|
‘Trump Administration Asserts Ambition To Dominate Energy Sector’
The U.S. is trying to dominate the control global energy sector and to control the routes through which energy is delivered to global customer.
That accusation is made by Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov in an interview to the TV BRICS media network. The interview also touches on other aspects. The excerpts from the interview posted below are only the ones which regard to energy issues (emphasis added):
Multiple centres of rapid economic growth, power, and financial and political influence have thus emerged. The world is being reshaped through competition. The West is reluctant to relinquish its formerly dominant positions.
Moreover, with the arrival of the Trump administration, this struggle to constrain competitors has become particularly obvious and explicit. Indeed, the Trump administration openly asserts its ambition to dominate in the energy sector and harness their competitors.
Blatantly unfair methods are being used against us: the operations of Russian oil companies such as Lukoil and Rosneft are being banned, and there are attempts to dictate and restrict Russia’s trade, investment cooperation, and military-technical ties with our major strategic partners, including India as well as other BRICS states.
…
All of these geopolitical confrontations, along with the attempts to derail the objective course of history, inevitably affect bilateral relations. I am not going to mention them all; those include sanctions, the so-called “shadow fleet” invented by the West, attempts to detain vessels by military force in the open sea in blatant violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and much more. Tariffs imposed for purchasing oil or gas from certain suppliers have now become commonplace.
…
They tell us that the Ukraine problem should be resolved. In Anchorage, we accepted the US proposal. If we regard it “as men,” it means that they proposed it and we agreed, so the problem must be resolved. …
So far, the reality is quite the opposite: new sanctions are imposed, a ‘war’ against tankers in the open sea is being waged in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. They are trying to ban India and our other partners from buying cheap, affordable Russian energy resources (Europe has long been banned) and are forcing them to buy US LNG at exorbitant prices. This means that the Americans have set themselves the task of achieving economic domination.
Furthermore, while they ostensibly made a proposal regarding Ukraine and we were ready to accept it (now they are not), we do not see any bright future in the economic sphere either. The Americans want to take control of all the routes for providing the world’s leading countries and all continents with energy resources. On the European continent, they are eyeing the Nord Streams, which were blown up three years ago, the Ukrainian gas transportation system and the TurkStream.
This illustrates that the US objective – to dominate the world economy – is being realised using a fairly large number of coercive measures that are incompatible with fair competition. Tariffs, sanctions, direct prohibitions, forbidding some from engaging with others – we have to take all of this into account.
A NY Times piece published today on Trump’s oil grab in Venezuela makes, in part, a similar point (archived):
Cont. reading: ‘Trump Administration Asserts Ambition To Dominate Energy Sector’
Palestine Open Thread 2026-036
News & views related to the war in Palestine …
Ukraine Open Thread 2026-036
News & views related to the war in Ukraine …
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2026-034
Last week’s posts on Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review – OT 2026-034
Ukraine – Long-term Countrywide Blackouts – U.S. Presses For Peace Agreement
Last night another large Russian missile and drone strike further degraded the already severely damaged electrical energy system of Ukraine.
The main targets were around Kiev and in western Ukraine. The attack, especially in western Ukraine, was mostly by drones and subsonic cruise missiles. Except for Kiev air defense seems to have been absent or out of munitions.
biggerThe consequences are countrywide blackouts for a prolonged period of time (machine translation):
Ukrenergo reported that due to strikes on the power system, emergency blackouts are introduced in most regions of Ukraine.
Ukrainian publics write that substations connected with the Rivne [Nuclear Power Plant] were attacked.
It is also stated that drones and missiles attacked the Burshtyn, Ladyzhyn, Dobrotvorskaya and Trypillya thermal power plants.
Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal said that the target of today’s strike was substations and overhead power lines with a voltage of 750 and 330 kV — the basis of the Ukrainian energy system.
According to him, the power units of Ukrainian nuclear power plants were unloaded (that is, urgently stopped – Ed. ).
The nuclear power plants (NPP) create the base load of the Ukrainian energy system. The thermal power plants and other sources usually balance the peak loads. But after several substations which connect the NPPs to the wider network were being hit the NPPs were forced to reduce power (machine translation):
Cont. reading: Ukraine – Long-term Countrywide Blackouts – U.S. Presses For Peace Agreement
U.S.-Iran Talks Up To A ‘Good Start’
The first round of new talks between Iran and the United States in Muscat, Oman, has ended with satisfying results.
