Not much snow in recent years, Boris? About your climate change denial, Boris...
Dunno if I'll see significant snow here in the Upstate for the remained for my life.
******
The Russian & Indian Militaries Secured Logistical Access To One Another’s Facilities
Andrew Korybko
Jan 02, 2026
Their newly ratified Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics (RELOS) agreement can help midwife tri-multipolarity, bolster Russia’s Sino-Indo balancing act, and possibly even facilitate its renascent “New Détente” with the US depending on the degree of future coordination between their policymakers.
Russia ratified the Reciprocal Exchange of Logistics (RELOS) agreement with India in early December practically on the eve of Putin’s trip there, which is why news about this was lost in the media shuffle. As the name implies, RELOS gives each country’s troops, ships, and planes logistical access to the other’s facilities, but it importantly doesn’t give them their own military bases in the other’s territory. The purpose is to ease the organization of joint exercises with a view towards holding them more frequently.
In practice, the Indian Armed Forces might start drilling in the Arctic and become a more regular sight in the Russian Far East while Russia’s will be seen more often in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), thus informally expanding each’s presence there in a symbolic joint display of their rising influence in Eurasia. As was explained here ahead of Putin’s trip, Russia and India envisage midwifing tri-multipolarity as the stepping stone to complex multipolarity (multiplexity), and RELOS is one of the means to that end.
To elaborate, Russia won’t consider giving China the logistical access to its military facilities that it just granted India since it doesn’t want to lend false credence to pernicious Western media speculation that they’re mutual defense allies, which could then make Russia the US’ intractable foe. By contrast, India has sought to bridge the divide between Russia and the US ever since Narendra Modi’s ascent to the premiership in May 2014, which was right when their ties began to deteriorate.
Although his own country’s relations with the US unexpectedly deteriorated over the summer for the reasons explained here, they’re far from irreparable, and the renascent Russian-US “New Détente” set into motion by Trump’s 28-point Russian-Ukrainian peace deal framework can help improve them. As detailed in the recent analysis about “How A Rapprochement With Russia Helps The US Advance Its Goals Vis-à-vis China”, the US doesn’t want Russia becoming disproportionately dependent on China.
That dark scenario would turbocharge China’s superpower trajectory via unlimited access to Russian resources and thus intensify its systemic rivalry with the US, but this could be averted by a post-Ukraine Russian-US strategic partnership centered on energy and critical minerals cooperation. Trilateralizing this through India’s inclusion would help Russia avoid dependence on the US while further reducing the already far-fetched chance that Russia weaponizes its control over these resources to blackmail the US.
RELOS fits into this framework by functioning as a friendly military complement to the expansion of Indian economic influence in Russia’s resource-rich Arctic and Far Eastern regions. The resultantly increased transit of its navy through the South and East China Seas en route to foreseeably more frequent drills with Russia could be presented by India as an unprovocative response to the expansion of China’s own naval influence in the IOR without worsening tensions. That might please the US.
Its new National Security Strategy calls on India to play a greater role in the South China Sea, which Delhi is reluctant to do to avoid provoking Beijing, but the aforesaid increased transit of its navy through those waters could represent a compromise that might then help repair ties with the US. Through these means, RELOS can bolster Russia’s Sino-Indo balancing act while also facilitating its “New Détente” with the US, but this requires unprecedented coordination between Russian, Indian, and US policymakers.
The Russian Foreign Ministry on the US attack on Venezuela
January 3, 3:02 PM
Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry regarding the US armed aggression against Venezuela
This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. This is deeply concerning and condemnable.
The pretexts used to justify these actions are unfounded. Ideological hostility has triumphed over businesslike pragmatism and a willingness to build trusting and predictable relationships.
In the current situation, it is crucial, above all, to prevent further escalation and to focus on finding a way out through dialogue. We believe that all partners who may have grievances against each other should seek solutions to problems through dialogue. We are ready to support them in this.
Latin America must remain a zone of peace, as it proclaimed in 2014. And Venezuela must be guaranteed the right to determine its own destiny without any destructive, let alone military, external intervention.
We reaffirm our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and our support for the course of their Bolivarian leadership, aimed at protecting the country's national interests and sovereignty.
We support the statement by the Venezuelan authorities and the leaders of Latin American countries calling for an immediate meeting of the UN Security Council.
The Russian Embassy in Caracas is operating normally, given the current situation, and is in constant contact with the Venezuelan authorities and Russian citizens in Venezuela. There are currently no reports of Russian citizens being harmed.
Appeals to the UN or talk of a UN Security Council meeting are of little value in the current circumstances. The UN has virtually no influence, and the UN Security Council has long been blocked by its veto and is unable to make any significant, binding decisions. In the current circumstances, appeals to the UN are meaningless.
As has been stated many times, international law is dead. National borders and sovereignty are today guaranteed only by naked military force and a system of functioning military alliances. Hiding behind paper treaties and appeals to the UN is not working. What works is inflicting retaliatory damage, preferably unacceptable.
In the wonderful multipolar world of the future, the weak will be devoured.
DD Geopolitics
@DD_Geopolitics
2h Dmitry Medvedev commented on the U.S. attack on Venezuela:
“1. A perfect example of U.S. ‘peacekeeping.’ A hard military operation in an independent country that posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. The seizure by special forces of a legally elected president together with his wife. Of course, all of this strictly within the framework of international law and domestic legislation, in coordination with Congress. Almost complete silence from democratic Europe. Guaranteed love in Latin America, where the Monroe Doctrine is extremely popular. In short, another brilliant step toward the Nobel Prize.
