statement during the Bucharest Summit, with an openness to accepting Georgia as a members state. Again, a chilling reminder of Russia’s pretext in it’s war in Ukraine. But the days of Pankisi Gorge were over, and the US did not lift a finger in Georgia.

Over the decades, Russia continued waging military campaigns in post-Soviet states, again and again.   The United states watched it happen, while the DOD and NATO continued to build their military defenses with the support of Russia’s energy sector.

Now, in Ukraine, the same methods that worked back then, Russia is using again. Holding hostage the entire European bloc’s energy lifeline, Russia extorts it’s power to conquer, to dominate, to enslave Ukraine.

It would be naive of us to think that if we do not help Ukraine today, it will not continue in the future in other European countries. And in Africa. Eurasia. The Middle East. And in South America for that matter.

Likewise, it would be naive to think that we did not embolden Russia through our energy relations, as we turned a blind eye to Russia’s terrorism.

15. We created a monster. And now we need to defeat it.

We cannot approach these questions as purists who consider the entire defense industrial complex as inherently evil. It is our responsibility to defend ourselves.

But we cannot deny that we built the entire US military defenses upon Russia’s corrupt energy sector. 

It serves the energy interests of the war-monger state of Russia to create a security threat, triggering US military defense to ramp up. 

The energy interests and the defense interests are a vicisous  cycle, spurred by the impetus of our greedy, cold-blooded enemy.

We created a monster.

We have “blood oil” on our hands.

If we cannot afford to make the same mistakes, that means we can no longer afford to do business with terrorists.

No exceptions. No loopholes. No bullshit.

We, the People, must reject and defeat the system which has been gamed by our enemies.

The defeat must go beyond the battlefield. It must reach the Russian energy sector. It must reach the Russian Federation. It must break Russia’s paradigm of energy terrorism. Because if history has taught us anything, the world cannot be a safe place with Russia in power.

 

– Alexandra Zakhvatayev

US Citizen of the State of Florida