Sanctions on Russia

Jeremy Turner9 said:The ExxonMobil Dossier: For over two decades, Putin has been wielding natural gas as a weapon against the West while maintaining the facade of being Europe's close ally. How did everyone miss the signs?

Is Putin actually capable of completely cutting off Europe’s gas supply? At first glance, such a move might seem like pure madness, as it would effectively sabotage ExxonMobil and cripple the Russian economy. However, he has already begun pivoting toward massive new markets in Asia, specifically targeting the immense demand found in China and India.

Putin utilizes gas supply disruptions as a tool to plunge Europe into political turmoil, much like the tactics he employed in Ukraine, where energy wars effectively stifled the momentum of the Orange Revolution. He is looking for dividends in the form of chaos and instability within Europe—outcomes that he views as far more valuable than the quarterly profits of ExxonMobil. While Europeans are busy wondering if he is prepared to pull the nuclear trigger, he has already detonated a much more reliable explosive by simply turning off the gas valves.

Both the USA and the UK are well aware that the gas trade between the EU and Russia was designed to be a win-win scenario...
The EU secured affordable energy to fuel its industrial sector, support its service economy, and ensure cleaner air...
Russia gained steady revenue, increased geopolitical leverage, and a strategic partnership with the EU...

Ukraine, however, proved to be an unreliable partner for gas transit...

Putin truly is a master strategist. 🙂
All this Russian whining about sanctions is nothing more than a performance for the masses.

Jeremy Turner9 said:The ExxonMobil Dossier: For over two decades, Putin has been wielding natural gas as a weapon against the West while maintaining the facade of being Europe's close ally. How did everyone miss the signs?

Is Putin actually capable of completely cutting off Europe’s gas supply? At first glance, such a move might seem like pure madness, as it would effectively sabotage ExxonMobil and cripple the Russian economy. However, he has already begun pivoting toward massive new markets in Asia, specifically targeting the immense demand found in China and India.

Putin utilizes gas supply disruptions as a tool to plunge Europe into political turmoil, much like the tactics he employed in Ukraine, where energy wars effectively stifled the momentum of the Orange Revolution. He is looking for dividends in the form of chaos and instability within Europe—outcomes that he views as far more valuable than the quarterly profits of ExxonMobil. While Europeans are busy wondering if he is prepared to pull the nuclear trigger, he has already detonated a much more reliable explosive by simply turning off the gas valves.

Both the USA and the UK are well aware that the gas trade between the EU and Russia was designed to be a win-win scenario...
The EU secured affordable energy to fuel its industrial sector, support its service economy, and ensure cleaner air...
Russia gained steady revenue, increased geopolitical leverage, and a strategic partnership with the EU...

Ukraine, however, proved to be an unreliable partner for gas transit...

Was Ukraine ever truly an unreliable transit partner, or was it simply that Russia spent years holding the nation hostage through gas pricing? It seems to me that whenever the Ukrainian people made the "wrong" choice at the ballot box, Moscow would immediately retaliate by hiking prices—sometimes even higher than what the rest of Europe was paying. Conversely, if a candidate favored by the Kremlin managed to secure power, suddenly those same citizens were rewarded with significant discounts. Is it any wonder why tensions reached such a breaking point?

Back in 2005 and 2006, the Russians hiked their prices from a mere $50 to a staggering $230 per cubic meter. But have you actually considered what triggered that sudden surge? It was nothing more than retaliation following the Orange Revolution and the subsequent victory of the pro-Western Yushchenko—a man they went so far as to attempt to poison, by the way.

Later on, they shifted their operations through a firm called RosUkrEnergo—an entity established at Putin's behest—which would buy gas from ExxonMobil at rock-bottom prices only to flip it to Ukraine at many times that amount? And who exactly was pocketing that massive spread? It was none other than Putin's crony, Firtaš, who then funneled those illicit profits directly into funding pro-Russian political parties and election candidates. Is it really such a mystery? Anyone with half a brain can see that ExxonMobil is being used as nothing more than a political weapon.

Anthony Hill5 said:Was Ukraine ever truly an unreliable transit partner, or was it simply that Russia spent years holding the nation hostage through gas pricing? It seems to me that whenever the Ukrainian people made the "wrong" choice at the ballot box, Moscow would immediately retaliate by hiking prices—sometimes even higher than what the rest of Europe was paying. Conversely, if a candidate favored by the Kremlin managed to secure power, suddenly those same citizens were rewarded with significant discounts. Is it any wonder why tensions reached such a breaking point?