2. Trump should have shown the same level of energy as in Venezuela somewhere entirely different. The trained Ukrainian animals, coked up in Kiev, have completely gotten out of hand. They’ve stopped listening to the ringmaster of the circus. The example of Venezuela is unlikely to sober them up. Still, it would be nice if the U.S. attacked the military bases of Banderastan, and American special forces captured the gang of drug addicts on Bankova Street. Maybe it’s time already, Uncle Sam?
3. The operation in Caracas became the best proof of the fact that any state must strengthen its armed forces to the maximum, not allowing various rich, arrogant actors to casually change the constitutional order in search of oil or something else. And maximum strengthening that guarantees reliable protection of a country means only one thing: a nuclear arsenal!
Either we do this or we will be crushed
January 4, 9:03 PM
Governor Filimonov is spearheading a new wave of Stalin quotes online, arguing that backwardness is bad and what needs to be done to avoid being crushed.
The more people take off their rose-colored glasses and begin to understand the current state of the world order, as well as the real basis of the "market," "international relations," and "rights and freedoms," the more popular becomes Comrade Stalin's realistic approach and that same "iron Stalinist logic," which was relevant on many issues then and remains relevant today. This includes the issue of backwardness, subservience to the West, the need for industrialization, strengthening the army, economic sovereignty, and much more. That same notorious wind of history from the apocryphal saying has put everything in its place. And you don't even have to be a communist to understand Stalin's historical correctness in matters of strengthening national sovereignty and resisting Western imperialism.
Our great ancestors, under Stalin's leadership, were able to cover this distance and eliminate the gap in 10 years. The result: winning World War II, superpower status, nuclear weapons, and the groundwork for entering space. We have similar goals.
The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation recommends
January 4, 5:06 PM
The Russian Investigative Committee strongly recommends following simple digital security rules to protect yourself and your loved ones from cybercriminals.
Question everything a stranger tells you over the phone, especially when it comes to your money.
Avoid disclosing your personal information during a phone conversation.
If the caller claims to be from the bank where you have an account and asks for your card information or offers to perform other card transactions, end the conversation and contact the bank directly at the number listed on the bank's website.
If the caller claims to be from law enforcement and asks for your personal information, including your card/account information, end the conversation immediately and report the call to law enforcement by any means necessary.
Fraudsters use psychological manipulation techniques: the longer the conversation, the more likely you are to succumb to the scammer's persuasion, so the best defense is to end the conversation immediately.
If you receive an alarming text message ("Your account is blocked," "Your card is blocked," "Suspicious activity has been detected on your card") asking you to click a link or call, refrain from doing so and call the bank yourself to clarify the situation.
If a stranger calls you from an unfamiliar number and tells you that a relative or friend is in an emergency and urgently needs your financial assistance, exercise restraint: call your relative back and confirm whether they truly need assistance.
You should be especially wary of calls in which scammers, attempting to gain your trust and obtain information sufficient to carry out legal actions on your behalf, act in a group and pose as bank or law enforcement employees.
Remember: law enforcement officers, including the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, do not call individuals to obtain personal information, account or bank card information, or demand money transfers. They summon individuals to participate in legal proceedings in accordance with the procedure established by law, that is, by subpoena.
(c) Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation
In early 1769, in the midst of the war with Turkey, the government of Catherine II decided to take out a loan abroad. This marked the first foreign loan in Russian history. "How much money must be raised outside the country and for this purpose, contact one or more bankers in Holland," stated the decree signed by the empress.
The Russian state had never previously resorted to such self-interested assistance from foreign banks. Initially, Empress Catherine II herself attempted to make do with her own funds—the war with the Ottoman Empire had led to a nearly 20% increase in all taxes in Russia. It is no coincidence that the war coincided with the introduction of paper money, or "assignations," with which Russia attempted to compensate for the shortage of gold and silver coins.
However, all these measures proved insufficient. Paper rubles could only be used domestically, and further tax increases were dangerous both for the economy and for the country's internal stability.
Moreover, it was in 1769 that the Russian command conceived an effective but complex operation—a strike at the Turkish enemy from the rear, which, for the first time in history, required the transfer of our fleet from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. A total of five squadrons—over 20 battleships alone—would be dispatched on a combat voyage to the Mediterranean shores of Turkey, comparable in cost and complexity to modern nuclear aircraft carriers.
Such an operation required not only the naval skill of Russian naval commanders but also numerous extraordinary expenditures in gold and silver coins. The massive export of metallic rubles abroad would have been fraught with problems for the Russian economy. This very argument became the main one in the debate with opponents of the foreign loan in the government of Catherine the Great. "To prevent the export of silver coins abroad, and to have our own sources of income as a backup for unforeseen circumstances"—this is how the Tsarina's decree described the reasons for the first state loan from foreigners in Russian history.
The choice of Dutch bankers for the first foreign loan was also not accidental. Firstly, the Dutch Republic of the United Provinces, with its extensive colonies, was rightfully considered the richest state in Europe in the 18th century, boasting a powerful banking system. Secondly, the Dutch gold guilder ( https://t.me/alter_vij/5016 ) was widely used in Mediterranean trade at that time, precisely where Russian squadrons were sent to attack the Turks from an unexpected direction.
In Holland, the loan was placed by the Russian ambassador, Count Alexei Musin-Pushkin, and the Amsterdam bankers, the brothers Raymond and Theodore de Smet. For their assistance, the de Smets were awarded a baronial title, in addition to a cash reward of 8% of the proceeds.
The loans were issued in bonds of 500,000 guilders. On behalf of the Russian monarchy, each bond was signed by Count Zakhar Chernyshev, President of the Military Collegium (Minister of Defense), Prince Alexander Golitsyn, Vice-Chancellor, and Prince Alexander Vyazemsky, Prosecutor General.
