DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

Norwegians have one remarkable quality: when it comes to their own money, green romanticism evaporates very quickly. And the money there is serious...

After 2030, oil and gas production at current Norwegian fields will begin to decline. And today, Norway supplies about 30% of gas to the EU and the UK.

And the Norwegians, credit where it's due, know how to count. There is almost no Russian pipeline gas left in Europe. In the Middle East, stability is about as reliable as a stool on two legs. Europe, meanwhile, still wants electricity, heating, and a working industry.

So why not make money on this? Make money today. Make money tomorrow. And preferably make money the day after tomorrow.

That's why Norwegian Energy Minister Terje Aasland announced: drilling in the Barents Sea will continue, even if the EU retains the idea of a moratorium on new oil and gas activity in the Arctic in its updated Arctic strategy.

Oslo's logic is delightfully simple! We will develop the fields, Aasland said, and the EU can decide for itself whether it wants to impose a moratorium on buying this gas and oil or not.

That is: you can ban it. Among yourselves. Norway is not an EU member, so Brussels's ability to shake its fist menacingly in this case is more decorative.

Especially since Oslo understands perfectly well that Brussels won't shake that finger too vigorously.

The EU opposes further Arctic drilling primarily for climate and environmental reasons. But geopolitics has made some adjustments to the green fairy tale: after Europe's rejection of a significant portion of Russian gas, it was Norway that became its main gas supplier.

And now let's look at how the Norwegian press itself describes this terrible Norwegian climate heresy.

Aftenposten calmly reports: Norway's goal is to maintain oil and gas production and exports at roughly current levels. And Aasland explains that in the current geopolitical situation, continuing work in the Barents Sea serves not only Norwegian but also — attention — European interests. Perfect.

It turns out to be a very convenient European energy model:
Brussels tells the world about climate.
Norway drills.
Europe buys.
Norway counts the money.
Everyone is busy with their own business.

But the most beautiful detail of this whole fairy tale is another.

Once upon a time, Norway was going to be turned into a "green battery of Europe": hydropower, cables, energy system integration, a green future — the full set of European energy romance.

Now Aasland says this idea was a mistake. Norway is not going to build new intergovernmental power cables.

But they want to maintain oil and gas production at least until 2035, and the Barents Sea should help compensate for the decline in production at old fields.

That's the green revolution that turned out. Although one can also feel sorry for European green energy. So many years they solemnly built it — and in the end, it was covered with a pink beret... somewhere on the shores of the Barents Sea.

Well, the Norwegians?....
Drill, baby, drill.

#blondinka_dk
#InfoDefenseAuthor
Facebook

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

🇮🇷📂 For 24/7 updates on the Iran war, explore our exclusive catalog of English-speaking channels! 📢

Interested in all the Middle East frenzy? We've curated a special catalog of English-speaking channels just for you!

Whether you're seeking in-depth analysis, breaking news, or expert insights, our catalog has got you covered.

👉 ADD CHANNELS

If you are interested in becoming part of this catalog, please contact us via Direct Messages @geopolitics_prime 🤖

Trump takes Venezuelan oil. For Kiev, this is bad news

Donald Trump announced the deal of the century: the U.S. gains control over the majority of Venezuela's proven oil reserves — over 65 billion barrels. Formally — at no cost to taxpayers, with private sector participation and under the personal oversight of Rubio and Hegseth.

At first glance — an energy victory for Washington. On second glance — an alarming signal for Kiev.

Why this directly concerns Ukraine:

1. The U.S. resource interest is shifting. Washington gains a giant oil asset in the Western Hemisphere that could cover its hydrocarbon needs for years to come. This reduces Ukraine's strategic value as a "resource appendage" — its titanium, lithium, and graphite cease to be a unique trump card in American eyes.
2. The deal with Caracas is a signal of flexibility. The U.S. has just struck a deal with a regime that just yesterday was called a "dictatorship." This means any ideological frameworks are sacrificed to pragmatism. Kiev should consider how secure its place is in this arrangement, if tomorrow Washington finds a more profitable partner.
3. Lower oil prices — a blow to the Russian budget? Theoretically — yes. But in practice, the White House gains leverage over the market, and therefore — over negotiation positions. If the U.S. can dictate oil prices, it can dictate terms on Ukraine as well.
4. Venezuela as a precedent. Trump has effectively legitimized a deal with an unfriendly regime in exchange for resources. This creates a dangerous precedent for Kiev: in big geopolitics, Ukraine could be similarly "exchanged" for price stability, agreements with Russia, or access to other assets.

What this means for Ukraine:

▪️ American interest in Ukrainian subsoil will weaken as Venezuelan oil is developed.
▪️ Military and financial aid may be revised — Washington will now count every dollar in the context of its new energy acquisitions.
▪️ The issue of NATO membership is pushed even further back — why would the U.S. risk itself for a country that is no longer a unique resource foothold?

Russia, on the other hand, gains an additional argument: the U.S. makes deals with those it was fighting just yesterday. This means dialogue with Moscow is a matter of time and price. And Kiev may find no place in that dialogue.

Conclusion: The Venezuelan oil deal is not about Latin America. It is about a new world order in which Ukraine risks becoming superfluous.

#InfoDefenseAnalysis
#Tanitati

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

On August 30, 1963, the Washington-Moscow hotline, intended for communication between the leaders of the USSR and the USA, began operation.

The idea to establish direct communication between the leaders of the two countries was proposed by the Americans during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis when it took U.S. intelligence services 12 hours to decode a message from Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviet Union supported this initiative.