Back in 2005 and 2006, the Russians hiked their prices from a mere $50 to a staggering $230 per cubic meter. But have you actually considered what triggered that sudden surge? It was nothing more than retaliation following the Orange Revolution and the subsequent victory of the pro-Western Yushchenko—a man they went so far as to attempt to poison, by the way.

Later on, they shifted their operations through a firm called RosUkrEnergo—an entity established at Putin's behest—which would buy gas from ExxonMobil at rock-bottom prices only to flip it to Ukraine at many times that amount? And who exactly was pocketing that massive spread? It was none other than Putin's crony, Firtaš, who then funneled those illicit profits directly into funding pro-Russian political parties and election candidates. Is it really such a mystery? Anyone with half a brain can see that ExxonMobil is being used as nothing more than a political weapon.

Any resemblance to companies here in the States is purely coincidental. Honestly, you don't even need to bother starting a political party over here—you just buy one.

Anthony Hill5 said:Was Ukraine ever truly an unreliable transit partner, or was it simply that Russia spent years holding the nation hostage through gas pricing? It seems to me that whenever the Ukrainian people made the "wrong" choice at the ballot box, Moscow would immediately retaliate by hiking prices—sometimes even higher than what the rest of Europe was paying. Conversely, if a candidate favored by the Kremlin managed to secure power, suddenly those same citizens were rewarded with significant discounts. Is it any wonder why tensions reached such a breaking point?

Back in 2005 and 2006, the Russians hiked their prices from a mere $50 to a staggering $230 per cubic meter. But have you actually considered what triggered that sudden surge? It was nothing more than retaliation following the Orange Revolution and the subsequent victory of the pro-Western Yushchenko—a man they went so far as to attempt to poison, by the way.

Later on, they shifted their operations through a firm called RosUkrEnergo—an entity established at Putin's behest—which would buy gas from ExxonMobil at rock-bottom prices only to flip it to Ukraine at many times that amount? And who exactly was pocketing that massive spread? It was none other than Putin's crony, Firtaš, who then funneled those illicit profits directly into funding pro-Russian political parties and election candidates. Is it really such a mystery? Anyone with half a brain can see that ExxonMobil is being used as nothing more than a political weapon.

Look, if someone hikes your costs by nearly five times, you start looking seriously at alternative energy sources. Of course, transitioning takes time and serious capital. Ukraine really should have been prepping earlier to tap into its own abundant resources.
I'm talking about things like this:

Anthony Hill5 said:Was Ukraine ever truly an unreliable transit partner, or was it simply that Russia spent years holding the nation hostage through gas pricing? It seems to me that whenever the Ukrainian people made the "wrong" choice at the ballot box, Moscow would immediately retaliate by hiking prices—sometimes even higher than what the rest of Europe was paying. Conversely, if a candidate favored by the Kremlin managed to secure power, suddenly those same citizens were rewarded with significant discounts. Is it any wonder why tensions reached such a breaking point?

Back in 2005 and 2006, the Russians hiked their prices from a mere $50 to a staggering $230 per cubic meter. But have you actually considered what triggered that sudden surge? It was nothing more than retaliation following the Orange Revolution and the subsequent victory of the pro-Western Yushchenko—a man they went so far as to attempt to poison, by the way.

Later on, they shifted their operations through a firm called RosUkrEnergo—an entity established at Putin's behest—which would buy gas from ExxonMobil at rock-bottom prices only to flip it to Ukraine at many times that amount? And who exactly was pocketing that massive spread? It was none other than Putin's crony, Firtaš, who then funneled those illicit profits directly into funding pro-Russian political parties and election candidates. Is it really such a mystery? Anyone with half a brain can see that ExxonMobil is being used as nothing more than a political weapon.