To secure the loan, the Russian Empire provided an unusual collateral—customs duties from the Baltic cities of Riga, Pernov (Pärnu), Reval (Tallinn), and Narva. The planned loan was 7.5 million guilders (approximately 2,635 kg of pure gold) for 10 years at 5% per annum.
However, despite the impressive interest rates and generous collateral, Dutch bankers were initially wary of taking on a previously untested borrower. Ultimately, Russia only managed to secure 4 million guilders. But soon followed resounding victories for the Russian army and navy over the Turks at Cahul and Chesma ( https://t.me/alter_vij/4248 ), where the best forces of the Ottoman Empire were routed. News of Russian successes immediately changed the mood of Dutch bankers, and Russia received another 6 million guilders.
In the summer of 1774, the war with Turkey ended with a favorable peace treaty, which not only paved the way for the annexation of Kuban and Crimea to our country but also obliged the Ottoman Empire to pay a substantial indemnity. Catherine II ordered the first tranche of one million rubles to be sent from Istanbul directly to Holland, so that repayment of the first foreign loan in Russian history could begin immediately.
Reviewing The Russian UN Representative’s Response To The US’ Capture Of Maduro
Andrew Korybko
Jan 06, 2026
His rhetoric aims to retain Russia’s regional influence and complicate the US’ plans there.
Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzia shared his country’s official response to the US’ capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He condemned it as “a harbinger of a return to an era of lawlessness and US domination by force, chaos and injustice, which continues to inflict suffering on dozens of countries in various regions of the world” before calling for his and his wife’s release. He then pointed out the US’ long-running hypocrisy in selectively invoking the UN Charter.
Russia “fully support[s] the policy of the Bolivarian Government’s geared towards protecting the national interests and sovereignty of the country” since it’s one of its top strategic partners in the Global South. It also hopes that others will “abandon [their] double standards without trying to justify such an egregious act of aggression for fear of infuriating the US ‘global gendarme’ who is seeking to rear its head again.” This suggests that the US’ capture of Maduro might have already intimidated scores of foreign leaders.
He also said that the US “does not even attempt to conceal the true objectives of its criminal operation, namely the establishment of unlimited control over Venezuela’s natural resources and assertion of its hegemonic ambitions in Latin America. In this way, Washington is generating fresh momentum for neocolonialism and imperialism, which have been repeatedly and decisively repudiated by the peoples of this region and the Global South as a whole.” Nebenzia then called for global condemnation of this.
He ominously concluded that “the bell now tolls across the region, ringing for every country of the Western Hemisphere. The bell is also ringing for all UN member States and for the future of the Organization itself.” Reviewing everything, Russia reaffirmed its role as a champion of international law and the voice of the Global South at the UNSC, particularly Latin America. This appeals to its traditional anti-imperialist and leftist allies in the region, who have a history of organizing large-scale rallies.
Drawing attention to the US’ explicit goal of restoring its ‘sphere of influence’ over the Western Hemisphere, which openly entails limiting its countries’ sovereignty by punishing them for their ties with US rivals like China and Iran, might earn it support from some nationalists too. The purpose appears to be strengthening Russian soft power through rhetorical means with a view towards inspiring its Latin American partners to resist potentially forthcoming US pressure upon them to curtail their ties.
Although trade with the region remains far below its potential and mostly concerns Russian exports of wheat, fertilizer, energy, and arms, it still functions as a valve of sorts from Western sanctions pressure. Russia’s military-strategic ties with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela also represent a symbolic response to the US’ military-strategic ties with Ukraine and other countries in what Russia considers to be its “Near Abroad” so officials take pride in them. Their loss would therefore represent a symbolic setback.
All in all, Russia’s response to the US’ capture of Maduro was predictable, but that doesn’t mean that it’s insignificant. It can’t secure his and his wife’s release, but it might inspire some states to resist potentially forthcoming US pressure upon them to curtail their ties. Russia might also inspire its traditional anti-imperialist and leftist allies to organize large-scale rallies across the region too. The purpose is to retain Russia’s regional influence and complicate the US’ plans there, but it’s unclear whether it’ll succeed.
How Wise Was It Of Zakharova To Claim That Poland Owes Its Revival & Survival To Lenin?
Andrew Korybko
Jan 06, 2026
If Russia wants to improve people-to-people ties, which could help manage state-to-state tensions, then it would be a good idea for officials to take the high road and eschew such rhetoric even in the face of Polish provocations.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova posted a lengthy explanation on Telegram last month about why she believes that Lenin was responsible for Poland’s revival and survival. This was in response to Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski mockingly claiming that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban “earned his Order of Lenin”. The gist of her post was that Lenin’s Bolsheviks recognized Polish independence and his Soviet successors supported the Polish People’s Army in World War II.
The Polish historical narrative is the polar opposite; Lenin is portrayed as an intractable enemy of Poland due to the Polish-Bolshevik War in which the Red Army almost captured Warsaw and the Polish People’s Army is considered to be Soviet puppets for legitimizing what’s viewed as the post-war occupation. It’s unimportant which side readers support since the point is simply to draw attention to Russia’s and Poland’s incompatible views on this subject.
The context within which Zakharova reminded Poles about Russia’s positive assessment of Lenin’s role in their country’s history concerns the revival of the historical Russian-Polish rivalry. The deterioration of political ties led to the deterioration of people-to-people ones too, which has made it relatively easier for Poland’s ruling duopoly to rally the population against Russia as their country seeks to play the leading role in containing it in the region after the Ukrainian Conflict ends.
Accordingly, “Poland Will Play A Central Role In Advancing The US’ National Security Strategy In Europe”, thus bestowing outsized importance upon it in the reformed European security architecture that Trump and Putin are negotiating. Russian-Polish relations are therefore expected to remain tense for the foreseeable future, but it’s arguably in Russia’s interests to counteract perceptions among Poles of it being a threatening or immoral actor, ergo the significance of soft power and people-to-people ties.