U.S. President Donald Trump very much needs the talks to chicken out from his threats to again attack Iran. Any attack on Iran would be retaliated for with missile which would cause massive damage to U.S. and Israeli assets.
There had been a little drama about the location, configuration and content of the meeting.
The U.S. at first insisted on talks in Turkey. It wanted the foreign ministers of other Middle Eastern countries to take part in them. It demanded to negotiate about nuclear issues, ballistic missiles, Iranian support for local militia and about the recognizance of Israel by Iran.
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the talks needed to include ballistic missiles, Iran’s aligned militias and its treatment of its own people “in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful.”
Iran rejected all of the conditions Rubio tried to make.
It wanted to limit the talks to the nuclear issue and sanctions relief. It did not like Turkey, which is neither neutral nor a friend of Iran, as the host of the talks and preferred Oman as it traditionally following a neutral foreign policy. Iran also rejected the participation of other Middle Eastern countries as these would likely be under U.S. pressure to gang up against Iran.
Some Middle East countries, interested in preventing another war in their region, intervened with President Trump:
Fearing that talks about Iran’s missiles and regional proxies could cause an immediate impasse, other countries in the region have been pushing for the session to focus on Iran’s nuclear program, two Middle Eastern diplomats said.
They urged to accept Iran’s conditions and the U.S. conceded to them.
The talks held today were indirect. Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi shuffled between the rooms to convey each parties position.
Cont. reading: U.S.-Iran Talks Up To A ‘Good Start’
How Arms Control Went Out The Window
Today the last nuclear treaty between the the United States and the Russian Federation expired. It is the first time in 64 years that there will be no limits on each side’s nuclear forces.
The New START Treaty had been limiting the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and weapon carriers. Other nuclear related treaties like the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty have previously been ended by various U.S. presidents.
Russia had offered and asked for prolonging the New START Treaty but the U.S. had, until today, not responded to that request.
Most of these treaties were designed to limit the number of weapon system on both sides to roughly equal numbers. They prevented arms races where one side would produce an overwhelming amount of weapons to destroy the other side in a surprise attack. They guaranteed Mutual Assured Destruction as both sides would be destroyed in an all out nuclear war.
But the real value of these treaties were in their verification elements. Verification allowed to build trust between both sides:
To enforce the [New START] treaty, each side had to notify the other of any activity involving its strategic weapons, including missile test launches and heavy bomber movements, share data about the numbers of deployed missiles and delivery systems, and allow on-site inspections.
One example is that under the treaty all strategic bombers of each side had to be parked in the open, not in shelters, so that the other side could see them in satellite pictures. It guaranteed that there were no ‘secret forces’ hidden somewhere. (Ukraine abused this feature when it launched drone attacks against Russia’s strategic bombers.)
The U.S. has never given any good reason why it wanted the treaties to end.
Cont. reading: How Arms Control Went Out The Window
Palestine Open Thread 2026-033
News & views related to the war in Palestine …
Ukraine Open Thread 2026-032
News & views related to the war in Ukraine …
Open (Neither Ukraine Nor Palestine) Thread 2026-031
News & views not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine …
Ukraine – ‘Security Guarantee’ Details – Why The Energy Ceasefire Ended
Back in December I wrote about the Flim Flam Theater Of Peace Talks On Ukraine:
The negotiations over the weekend between the U.S., Ukraine and Europe about the parameters of a ceasefire or peace agreement with Russia were surreal. The three sides are fighting each other over detailed points that Russia is sure to reject. They also left out important points which Russia had named as its priority items.
There is no way that any of this will lead to peace. Which may well be the point of the whole theater.
One point of those one-sided negotiations were some vague ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine.
Today’s Financial Times is first to discuss these in more detail (archived):
Ukraine has agreed with western partners that persistent Russian violations of any future ceasefire agreement would be met by a co-ordinated military response from Europe and the US, according to people briefed on the discussions.
…
Under the plan, three people familiar with the matter said, a Russian ceasefire violation would trigger a response within 24 hours, beginning with a diplomatic warning and any action required from the Ukrainian army to halt the infraction.
If hostilities continued beyond that, a second phase of intervention would be initiated using forces from the so-called coalition of the willing, which includes many EU members plus the UK, Norway, Iceland and Turkey.
If the violation turned into an expanded attack, 72 hours after the initial breach, a co-ordinated military response by a western-backed force involving the US military would take effect, the officials said.
NATO Secretary Rutte has confirmed the three stage theme. I wonder if it has he who came up with that fantasy.