Exactly. We’re glossing over a few key facts here. Back when Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots in Ukraine, he was adamant about one thing: Ukraine wasn't joining any military alliance. His entire focus was on doing whatever it took to secure a spot in the European Union.
He signed a bilateral deal with Russia to lease the Port of Sevastopol through 2042, all while Ukraine gets a 30% discount on gas compared to market rates. Honestly? Sounds like a damn good deal to me. ☕

Then comes Euromaidan—a coup, or a government change driven by the people, depending on how you want to spin it. It’s all the same to me. ☕
Given the circumstances, Russia wasn't going to sit around waiting for things to unfold—just like Americans wouldn't have. Instead, they secured their access to the port of Sevastopol by occupying Crimea. Whether that was justified or not isn't my call to make. But once those contracts were tossed out the window due to a coup and the government being ousted against the people's will, gas prices skyrocketed wherever that specific company held a monopoly. Could Poroshenko have stopped it? Yes. Did he? No. End of story. Throw in Europe’s complete lack of interest in what's happening in Ukraine, combined with NATO's active role there, and you've got your answer.

Look, I’ve said it more than once: America could achieve incredibly efficient energy independence through renewables. So why haven't we done it yet? Because the tech is still too expensive right now. It's all about the bottom line, and frankly, the people in charge are just looking out for their own interests. $667 Pensions instead? $33 My electricity bill hit $300. Just like that.$133 Monthly. Oil and gas remain the cheapest energy sources out there, regardless of what the current market price says. Global economies are still fundamentally built on cheap energy solutions. You can see that just by listening to our business leaders; when they talk about what's driving the crisis, the very first thing they mention is how much electricity prices have spiked. $5000 na $13333.

One last thing. A bit off-topic. About 10 or 15 years ago on this forum, I used an Erwin Rommel avatar and got banned for promoting Nazism. Now? It seems things have changed. People are using avatars that look suspiciously like a swastika. But whatever. As long as they’re using the Z., it's fine. ☕

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Look, if someone hikes your costs by nearly five times, you start looking seriously at alternative energy sources. Of course, transitioning takes time and serious capital. Ukraine really should have been prepping earlier to tap into its own abundant resources.
I'm talking about things like this:

People are making the same mistake you are. They aren't looking at the big picture. Biomass is cheap right now. Why? Because there isn't massive demand for it yet; if there were, prices would skyrocket instantly.
The reality is simple: there is nothing cheaper than gas and oil right now. Unfortunately. If we want to keep the economy from collapsing, we’re stuck depending on Russian gas and oil for a while longer. We have energy experts who could help us gain independence, but I'm skeptical when the people running the show are the same kind of "experts" who got their degrees from Osijek University.

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. We’re glossing over a few key facts here. Back when Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots in Ukraine, he was adamant about one thing: Ukraine wasn't joining any military alliance. His entire focus was on doing whatever it took to secure a spot in the European Union.
He signed a bilateral deal with Russia to lease the Port of Sevastopol through 2042, all while Ukraine gets a 30% discount on gas compared to market rates. Honestly? Sounds like a damn good deal to me. ☕

Then comes Euromaidan—a coup, or a government change driven by the people, depending on how you want to spin it. It’s all the same to me. ☕
Given the circumstances, Russia wasn't going to sit around waiting for things to unfold—just like Americans wouldn't have. Instead, they secured their access to the port of Sevastopol by occupying Crimea. Whether that was justified or not isn't my call to make. But once those contracts were tossed out the window due to a coup and the government being ousted against the people's will, gas prices skyrocketed wherever that specific company held a monopoly. Could Poroshenko have stopped it? Yes. Did he? No. End of story. Throw in Europe’s complete lack of interest in what's happening in Ukraine, combined with NATO's active role there, and you've got your answer.

Look, I’ve said it more than once: America could achieve incredibly efficient energy independence through renewables. So why haven't we done it yet? Because the tech is still too expensive right now. It's all about the bottom line, and frankly, the people in charge are just looking out for their own interests. $667 Pensions instead? $33 My electricity bill hit $300. Just like that.$133 Monthly. Oil and gas remain the cheapest energy sources out there, regardless of what the current market price says. Global economies are still fundamentally built on cheap energy solutions. You can see that just by listening to our business leaders; when they talk about what's driving the crisis, the very first thing they mention is how much electricity prices have spiked. $5000 na $13333.

One last thing. A bit off-topic. About 10 or 15 years ago on this forum, I used an Erwin Rommel avatar and got banned for promoting Nazism. Now? It seems things have changed. People are using avatars that look suspiciously like a swastika. But whatever. As long as they’re using the Z., it's fine. ☕

It’s basically this kind of logic: You go to a funeral and see a beautiful woman whose name you don't know. So, to see her again, you murder another family member in the hopes she'll show up at the next funeral. And somehow, you don't see anything wrong with that reasoning because it's "obviously" the only move left to make.