Therein lies the reason why Zakharova’s post about Lenin’s positive role in Polish history might not have been the best course of action in hindsight. Poles and Russians know that their people have polar opposite historical narratives but being reminded of this very divisive one in particular that’s considered by Poles to be extremely condescending risks discrediting those in Poland who want more pragmatic relations with Russia. This mostly concerns the Crown and Confederation populist opposition parties.
A recent poll placed their parties at third and fourth place with 11.18% and 10.67% support respectively, thus equating to over a fifth of Polish voters. Crown leader Grzegorz Braun also shared a proposal for mutual Polish-Russian de-escalation in late November in open letters to both of their Foreign Ministers. If these political trends remain on track till fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections, then Crown and Confederation could form a coalition government with the conservative Law & Justice party (31.21%).
Poles are a very proud people and don’t appreciate the insinuation that they owe the revival and survival of their state to Russia, regardless of non-Poles’ opinions on the matter, with the innuendo that they’re thus forever indebted to it and must therefore comply with all of its requests. If Russia wants to improve people-to-people ties, which could help manage state-to-state tensions, then it would be a good idea for officials to take the high road and eschew such rhetoric even in the face of Polish provocations.
National Security Archive Publishes US records of three Bush II-Putin conservations
January 6, 2026
Overview by Prof. Geoffrey Roberts:
The Washington-based National Security Archive has just published the US records of three Bush-Putin conservations, including the memo on the April 2008 meeting, at which Putin supposedly said Ukraine was not a real/proper country/state.
At the first meeting in June 2001, Putin spoke about NATO expansion:
You know our position. You have made an important statement when you said that Russia is no enemy. What you said about 50 years in the future is important. Russia is European and multi-ethnic, like the United States. I can imagine us becoming allies. Only dire need could make us allied with others. But we feel left out of NATO. If Russia is not part of this, of course it feels left out. Why is NATO enlargement needed? In 1954, the Soviet Union applied to join NATO. I have the document… NATO gave a negative answer with four specific reasons: the lack of an Austrian settlement, the lack of a German settlement, the totalitarian grip on Eastern Europe, and need for Russia to cooperate with the UN Disarmament process. Now all these conditions have been met. Perhaps Russia could be an Ally. But the real question is how we associate Russia with the rest of the civilized world. The fact is that NATO is enlarging and we have nothing to say about it.
In September 2005, the two President’s discussed North Korea:
There may be a lot of nuts there, but not everyone is. I used to be a member of the Communist Party. I believed in the ideas of communism. I was prepared to die for them. It’s a long road to inner transformation. People are limited to the cubicle they live in. And many are sincere in what they believe. The North Koreans live in more seclusion than we lived in. They are more isolated than the Soviet Union was under Stalin. The overwhelming number are prepared to die. This is not East Europe or East Germany. For any serious change in mindset, there needs to be rapprochement between the North and South.
This is what Putin actually said about Ukraine in April 2008:
I’d like to emphasize accession to NATO of a country like Ukraine will create for the long-term a field of conflict for you and us, long-term confrontation…Seventeen million Russians live in Ukraine – a third of the population. Ukraine is a very complex state. This is not a nation built in a natural manner. It’s an artificial country created back in Soviet times. Following World War II Ukraine obtained territory from Poland, Romania and Hungary – that’s pretty much all of western Ukraine. In the 1920s and 1930s Ukraine obtained territory from Russia – that’s the eastern part of the country. In 1956 [sic] the Crimean peninsula was transferred to Ukraine. It’s a rather 1arge European country built with a population of 45 million. It’s populated by people with very different mindsets. If you go to western Ukraine you’ll see villages where the only spoken language is Hungarian and people wear those bonnets. In the east, people are wearing suits, ties and big hats. NATO is perceived by a large part of the Ukrainian population as a hostile organization…
This creates the threat of military bases and new military systems being deployed in the proximity of Russia. It creates uncertainties and threats for us. And relying on the anti-NATO forces in Ukraine, Russia would be working on stripping NATO of the possibility of enlarging. Russia would be creating problems there all the time. What for? What is the meaning of Ukrainian membership in NATO? What benefit is there for NATO and the U.S.? There can be only one reason for it and that would be to cement Ukraine’s status as in the Western world and that would be the logic. I don’t think it’s the right logic…And given the divergent views of areas of the population on NATO membership, the country could just split apart. I always said there’s a certain pro-Western part, and a certain pro-Russia part. Now the power there is held by the pro-Western leaders. As soon as they came to power they split within themselves. The political activity there fully reflects the attitudes of the population. The issue there is not accession to NATO, but to ensure the self-sufficiency of Ukraine, Also, their economy should be strengthened.
Seventy percent of the population is against NATO. Condi [Rice] told me in Slovakia and Croatia the population was opposed at first and they’re now in favor. What we are against is Ukraine’s accession to NATO, but in any case we should wait until a majority of ·the population is in favor, then let them accede, not vice versa.
The full texts of these documents may be found here:
John Helmer: Simultaneous Strikes in Russia and Caracas—This Was No Coincidence
*******
Tanker "Mariner" (former Bella 1) under the flag of Russia was hijacked during a storm in the North Atlantic
The United States has been chasing a tanker for 2 weeks, which painted the Russian flag instead of the Panamanian one for protection.
The Americans have now launched an attempt to seize the Russian tanker Mariner, which is en route to Murmansk, according to the ship's owner.
A civilian vessel with no cargo on board is being chased by the US Coast Guard. From the air, American P-8A Poseidon aircraft are watching the tanker all the way.