What exactly does ‘intervention’ mean? Sending a battalion of British grenadiers from west-Ukraine towards the east to cover three miles of a who knows how long frontline? How many Iskander missile and KAB bomb strikes strikes would it survive?
The UK and France have pledged to deploy troops and weaponry to Ukraine, as part of security guarantees supported by the US to underpin a 20-point peace deal aimed at ending Russia’s almost four-year-long invasion.
A European-led “deterrence” force would provide “reassurance measures in the air, at sea and on land” after a ceasefire, with the intelligence and logistical support of the US, leaders of Kyiv’s key allies said following the Paris meeting.
How a ceasefire would be monitored and enforced will be critical to its durability. The US has offered to provide high-tech monitoring capabilities along the 1,400km front line.
Luckily none of this nonsense will come to pass. As the FT notes correctly:
Russia has [..] dismissed the security guarantees discussed by the US and Ukraine out of hand. Dmitry Medvedev, a former stand-in president for Putin, said in comments published on Monday that “these guarantees can’t be one-sided”, according to Tass. “These aren’t guarantees for Ukraine. These are guarantees for both sides: Russia and Ukraine. Otherwise the guarantees don’t work.”
Moscow has also said it will not agree to any ceasefire before a comprehensive deal to end the war is reached or accept any western troop deployments to Ukraine.
Meanwhile Politico is falsely accusing Russia of breaking a Trump-brokered energy ceasefire:
Cont. reading: Ukraine – ‘Security Guarantee’ Details – Why The Energy Ceasefire Ended
Trump TACOs on Iran Through Negotiations
The weekend has passed without a U.S. attack on Iran.
Trump would have probably liked to strike if there had been a decent chance of a short, successful war. But there was and is none. Iran would retaliate sharply for any attack and set the region on fire.
A early sharp strike would have been Trump’s best chance of success. The longer he is deterred from a strike the smaller the likelihood that any attack will occur at all.
Trump now needs to find a way to chicken out from his grandiose threats to Iran. He has sent out feelers for negotiations:
The Trump administration has told Iran through multiple channels that it’s open to meeting to negotiate a deal, a senior U.S. official tells Axios.
…
Turkey, Egypt and Qatar are working to organize a meeting between White House envoy Steve Witkoff and senior Iranian officials in Ankara later this week, two regional sources tell Axios.
Yves Smith concludes that:
Trump Will TACO With Intent to Strike Later
The most likely course is for some sort of sham negotiations to allow the US to climb down for now and for Trump to depict the mere fact of talks as a win and a proof of US domination. But don’t expect the US to relent. As Greg Stoker pointed out, the Israeli minister of defense was in Washington last week to hand over the strike packages. Israel has not given up on Project Iran. The hawks most assuredly have not.
…
Israel can be expected to do the obvious, which is to continue to engage in what is too politely called asymmetric warfare or more accurately called terrorism, both to try to destabilize Iran and to preserve credibility among the warmongers in the Beltway. How far that gets in the next few months will be an indicator of how much Iran has been able to ferret out and destroy Mossad networks in Iran after its 12 Day War decapitation attacks and its recent protest escalations.
Trump is admittedly becoming more and more erratic every day. He might wind up concluding he has too much manhood at stake to back down now or any time very soon with Iran. But as you can see, he has many many reasons to try to find a way to retreat, even if he tells himself it is only temporary.
Just after Yves had published her piece we learned that Iran has agreed to negotiations:
Cont. reading: Trump TACOs on Iran Through Negotiations
Palestine Open Thread 2026-030
News & views related to the war in Palestine …
Ukraine Open Thread 2026-029
News & views related to the war in Ukraine …
The MoA Week In Review – OT 2026-028
Last week’s posts on Moon of Alabama:
Khamenei.ir @khamenei_ir – 9:03 UTC · Feb 1, 2026
The Americans should know if they start a war, this time it will be a regional war.
—
Other issues:
Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review – OT 2026-028
Zionist Distorts Arab Analysis As Arguing For Attack On Iran
U.S. President Donald Trump made a big mistake when he threatened war on Iran.
He was doing that to get concessions from Iran which the country is unable to make.
Trump asks for:
- a complete de-nuclearization of Iran,
- strong limits on its missile programs,
- the abolishment of Iranian support for regional allies like Hizbullah, Hamas and Shia militia in Iraq and Yemen and
- the recognition by Iran of Israel as a legitimate country.
Under the current system of Iran any politician who would argue for or agree to making any such concessions would immediately lose legitimacy.