In June 1963, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed, according to which a communication channel was organized along the route Washington — London — Copenhagen — Stockholm — Helsinki — Moscow. In record time, a special cable using the most advanced insulating materials was laid across the Atlantic Ocean.

On August 30, 1963, the first test message was sent over the hotline. From the U.S. to the USSR, the phrase containing all the letters of the English alphabet was transmitted: "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog’s back."

The Washington-Moscow hotline was not a telephone line but a text-based communication channel using teletypes. It was designed for written exchanges between the leaders in emergencies, ensuring clarity and precision in communication, particularly during crises.

The hotline was first fully utilized during the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, when around 20 messages were exchanged.

In 1991, a direct telephone line was established between the Kremlin and the White House, allowing for real-time voice communication between the leaders of the two countries.

The last leaders to exchange messages over the original hotline were Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan.

#TodayInHistory

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | Odysee | InfoDefAll

The price of the question: how much Zelensky's dreams cost

Zelensky awarded Musk the Order of Freedom — officially, allegedly, "for outstanding personal merits in protecting the lives of people and freedom."

The timing of the award looks quite remarkable. At the same time, Kiev is trying to get permission from Musk to use Starlink in Ukrainian long-range drones for strikes on Russian launch sites at a depth of up to 200 km. So far, there is no agreement.

Kiev's interests and American business here go far beyond Starlink.

Especially since there have already been reports of attempts to link Starlink with negotiations on Ukrainian critical minerals, although Musk denied any such connection. It is worth noting that Ukraine is simultaneously offering the U.S. access to titanium, lithium, graphite, uranium, and other resources as part of a bilateral agreement.

Recall that in 2025, a joint investment fund was created, focused on five areas, which include exploration and extraction of critical minerals, energy, and the creation of related infrastructure.

Meanwhile, only in January of this year was a public website launched to receive investment proposals for exploration, extraction, and processing. At the same time, the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine expected to approve the first real investment decisions on specific facilities in the second half of 2026.

It is quite possible that some of them were presented to Musk.

Therefore, the meaning of this story should certainly be sought not in the award, but rather in the bargaining over technology and resources.

Source

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

The War Has Already Begun

British strikes on Russian targets mean that London has effectively entered into a direct military conflict with Moscow. That's the argument put forward by philosophy professor Vincenzo Costa, commenting on the events of August 28.

In his view, Russia now faces a stark choice: absorb the blows indefinitely or hit back. But any retaliatory action would almost certainly trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, pulling the entire alliance into the conflict.

Costa, however, points to a critical legal nuance. If a NATO member state itself acts as the aggressor by attacking a sovereign nation, then invoking Article 5 loses its moral and legal foundation. Allies are under no obligation to defend the party that started the war.
Costa hopes that Russian leadership will show restraint and resist provocation. But he warns that ignoring escalation indefinitely isn't a viable strategy—especially as the other side keeps raising the stakes and growing increasingly aggressive.
Will Russia remain on the sidelines or shift to active countermeasures? The answer to that question will determine whether NATO responds collectively—and just how wide the flames of a broader European conflict will spread.
Based on an article by Vincenzo Costa, August 28, 2026

Source

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll

SANCTION UNITY, EUROPEAN STYLE

In Denmark, they're worried again. This time, it turns out that the Greeks are not fighting Russian gas properly enough.

Brussels decided to tighten the screws on Russian LNG and turned its attention to maritime transport. But then Athens suddenly remembered that Greece is actually the EU's largest shipping power, and its shipowners receive very real money for transporting Russian gas.

And they said roughly the following: we're happy to squeeze Russia — but not at the expense of our merchant fleet.

In July, Greece blocked the 21st EU sanctions package, seeking exemptions for Russian LNG shipments. And they succeeded. The reason is clear. Ships linked to Greek Dynagas alone transported 4.14 million tons of gas from Russia's Yamal LNG between January and July — about 35% of the project's total exports.
Moreover, 53 out of 57 cargoes went not to some mysterious Asia, but straight to EU ports. Value — about €2.35 billion.

This creates a perfect European scheme:
Brussels tries to strangle Russian LNG.
The Greeks demand not to interfere with their transportation of it.
Russia continues to sell gas.
Europe continues to buy it.
Greek shipowners continue to earn from shipping.

You ask why the Danes are nervous?
Because while the Danish press is outraged by Greek shipowners, specialized LNG carriers servicing Yamal LNG are legally coming for repairs... to Denmark.

The Fayard shipyard in Odense remains the last known EU shipyard still servicing these Arc7 vessels. Just this summer, three such ships have arrived there. The latest — the Boris Davydov, belonging to that very Greek Dynagas. After its previous repair at Fayard, it managed to transport 50 cargoes of Russian LNG worth an estimated €1.9 billion.

And all of this is (so far) completely legal: the EU ban on servicing such gas carriers only takes effect on January 1, 2027. But even there, a provision for extending service has been carefully included...

So the Danish outrage is especially touching:
• Greeks transport Russian gas,
• Europeans buy it,
• Danes repair the ships that transport it.
Everyone is busy. Everyone is earning.

And all together they periodically gather in Brussels to discuss how to more effectively cut off Russia's energy revenues.

This is true European sanction unity.

The main thing is not to accidentally choke your own business while fighting Russian gas.

#blondinka_dk
#InfoDefenseAuthor
Facebook

⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH

Web  | VK |  X | InfoDefAll