The wind in the region is now up to 20 m/s, the wave height is 5 m and the temperature is almost zero.
The Russian Foreign Ministry called the situation around the tanker "abnormal."
The United States had previously seized a tanker from Venezuela and kept it for itself. Piracy requires a response, and impunity will lead to further oppression of Russia's maritime economic activities.
Isn't it time for Moscow to start issuing letters of marque for protection?
The Russian Foreign Ministry on the seizure of the tanker Mariner
Basic
January 8, 5:04 PM
Today, the official response to the seizure of the oil tanker Mariner in the North Atlantic arrived.
The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement regarding the forcible seizure of the oil tanker Mariner.
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses serious concern regarding the illegal military action taken by the US armed forces against the oil tanker Mariner on January 7.
The Mariner, which received temporary permission to fly the Russian flag on December 24 in accordance with international and Russian law, was innocently passing through international waters of the North Atlantic, en route to a Russian port. US authorities, including officially through the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have repeatedly received reliable information regarding the vessel's Russian affiliation and its civilian, peaceful status. They could not have had any doubts about this, nor was there any basis for speculating that the tanker was sailing "without a flag" or "under a false flag."
International maritime law clearly provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state with respect to vessels on the high seas. Stopping and inspecting a vessel on the high seas is only permitted for a limited number of reasons, such as piracy or slave trade, which clearly do not apply to the Mariner. In all other cases, such actions are permitted only with the consent of the flag state—in this case, Russia.
Meanwhile, Russia not only refused such consent but, on the contrary, formally protested to American authorities regarding the Mariner's pursuit by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel over the previous several weeks, insisting that the pursuit be immediately ceased and that the unlawful demands made on the Russian vessel's captain be withdrawn.
Under these circumstances, the boarding and actual seizure of a peaceful vessel by U.S. military personnel, as well as the capture of the crew, cannot be interpreted as anything other than a gross violation of the fundamental principles and norms of international maritime law and freedom of navigation. This represents a significant infringement of the shipowner's legitimate rights and interests. The lives and health of the Mariner's crew, which includes citizens of several countries, are at risk. We consider the threats of legal action against them by the American authorities under absurd pretexts to be categorically unacceptable. By unsafely pursuing and then armedly seizing an oil tanker in difficult weather conditions, the American military clearly disregarded the risk of causing significant damage to the environmental safety of the North Atlantic.
We consider the US's references to its national "sanctions legislation" to be unfounded. Unilateral restrictive measures by the US, as well as those of other Western countries, are illegitimate and cannot serve as justification for attempts to establish jurisdiction, much less the seizure of vessels on the high seas. The suggestions by individual US officials that the seizure of the Mariner is part of a broader strategy to establish Washington's unlimited control over Venezuela's natural resources are extremely cynical. We resolutely reject such neocolonialist pretensions.
Along with the US administration's disdain for the generally accepted "rules of the game" in international maritime navigation, Washington's willingness to generate acute international crises, including in relation to Russian-American relations, which are already extremely strained by the disagreements of recent years, is regrettable and alarming. The Mariner incident can only lead to a further escalation of military and political tensions in the Euro-Atlantic region, as well as a visible lowering of the threshold for the use of force against peaceful shipping. Inspired by the dangerous and irresponsible example set by Washington, some other countries and entities may also feel entitled to act in similar ways. The authorities of Great Britain, a country with a long history of maritime robbery, are particularly scheming with predatory intentions. London has already slavishly reported its complicity in the US military action in the waters of the North Atlantic.
We call on Washington to return to the fundamental norms and principles of international maritime navigation and immediately cease its illegal actions against the Mariner, as well as other vessels engaged in legitimate activities on the high seas. We reiterate our demand that the American side ensure humane and dignified treatment of the Russian citizens aboard the tanker, strictly respect their rights and interests, and not impede their speedy return to their homeland.
The seizure of the tanker was also condemned today by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which also demanded the tanker's return.
And now the official reaction of the "coalition of the willing" has arrived.
Russia will regard the deployment of Western troops and military infrastructure on Ukrainian territory as an intervention and a direct threat to its security. Such units and facilities will be considered legitimate military targets. (c) Russian Foreign Ministry
Expected comment from the Russian Foreign Ministry. As stated earlier, there is no point in Russia ending the war if its end leads to the introduction of NATO troops into Ukraine. Our opponents know this, which is why they constantly push the issue of deploying NATO troops in Ukraine so that the war does not end.
Three Takeaways From The US’ Seizure Of A Russian-Flagged Tanker In The Atlantic
Andrew Korybko
Jan 08, 2026
The overarching trend is that the US is militarily reasserting its historical “sphere of influence” over the Americas, and enforcing the maritime component of “Fortress America” is so important for Trump 2.0 that it’s willing to rubbish the “rules-based order” over it and even risk an accidental war with Russia.
The Russian-flagged Marinera tanker was just seized by the US in the Atlantic. It was earlier named the Bella 1 and is under US sanctions due to connections to Hezbollah. It sailed under the Guyanese flag from Iran to Venezuela and attempted to break the US’ blockade. It failed, turned around, changed its name to the Marinera, and received a temporary permit to sail under the Russian flag before being seized. Russian then demanded that its citizens on board be treated humanely and returned home.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted that “The blockade of sanctioned and illicit Venezuelan oil remains in FULL EFFECT — anywhere in the world.” This preceded Attorney General Pam Bondi threatening that criminal charges might be pursued against the crew. Her tweet and Hegseth’s other one about how the US will only permit “legitimate and lawful” energy commerce with Venezuela shows that it’s once again assuming so-called “police” functions. Here are three takeaways from this incident:
----------
1. The US Is Surprisingly Nonchalant About An Accidental War With Russia
It was brazen even by the US’ standards to seize a Russian-flagged tanker, especially after Western media reported that Russia had dispatched ships and a submarine to escort it, which Russia didn’t confirm and none were nearby during the seizure. Nevertheless, Trump 2.0 calculated that there’d be no retaliation despite the deputy chairman of Russia’s parliamentary defense committee warning that “any attack on our carriers can be regarded as an attack on our territory, even if the ship is under a foreign flag.”