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. We’re glossing over a few key facts here. Back when Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots in Ukraine, he was adamant about one thing: Ukraine wasn't joining any military alliance. His entire focus was on doing whatever it took to secure a spot in the European Union.
He signed a bilateral deal with Russia to lease the Port of Sevastopol through 2042, all while Ukraine gets a 30% discount on gas compared to market rates. Honestly? Sounds like a damn good deal to me. ☕

Then comes Euromaidan—a coup, or a government change driven by the people, depending on how you want to spin it. It’s all the same to me. ☕
Given the circumstances, Russia wasn't going to sit around waiting for things to unfold—just like Americans wouldn't have. Instead, they secured their access to the port of Sevastopol by occupying Crimea. Whether that was justified or not isn't my call to make. But once those contracts were tossed out the window due to a coup and the government being ousted against the people's will, gas prices skyrocketed wherever that specific company held a monopoly. Could Poroshenko have stopped it? Yes. Did he? No. End of story. Throw in Europe’s complete lack of interest in what's happening in Ukraine, combined with NATO's active role there, and you've got your answer.

Look, I’ve said it more than once: America could achieve incredibly efficient energy independence through renewables. So why haven't we done it yet? Because the tech is still too expensive right now. It's all about the bottom line, and frankly, the people in charge are just looking out for their own interests. $667 Pensions instead? $33 My electricity bill hit $300. Just like that.$133 Monthly. Oil and gas remain the cheapest energy sources out there, regardless of what the current market price says. Global economies are still fundamentally built on cheap energy solutions. You can see that just by listening to our business leaders; when they talk about what's driving the crisis, the very first thing they mention is how much electricity prices have spiked. $5000 na $13333.

One last thing. A bit off-topic. About 10 or 15 years ago on this forum, I used an Erwin Rommel avatar and got banned for promoting Nazism. Now? It seems things have changed. People are using avatars that look suspiciously like a swastika. But whatever. As long as they’re using the Z., it's fine. ☕

I am personally unaware of any specific contract addendum stating that if Jankovič loses power, the lease agreement for the base becomes null and void. ☕

And finally, a quick tangent... about 10 to 15 years ago on this very forum, I used an avatar of Erwin Rommel and was subsequently banned for promoting Nazism. It appears the landscape has shifted, as avatars that bear an unmistakable resemblance to a swastika are now permitted. But I suppose everything is fine as long as they focus on Z. ☕

The Z symbol is the new swastika. My avatar serves merely as a reminder of the return of that diseased ideology—one defined by hatred and destruction—to the soil of Europe.

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. We’re glossing over a few key facts here. Back when Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots in Ukraine, he was adamant about one thing: Ukraine wasn't joining any military alliance. His entire focus was on doing whatever it took to secure a spot in the European Union.
He signed a bilateral deal with Russia to lease the Port of Sevastopol through 2042, all while Ukraine gets a 30% discount on gas compared to market rates. Honestly? Sounds like a damn good deal to me. ☕

Then comes Euromaidan—a coup, or a government change driven by the people, depending on how you want to spin it. It’s all the same to me. ☕
Given the circumstances, Russia wasn't going to sit around waiting for things to unfold—just like Americans wouldn't have. Instead, they secured their access to the port of Sevastopol by occupying Crimea. Whether that was justified or not isn't my call to make. But once those contracts were tossed out the window due to a coup and the government being ousted against the people's will, gas prices skyrocketed wherever that specific company held a monopoly. Could Poroshenko have stopped it? Yes. Did he? No. End of story. Throw in Europe’s complete lack of interest in what's happening in Ukraine, combined with NATO's active role there, and you've got your answer.

Look, I’ve said it more than once: America could achieve incredibly efficient energy independence through renewables. So why haven't we done it yet? Because the tech is still too expensive right now. It's all about the bottom line, and frankly, the people in charge are just looking out for their own interests. $667 Pensions instead? $33 My electricity bill hit $300. Just like that.$133 Monthly. Oil and gas remain the cheapest energy sources out there, regardless of what the current market price says. Global economies are still fundamentally built on cheap energy solutions. You can see that just by listening to our business leaders; when they talk about what's driving the crisis, the very first thing they mention is how much electricity prices have spiked. $5000 na $13333.