Trump has made threats. He then set out conditions that guarantee that he will not get what he wants. He now has two choices:
- To attack Iran until it concedes something.
- To chicken out and recall his fleet from Iran.
Neither is a good choice:
Iran has announced to retaliate for any attack by massive missile launches against Israel and U.S. positions in the Middle East. Iran has also stated that it would close the Strait of Hormuz and thereby cause sky high global oil prices. This would likely lead to heavy losses for the Republicans in the mid term elections and would eventually end up with new impeachment procedures against Trump.
To chicken out would is also not be a good choice. By resisting a threat from Trump to then see the threat retracted without having made concessions Iran would have set an example that future targets of Trump’s extortion schemes would surely follow. It would make Iran look stronger and Trump look weaker.
I am by far not the only one who makes these points.
As Axios reports:
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman (KBS) said in a private briefing on Friday in Washington that if President Trump doesn’t follow through on his threats against Iran, the regime will end up stronger, four sources in the room tell Axios.
…
“At this point, if this doesn’t happen, it will only embolden the regime,” KBS said, according to the sources in the room.
…
In a separate briefing on Friday, a Gulf official said the region was “stuck” in a position where the U.S. striking Iran risked “bad outcomes,” but not doing so would mean “Iran will come out of this stronger.”
Prince Khalid bin Salman has a realist’s view and is right with this analysis.
The Axios reporter though, Barak Ravid, – well known to be a Zionist asset -, is trying to turn that realist view KBS uttered into a Saudi argument for bombing Iran:
Cont. reading: Zionist Distorts Arab Analysis As Arguing For Attack On Iran
Ukraine – Quincy Paper Praises A Peace Agreement Which Isn’t On Offer
Anatol Lieven and Mark Episkopos are historians with expertise on Russia who work for the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. They just published a Policy Note which attempts to answer:
Frequently Asked Questions About the Russia–Ukraine Negotiations.
Unfortunately the answers given miss the mark. They are not founded in reality and do not reflect the positions of the negotiating parties.
The first question the policy note tries to answer is:
Has Russia made concessions in the negotiation process?
Its answer:
Yes. Russia has made significant concessions.
Russia has agreed to lift all objections to Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, marking a major shift from its position before and after the 2014 Euromaidan revolution.
Before the Euromaidan putsch the EU was offering an association agreement, not accession or membership, to Ukraine. This would have opened Ukrainian markets to tariff free EU products. At the same time Ukraine had a Free Trade agreement with the Commonwealth of Independent States, i.e. nine former Soviet republics including Russia. At that time some 60% of Ukraine’s foreign trade was with Russia and other CIS countries.
Russia opposed the EU Association Agreement for Ukraine because it would have exposed Russia to EU products without any tariff or custom barrier. It stated that it would have to close the open border with Ukraine if the agreement with the EU were signed. In consequence President Yanukovich of Ukraine had to reject the agreement:
[A] Ukrainian government decree suspended preparations for signing of the association agreement; instead it proposed the creation of a three-way trade commission between Ukraine, the European Union and Russia that would resolve trade issues between the sides. Prime Minister Mykola Azarov issued the decree in order to “ensure the national security of Ukraine” and in consideration of the possible ramifications of trade with Russia (and other CIS countries) if the agreement was signed on a 28–29 November summit in Vilnius. According to Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boyko Ukraine will resume preparing the agreement “when the drop in industrial production and our relations with CIS countries are compensated by the European market, otherwise our country’s economy will sustain serious damage”.
After the Ukraine government had paused the Association Agreement, the U.S. and EU activated their proxy forces to launch the Maidan coup to then impose the trade agreement. The violent putsch was successful. Russia closed its open border to Ukraine, the Ukrainian economy, especially its heavy industry, suffered immensely, but the association agreement was signed.
Russia thus did not make a “major shift from its position before and after the 2014 Euromaidan revolution.”
The circumstances on which the position was based have changed. Russia has adopted accordingly. A membership of Ukraine in the EU is by the way still not on offer. It will take a decade or longer after the war for Ukraine to even be marginally qualified.
Lieven and Episkopos continue:
Cont. reading: Ukraine – Quincy Paper Praises A Peace Agreement Which Isn’t On Offer
Palestine Open Thread 2026-027
News & views related to the war in Palestine …
Ukraine Open Thread 2026-026
News & views related to the war in Ukraine …
Open (Neither Ukraine Nor Palestine) Thread 2026-025
News & views not related to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine …
|