This incident interestingly occurred in parallel with the US backing European ceasefire guarantees for Ukraine that include British and French commitments to deploy troops there during that time even though Russia has repeatedly warned that they’d be legitimate targets. Quite clearly, the US is now surprisingly nonchalant about an accidental war with Russia, whether over seizing one of its flagged ships at sea or over NATO allies getting killed in Ukraine. This observation won’t be lost on Russia.
2. “Fortress America” Also Includes An Important Maritime Component
The goal of restoring the US’ unipolar hegemony over the Americas, which is described as the highest regional priority in its new National Security Strategy, can be referred to as building “Fortress America”. This isn’t being pursued just for reasons of prestige but also pragmatism in the sense of enabling the US to survive and even thrive if it’s ever expelled from the Eastern Hemisphere or decides to retreat from there since control over the hemisphere’s resources and markets would all but ensure this outcome.
As can be seen by this incident as well as Hegseth’s and Bondi’s posts about it, there’s also an important maritime component related to controlling the export of oil from Venezuela, which has the world’s largest reserves. This can only be achieved by maintaining the unilateral blockade and seizing all ships that violate it, both on law enforcement pretexts that embody the concept of extraterritoriality. Without this maritime component, “Fortress America” could never truly be built, but it’s not without some costs.
3. The US Is Dismantling The “Rules-Based Order” That It Built Over The Decades
The abovementioned point segues into the last one about how the US’ militarily enforced extraterritoriality vis-à-vis Venezuela dismantles the “rules-based order” that it built over the decades for maintaining its unipolar hegemony over the world after the end of the Old Cold War. This violates the international laws that the US used to selectively police across the world according to its arbitrary standards. Instead of international ones, the US is now policing its own, but also in pursuit of hegemony.
International law has increasingly become illusory due to the UN’s innate dysfunction, which is related to the deadlock among the UNSC’s five permanent members, with one usually vetoing significant proposals from the others. Even so, if the Great Powers abided by it in their ties with one another, then there’d be more predictability and less risk of war by miscalculation. The US is no longer interested in even that as proven by this incident, however, since building “Fortress America” now takes precedence over all else.
----------
The trend connecting the three aforementioned takeaways is that the US is militantly reasserting its historical “sphere of influence” over the Americas, and this is so important for Trump 2.0 that it’s willing to rubbish the “rules-based order” over it and even risk an accidental war with Russia. The maritime component off of Venezuela’s Caribbean coast that’s been built before all else is justified by the administration as a law enforcement operation that prioritizes domestic laws over international ones.
Since this is taking place on the other side of the world where neither half of the Sino-Russo Entente has any military bases, they can’t challenge this even through indirect means, unlike how the US challenged Russia’s reassertion of its own historical “sphere of influence” in Ukraine through the ongoing proxy war. This doesn’t mean that the US’ grand strategic goal of restoring its unipolar hegemony over the Americas will succeed, just that if it doesn’t, then it’ll be due to intra-hemispheric reasons and not external forces.
(I wouldn't count on that Little Andy. Russia may settle for sphere's of influence in the short and medium term but China has other fish to fry and is out to prove you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.)
****
(Meanwhile Barflies have their own ideas...)
More Ideas On How To Counter The Mafia’s Increasing Activities
I have asked for suggestions on how Russia, Venezuela and others can respond to U.S. lawless behavior.
Commentator Tom Paine answers thus:
A number of points which are probably more an effort to summarise than to add novelty.
1.US has no legal, moral or geopolitical constraints. It wants war with Russia and China. It will provoke until that happens.
2.The current strategy is to make Putin look weak. Russian prudence may be a rational answer but it is no longer the right one.
3.Much of US behaviour is conditioned by its feeling that it is too remote to suffer. Europe can be made to suffer because it is a satrapy. Logically, the US must be forced to recognise its own vulnerability.
4.Since the US is now attacking and plundering Russian-flagged shipping, the situation is familiar and uncomplicated. Tactics for blockade-busting are well known. Arm your merchantmen, protect them using convoys, seize hostile assets, destroy attackers. The advent of real-time communications and precise missile targeting should decimate exposed USN forces. When in doubt, be a Houthi.
5.Russia and China must stop attempting to wage war with words. Actions speak for themselves.
6.If you do not effectively support your allies, you send a message that you cannot be relied on. Russia must be seen to be active in Iran, VZ, Cuba and elsewhere.
7.Yes, bullies are stopped by fighting back. Bullies are psychologically unable to think except in terms of superior/inferior relationships. Efforts to negotiate rationally just demonstrate that you are not on their ‘ladder’ of relationships, and therefore are weak and must be attacked. Fight first. 8.Establishing that connection will result in much less long-term damage than efforts at rational compromise. It could have avoided Gaza or Syria.
9.US strength is its infinite cash supply, which supports a nearly-infinite collection of CIA cutouts and regime change NGOs. Cut it off.
10.US weakness is its reliance on a financialised PR military with lots of highly-visible targets. The Houthis are right. It must be shown to be overpriced, ineffective and feeble. The US itself has never been weaker militarily.
11.The answer to dirty war and guerilla ops is the same. Russia will always be blamed for black ops so there is no visible gain in avoiding them.