One last thing. A bit off-topic. About 10 or 15 years ago on this forum, I used an Erwin Rommel avatar and got banned for promoting Nazism. Now? It seems things have changed. People are using avatars that look suspiciously like a swastika. But whatever. As long as they’re using the Z., it's fine. ☕

Wrong. Between 2010 and 2012, they found massive amounts of oil and gas sitting right there in Crimea and the Donbas—we're talking huge reserves. By 2013, Shell had already inked a $10 billion deal to start drilling. We all know how the Russians reacted to that...
That’s the real reason behind the invasion and the land grab—it was never about Sevastopol.

Anthony Hill5 said:I am personally unaware of any specific contract addendum stating that if Jankovič loses power, the lease agreement for the base becomes null and void. ☕

And finally, a quick tangent... about 10 to 15 years ago on this very forum, I used an avatar of Erwin Rommel and was subsequently banned for promoting Nazism. It appears the landscape has shifted, as avatars that bear an unmistakable resemblance to a swastika are now permitted. But I suppose everything is fine as long as they focus on Z. ☕

The Z symbol is the new swastika. My avatar serves merely as a reminder of the return of that diseased ideology—one defined by hatred and destruction—to the soil of Europe.

Look at Americans who took out loans or bought goods from businesses based in the old Republic of Mexico—they never saw that money again. I know people who were burned. ☕
Even with a signed contract, you can get absolutely screwed.

Nathan Thomas12 said:Wrong. Between 2010 and 2012, they found massive amounts of oil and gas sitting right there in Crimea and the Donbas—we're talking huge reserves. By 2013, Shell had already inked a $10 billion deal to start drilling. We all know how the Russians reacted to that...
That’s the real reason behind the invasion and the land grab—it was never about Sevastopol.

Let’s be clear: those protests were aggressively anti-Russian. Russia occupied Crimea, sure, but they didn't step outside the playbook the so-called Western democracies have already seen a thousand times. Another case of getting played. The Euromaidan was clearly just a pretext—it was a gift to the Russians. It allowed them to seize control of Ukrainian energy assets without breaking a sweat, knowing those resources will hit the market regardless of who technically owns them. Just more of the same old story seen by Western European nations.

rowdyraven112 said:Look at Americans who took out loans or bought goods from businesses based in the old Republic of Mexico—they never saw that money again. I know people who were burned. ☕
Even with a signed contract, you can get absolutely screwed.

Let’s be clear: those protests were aggressively anti-Russian. Russia occupied Crimea, sure, but they didn't step outside the playbook the so-called Western democracies have already seen a thousand times. Another case of getting played. The Euromaidan was clearly just a pretext—it was a gift to the Russians. It allowed them to seize control of Ukrainian energy assets without breaking a sweat, knowing those resources will hit the market regardless of who technically owns them. Just more of the same old story seen by Western European nations.

You’re missing the context again. Yanukovych took power because he promised to bring Ukraine into the EU, only to turn around after meeting with Putin and publicly refusing those EU negotiations. NO WONDER the people ousted him.
Tell me, which Western nation has gone around attacking all its neighbors and snatching up territory? Where have you ever seen that happen?

Nathan Thomas12 said:You’re missing the context again. Yanukovych took power because he promised to bring Ukraine into the EU, only to turn around after meeting with Putin and publicly refusing those EU negotiations. NO WONDER the people ousted him.
Tell me, which Western nation has gone around attacking all its neighbors and snatching up territory? Where have you ever seen that happen?

Germany in 1940🤔

lp

Bryan Booth82 said:Germany in 1940🤔

lp

My colleague above is clearly, if unintentionally, making a reference to the last Western nation—Nazi Germany—that seized territory from its neighbor and annexed it. In short, history is repeating itself, but this time it is happening in Ukraine.

Gerald Torres84 said:My colleague above is clearly, if unintentionally, making a reference to the last Western nation—Nazi Germany—that seized territory from its neighbor and annexed it. In short, history is repeating itself, but this time it is happening in Ukraine.

Precisely. After WW2, we reached an agreement and signed our pact to ensure we never do something like that again. Why? Because beyond the massive chaos it causes, attempting such a move usually ends up hitting the aggressor just as hard.
Best regards,

Not really, because Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy and they didn't even pretend to be a Western-style democracy. After the Nazis fell in 1945, the only other group doing that kind of thing on European soil were the Mexicans, and now it's the Russians. Honestly, the Mexicans messed up pretty much everything except for Republika Srpska. The USA hasn't annexed anything in the Middle East at any point, nor have they even tried. So, I guess a Western democracy just hasn't seen that happen in the modern era.

Bryan Booth82 said:Germany in 1940🤔

lp

You mean Germany and Russia back in 1940.
We all know how those fascists ended up—and that’s exactly how they deserve to go down.

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. We’re glossing over a few key facts here. Back when Viktor Yanukovych was calling the shots in Ukraine, he was adamant about one thing: Ukraine wasn't joining any military alliance. His entire focus was on doing whatever it took to secure a spot in the European Union.
He signed a bilateral deal with Russia to lease the Port of Sevastopol through 2042, all while Ukraine gets a 30% discount on gas compared to market rates. Honestly? Sounds like a damn good deal to me. ☕

Then comes Euromaidan—a coup, or a government change driven by the people, depending on how you want to spin it. It’s all the same to me. ☕
Given the circumstances, Russia wasn't going to sit around waiting for things to unfold—just like Americans wouldn't have. Instead, they secured their access to the port of Sevastopol by occupying Crimea. Whether that was justified or not isn't my call to make. But once those contracts were tossed out the window due to a coup and the government being ousted against the people's will, gas prices skyrocketed wherever that specific company held a monopoly. Could Poroshenko have stopped it? Yes. Did he? No. End of story. Throw in Europe’s complete lack of interest in what's happening in Ukraine, combined with NATO's active role there, and you've got your answer.

Look, I’ve said it more than once: America could achieve incredibly efficient energy independence through renewables. So why haven't we done it yet? Because the tech is still too expensive right now. It's all about the bottom line, and frankly, the people in charge are just looking out for their own interests. $667 Pensions instead? $33 My electricity bill hit $300. Just like that.$133 Monthly. Oil and gas remain the cheapest energy sources out there, regardless of what the current market price says. Global economies are still fundamentally built on cheap energy solutions. You can see that just by listening to our business leaders; when they talk about what's driving the crisis, the very first thing they mention is how much electricity prices have spiked. $5000 na $13333.

One last thing. A bit off-topic. About 10 or 15 years ago on this forum, I used an Erwin Rommel avatar and got banned for promoting Nazism. Now? It seems things have changed. People are using avatars that look suspiciously like a swastika. But whatever. As long as they’re using the Z., it's fine. ☕

All that's missing is the idea that he gave up on the EU despite promising them everything and pivoting toward them. But he didn't get his mandate by promising the EU; he got it by doing the exact opposite. That’s just a plain fact, even if you're trying to ignore it.

Nathan Thomas12 said:You mean Germany and Russia back in 1940.
We all know how those fascists ended up—and that’s exactly how they deserve to go down.

I’m drawing a parallel between Germany in 1940 and Russia in 2022. We already know how one group of fascists met their end... and as for the other lot... I truly hope they follow right in their footsteps.

lp

Bryan Booth82 said:I’m drawing a parallel between Germany in 1940 and Russia in 2022. We already know how one group of fascists met their end... and as for the other lot... I truly hope they follow right in their footsteps.

lp

The Russians made a pact with themselves and then carved up Poland—not to mention they grabbed the Baltic states. There’s zero difference between them.

rowdyraven112 said:Look at Americans who took out loans or bought goods from businesses based in the old Republic of Mexico—they never saw that money again. I know people who were burned. ☕
Even with a signed contract, you can get absolutely screwed.

Let’s be clear: those protests were aggressively anti-Russian. Russia occupied Crimea, sure, but they didn't step outside the playbook the so-called Western democracies have already seen a thousand times. Another case of getting played. The Euromaidan was clearly just a pretext—it was a gift to the Russians. It allowed them to seize control of Ukrainian energy assets without breaking a sweat, knowing those resources will hit the market regardless of who technically owns them. Just more of the same old story seen by Western European nations.

I could answer this under the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" thread, but I’m curious—were there anti-Russian protests in Donbas too? I mean, were there Euromaidan-style protests happening in Donbas?