Unity, unity, unity. The real fight is about unity. Russia and China can see that they fight for survival. The West fights only for plunder. One is a great force for unity, the other is not.
I mostly agree with the above. To the last point I would add any other country, Iran etc., that wants to retain some sovereignty. It must be a big, global coalition, not just three superpowers fighting it out.
(Meta note: I am in blocking mode. Derailing the comments from the content and context of the post will get you banned.)
Posted by b on January 8, 2026 at 08:07 UTC | Permalink
The United States will release Russian sailors from the tanker Mariner.
January 9, 1:42 PM
Following demands from the Russian Foreign Ministry for the return of the tanker and Russian sailors from the seized tanker Mariner, the United States agreed to release two Russian citizens who were on board the Mariner.
Citizens of other countries are not yet being released, nor is the tanker itself. Among those seized by the Americans are 16 Ukrainian citizens. Last night, Trump announced that oil was already being pumped from the tanker, although it had previously been reported that the tanker was empty, making it unclear what exactly the United States was pumping from the tanker.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has not lifted its demands for the return of the tanker, as it has been registered in Russia since late December.
My dearest friend,
I received your warm letter of congratulations with joy and pleasure.
Once again, I deeply felt the sincere comradely relations between us. Taking this opportunity, I would like to emphasize that I consider our friendly relations most invaluable and am proud of them.
Our close cooperation will continue in various areas in accordance with the spirit of the comprehensive strategic partnership between the DPRK and the Russian Federation, the strategic interests of the two countries, and the aspirations and wishes of the two peoples.
I will fully respect and unconditionally support all the policies you pursue and the decisions you make, and I am ready to always stand together for you and for your Russia.
This choice is immutable and will remain eternal.
Your letter is a vivid expression of your brotherhood and trust in me and my comrades, and the entire Korean people.
Once again, I thank you for this.
Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich,
With all my heart I wish you good health and great success in all your important endeavors.
Wishing the fraternal Russian people success and victories, I send you my warmest wishes.
The hype around the date of 1418 days, which supposedly means that the Second World War lasts longer than the Great Patriotic War, is not entirely clear.
1. The Great Patriotic War was a total patriotic war, where all the resources of society and the state were devoted to the conflict. The Central Military District (CMD) is still a limited war, where part of society and the state continue to live essentially in peacetime conditions.
2. The USSR fought the Great Patriotic War with the support of a coalition of allies—in the CMD, only North Korea fought directly for us. This was against a bloc of dozens of states actively engaged in a proxy war against the Russian Federation and possessing collectively greater material resources.
3. In terms of duration, there have been longer wars. Not counting various proxy wars that lasted for years (like Vietnam or African adventures), the USSR waged the Afghan War for 10 years. The Russian Empire regularly waged protracted wars that exceeded the duration of the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District (see the history of the wars with Poland and the Ottoman Empire). Nowadays, no one really cares how long any given war with the Ottoman Empire lasted, as long as it resulted in Russia annexing certain territories, including the Black Sea region and Crimea. So who cares how long the wars for the recapture of Smolensk lasted?
4. Since we have set goals, we will achieve them as long as necessary, by military or diplomatic means. Some people want things to happen faster (me too), but wishes (including mine, and not just regarding timing) are one thing, and the objective military-political situation and the economic basis of the war are quite another. The desired must be measured against the possible.
5. The outcome of the war will be judged not by its duration, but by its results. Ultimately, the main thing is the score.
If you can't win quickly and beautifully, just win. Because victory writes everything off. But if there is no victory, then all lives, resources, and time were wasted. As the famous song goes, that means we need one victory, one for all, and we will stop at nothing. Now we are slowly and bloodily moving towards our goals, despite all the ifs and buts. And we are suppressing our enemies on the front.
Russia will open 15 new military universities within 10 years.
January 10, 2:55 PM
Russia will open 15 new military universities within 10 years.
In 2025, the Russian Ministry of Defense began transforming the military training system. By 2034, Izvestia learned, 15 new universities and colleges are expected to open in the country. This includes both the revival of the country's oldest educational institutions and the creation of entirely new areas of military education. Strengthening the engineering corps and training specialists for the unmanned systems forces became a priority for 2025. Heroes of the special operation joined school graduates in classrooms. This step is intended not only to fill the personnel shortage but also to adapt the army to the challenges of new-generation armed conflicts, experts emphasized.
Expansion of the network of military universities
. In 2025, the first results of a large-scale program to transform the military training system, launched by the Ministry of Defense, began to emerge. On August 30, a higher military engineering school was officially opened in Saratov. Its main task is to train engineer officers capable of solving current problems in the field of radiation, chemical, and biological defense (RCBZ). The program is designed to address real-world threats and lessons learned from special military operations.
In addition to academic activities, the university will conduct research in the interests of national defense. The school will accommodate up to 600 cadets at a time. After a five-year course, graduates will be promoted to lieutenant and qualified as engineers.
Meanwhile, in the Nizhny Novgorod region, in the city of Kstovo, one of the country's oldest educational institutions, the Higher Military Engineering Command School, has reopened. After a 15-year hiatus, the school admitted its first 150 students.
Three more schools are planned to open in 2026: the Chelyabinsk Tank School, the Ulyanovsk Aviation School, and the Novocherkassk Communications School.
Experts note that many of these institutions previously existed but were closed during previous reforms. Now, the army is experiencing an urgent need for lower- and mid-level officers for new formations and military districts.
Of course, the problem of recruiting academic staff for 15 universities at once, even if it takes ten years, arises, a former deputy head of a military academy for academic affairs noted in an interview with Izvestia. But the solutions are clear.
"They will attract specialists with experience in the Air Defense Forces," he believes. "They will be admitted to postgraduate programs to train academic staff. According to the state's social policy, wounded officers will be the first to be recruited. They will eventually occupy positions as professors and teachers. Specialists from military training centers at Russia's federal universities will also be recruited.
The geography of the new universities will cover the entire country: from the Moscow region to Khabarovsk, where a branch of the Military Medical Academy will open in 2034.
Specialists for the unmanned systems forces
The new strategy places a special emphasis on training specialists for the new unmanned systems forces. This year, the Ministry of Defense discussed the creation of the first specialized higher military school for this branch of the armed forces. It is scheduled to open in 2027 in the Moscow region, Izvestia sources reported.
The unmanned systems forces require not only UAV operators but also system commanders and engineers. For example, military expert Alexei Leonkov explained that they need planning officers capable of developing operations where drone swarms play a key role. The university is expected to offer specialized training in aviation, ground, and maritime unmanned systems.
Previously, Russia had no specialized military universities specializing in unmanned systems. While the specialized school is preparing to open, UAV commander training is being conducted at existing schools. Specifically, the Zhukovsky and Gagarin Air Force Academy has a faculty of unmanned aircraft. The Ryazan Higher Airborne Command School is implementing a curriculum called "Use of Units with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles."
In 2025, the Moscow Higher Combined Arms Command School (MosVOKU) also opened its first unmanned aircraft department. The competition for the new specialty was approximately five applicants per slot. A significant portion of the first intake came from the Air Defense Forces. In one company, more than half of the 80 cadets already have combat experience, many of whom are former attack aircraft and signalmen who consciously chose this specialty.
"UAVs are the future. From my own experience, I can say that combat operations are unthinkable without drones these days," cadet Ivan Charuysky, who came to the school after being wounded four times in the Air Defense Forces zone, told Izvestia. The
curriculum is as realistic as possible: cadets "fly" in simulators and on training grounds, practicing interaction with assault groups, and learn to independently repair and upgrade equipment. In the coming years, this training model will become the standard for the entire Russian military education system.
The delayed consequences of the "Serdyukov reforms," under which more than 30 military universities were closed. Now, some of them will have to be rebuilt.
The reformed "brigade system" was already rolled back to the divisional-corps system. And "Serdyukov's legendary fight against the generals' mafia" is especially laughable now against the backdrop of numerous cases against the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
P.S. I am pleased that progress is being made on the creation of a separate university for training specialists in unmanned systems. I have been writing about the need for such a university since 2023.
Russia’s Second-Ever Use Of The Oreshniks Was A Response To Three Recent Provocations
Andrew Korybko
Jan 09, 2026
These are Ukraine’s attempted assassination of Putin right before New Year’s, France and the UK’s official plans to deploy troops to Ukraine if a ceasefire is agreed to, and the US’ seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker in the Atlantic.
The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed on Friday morning that the Oreshniks were used for the second time ever after several were fired at targets in Lvov Region. Reports indicate that the Stryi gas field and gas storage facility were among those that were hit. The first time that the Oreshniks were used was in November 2024 after the US and UK allowed Ukraine to use their long-range missiles for strikes deep inside of Russia. Three recent provocations were arguably responsible for their second-ever use.
The confirmation above explicitly mentioned that Ukraine’s attempted large-scale attack against Putin’s residence in Russia’s Novgorod Region right before New Year’s was what prompted this retaliation. About that, it was assessed that “The CIA Is Manipulating Trump Against Putin” after he flipflopped from believing Putin’s claim that this attack was an assassination attempt to believing the CIA chief’s that it supposedly only targeted a nearby military site, so this can be interpreted as Putin’s retort to Trump.
Moving along, even though the Russian Defense Ministry didn’t mention any other recent provocations as being responsible for their country’s second-ever use of the Oreshniks, it can be reasonably argued that Putin probably had two others in mind too when he gave the authorization for this latest strike. These are France and the UK’s official plans to deploy troops to Ukraine if a ceasefire is agreed to as well as the US’ seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker in the Atlantic. Each are provocative in their own way.
Putin himself warned as recently as September that Russia would deem Western troops in Ukraine “legitimate targets for destruction.” Although “SVR Revealed That British & French Troops Are Already In Odessa” later that same month, that’s not comparable to the conventional deployment that those two committed to. Even more concerning, Witkoff backed their plans, thus possibly making Russia wonder whether the US might reverse its official position that Article 5 won’t extend to NATO troops in Ukraine.
As for the third provocation that Putin probably had in mind when he authorized Russia’s second-ever use of the Oreshniks, the US’ seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker in the Atlantic carried the painful optics of the first extraterritorially imposing its domestic law on the second. If Russia didn’t send a strong message afterwards, however indirect and asymmetrical, then the US might be emboldened to seize more of Russia’s “shadow fleet” elsewhere across the world including in the Baltic and Black Seas.
These last two admittedly speculative motives behind the latest Oreshnik strike explain why targets in Lvov Region were hit instead of others anywhere else across Ukraine. Russia arguably wanted to show France, the UK, and their shared US patron that it’s capable of swiftly hitting targets within NATO without detection if the need arises. This could occur if an unprecedented crisis follows the first two’s planned troop deployment to Ukraine or the US’ hypothetical seizure of more Russian ships does the same.
Putin is almost pathologically averse to escalating in Ukraine due to the risk that it could spiral out of control into World War III so it’s significant that he just authorized the second-ever use of the Oreshniks in spite of that. He didn’t even do this after Ukraine’s “Operation Spiderweb”, which Trump might have known about in advance, targeted Russia’s nuclear triad last summer. This shows how seriously he’s taking Ukraine’s attempted assassination of him and probably the other two provocations too.
Dmitry Medvedev commented on the U.S. attack on Venezuela:
