Beyond Oil: What the Russian Tanker Raid Reveals About US-Russia Brinkmanship!

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. I'm your host, Dr. Oualaalou, excited to be with you as always. Today's topic, I will be addressing the recent raid of the US military on a Russian oil tanker, and I'm going to be providing you, uh, my own analysis about really what does it mean within the big picture. And I will conclude this particular live stream or this analysis with an excerpt from my Russia book in which I addressed these kind of possibilities down the road by the time when I wrote the book. So this is what I'm going to be providing you my own analysis on today. So, but first, let me say hi to our wonderful community quickly here. Uh, uh, uh, Milton, good to see you. No More Hatred, good to see you. Sam, good to see you. Liang, as always. Uh, Kashif, good to see you. Khalid, Say It Like It Is, good to see you. Oh, I see your super sticker already, thank you very much. Say It Like It Is. Uh, Dr. O, was oil tankers an empty ship? How about if I save the answer till the end, would that be okay with you? So I'm gonna keep an answer for this the answer for this till the end. Hanging G, good to see you. Laval, good to see you from Mauritius. Here we go. And who else is here? Uh, Jerome Lazarus, as always. China, the side you don't see, good to see you here. Ramples, AFD, Carl Leon, good to see you. Assalamu alaikum to you as well. So, all right, let me get in into our conversation. I have some housekeeping item. Be on the lookout when I set the schedule for my upcoming interview with Jayant Bhandari. So I'm going to be talking to him about the Indian stock market crash. I will be talking also about some other disturbing news information emanating from India. So we'll be— I reached out to Giant Bandari, and I'm waiting to hear from him. So this is what I'm gonna be addressing with him. So some headlines for you, I have about 2 or 3, the short ones, quickly to the point here. The first one has to do with this. This is Chinese scientists. Why is this important? Because I need you to understand what is going on around between the US and China. Well, scientists now are migrating from the United States to China. It's the reverse. So, and has sort of almost— we're looking at exactly what took place during the Cold War era. You all remember of the scientists moving out of certain countries and so forth. So the movement of scientists between the United States and China, it's not just an ordinary individual migration with the personal motives, even though some might have that. But has become now a part of a much deeper scene of competition between two, the two global powers over funding, attracting scientists, publishing research papers, and an increasing sensitive political and security climate in almost every part of the world. This is what's important. So a lot of scientists are living in the US towards China. So I've been, I've been keeping an eye on this one here. Uh, second one has to do with, once again, who else, India Modi. But this has nothing to do with particularly India, it has to do with Bangladesh. Bangladesh now has officially suspended all visas services for all Indian nationals. So they are sort of fed up with it, and it's taking almost joining the rest of some other countries around the world of banning, dealing with India. It's over. And we start to see here in the US some really serious issues coming up with fraud committed by some Indian nationals and so forth, which to me, in my, in my, my suggestion will be like, give them a fair trial, give them their day in court, put a fine if they violated the law, and and deport them permanently out of the US. So the third one I want to share with you has to do with the French farmers, but for you to see, I'm going to share this clip with you here. Uh, it, it'll make more sense to you, then I'll elaborate on it as I move forward here. So, so let me share a screen if you bear with me here. And this, by the way, just came out this morning. And then I just got a, got a message from my, uh, my niece in, in France, you know, wishing me happy birthday because it's my birthday today, which usually I don't talk much about. But anyway, uh, she, uh, the, the news came out that exactly what is going on in France. So let me share the screen with you and you can take a listen here. I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to silence the music here because of the— YouTube doesn't like this one, so I'm gonna just play it without silencing. But what you are looking at here, and I'm gonna translate to you, les tracteurs arrivent sur les Champs-Élysées. The tractors, you know, have arrived now on to Champs-Élysées. This is l'Arc de Triomphe. And as, as, as you notice here, so this is exactly what the French farmers, uh, now the beginning of the revolution, if I may use the term, because France is known for this. And this is why they took over. Uh, of course, the media is not going to be disclosing. This is not from a media outlet. So, so I'm going to share the link with you. Uh, you, you can, if you follow me on, on X, um, @DavidOualaalou, just follow me there and, and you'll get a lot, a lot of information, uh, that usually it's not posted, uh, on, on mainstream media. So, all right, let's get in into our topic today. What I'm going to be addressing for you right here in this, uh, regarding the, uh, raid on the Russian flagged oil tanker. So, and I will answer, uh, say it like it is, question towards the end regarding oil and so forth. So, so now the question that is, of course, a lot of people are so surprised at this. Of course, the Russians have strongly condemned the seizure of the Russian flag, the oil tanker, by the US military forces. This wasn't Delta, It was the Coast Guard. Coast Guard have their own special units. That's what it was, uh, uh, the one that raided there. And this, the Russians are saying that this asserts that Washington has no legal right to use force against the vessel lawfully registered under another country's jurisdiction. And this is where the conflict here is on the high seas. So in a statement issued on Telegram Russian Ministry of Transport said that the tanker Marinera, formerly known as Bella One, has been granted a temporary permit to sail under the Russian flag, which, by the way, and I looked into the information, the accuracy of the information, and I found out that this permit was given on December 24th in accordance with the Russian and international law. This is again what makes this particularly very, very disturbing. But not only about this, what I'm going to be addressing for you is the idea of a much bigger picture geopolitically and militarily, because this is what is going to— now this particular incident is going to— of course, as I said, the Russian condemned this particular, uh, aspect here. And here is what the Russian, uh, Ministry is saying, and I quote here because they are quoting the 1982, uh, if you know the United Nations 1982 convention, according to what, what, what does it say basically, if to those who are familiar with it, the United Nations 1982 convention, which is on the law of the seas. So The freedom of navigation applies on the high seas, and no state has the right to use force against ships registered within the jurisdiction of the other states. In a simple term, the US has no right to just take over the, the Russian-flagged, uh, uh, uh, tanker. It could be Russian, it could be, uh, Japan, it could be China, it could be whatever. The US has no right according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas and Freedom of Navigation. But at the same time, when you see what we did in Venezuela, as I said last time, the US opened up a Pandora's box. What you're going to be noticing now is that, which I don't see it happening, except that if the countries that have the means to do it, they will be embarking on similar behavior. But I don't see them doing that, because if they do that, it's going to be— it's already the law of the jungle as far as what the US is doing, which is not right. So, and this is why the Russian Foreign Ministry demanded that Washington has to at least maintain some dignity towards the, the individuals who've been detained. And of course, we are talking about bringing them here to the US and put them on trial. Under what? What are you charging them with? So, because what the White House is saying now— oh, by the way, the court ordered— the court order that's been issued already has been issued to detain the ship. And this means that the crew may— and I say may— now be subject to trial for any violation of federal law, US laws, that is, and will be brought to the United States for trial if necessary. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're talking about the Roman laws here. We're talking about what Mussolini did. We're talking about what Hitler did. You know, this is not right. You know, embarking on just doing this kind of behavior. But this in itself is gonna now pave the way for much bigger problems, in, in my opinion. So just for you to know where the incident happened, uh, the, the Marinera— I think I looked at— I, I located— I'm sorry, not looked at— I located the map for where the incident happened here. And it happened in the, uh, in the north part of the Atlantic, southern part of England, uh, the, the, where, uh, the, uh, Belawan or Marinera was intercepted in the North Atlantic by US forces. And by the way, the British were also part into that. So, and, and this is, if you see the trajectory here where the interception, when the course, uh, south, south of Iceland, north of the Atlantic. Took place, and that is part of where this is going. UK forces, to my knowledge, have supported the US operation. The only difference is that UK forces were not involved in boarding the vessel. So this, and I know this, you know, I kind of confirmed it and, and, and from different sources to confirm this one. So what happened yesterday with the sanction of this oil tanker? It's where it's gonna lead to. And the first thing that's gonna have to come to mind is this question: is the US raid on the Russian oil tanker in the Caribbean opens a test of deterrence between Washington and Moscow? Because in my opinion, as one who wrote a book about Russia and addressed this kind of issues as to what might lie ahead between Washington and Moscow. And here is an incident now that proved, uh, sort of the possibility of what if, because this indeed is a significant geopolitical moment in my opinion. So you look at, at why it makes this case particularly sensitive, because this tanker which began as the Belawan on the US sanction list as part of the so-called Ghost Fleet involved the transporting of oil from Venezuela and Iran. It initially was bound for Venezuela but changed course when pursued by US ships, which took a few days. They couldn't board it at that time. This is why the Russians went ahead and sent the nuclear submarine and sent some other, uh, other escort So, and this was during a long week's pursuit. And what they end up doing is that the crew painted— they're saying they painted the Russian flag. No, no, they were given the permission from Russia to do so. And that's why now you're seeing the response coming out of Moscow as a formal protest. The Russian President Vladimir Putin, of course, and the Russian Ministry of Transportation stated that no state has the right to use force against missiles, only against missiles that are registered, which is, you know, in their jurisdiction, and rightly so. As I mentioned, you look at the 1989 United Nations Convention regarding that. So the question again regarding this deterrence test is real. But for whom? So Russian military assets that included submarines has moved to protect this Belawan, even leading to the seizures, though it is unclear. Let me make that clear to you. It is unclear how close the vessels were when boarding occurred. But doesn't matter to the US. They knew the missile, the submarine is somewhere. They didn't care. They proceeded with the seizure despite the Russian submarine escort. And this is part, of course, falls within Donald Trump's some sort of a broader blockade of sanctioned Venezuela tankers, which was announced last year in December. By the way. And, and the announcement was about capturing, uh, uh, uh, of Venezuelan, uh, uh, after President Maduro was captured. So, so the question becomes also this test of deterrence, as I said earlier, from which side it's going to be? From both. So I'm going to share with you what, what's being, uh, tested on the US side. So on the US side, uh, okay, let me— on the US side is the idea of, uh, can you guys hear me, by the way? Yeah, can you guys give me thumbs up? If you can hear me, want to make sure you can hear me. Oh, thank you, thank you, appreciate it, because it went silent on me here. So, so here's the idea, um, uh, the idea on the US side that tested this deterrence here: whether the Trump administration will follow through on enforcing sanctions against Venezuelan oil and the Russian sanctions evasion, even when Russia possesses military assets nearby. So by seizing the tanker despite the Russian submarine escort, what is the US signaling? It's signaling that it won't be deterred by the Russian military presence from executing what it views as a lawful enforcement action. This is how the US interpreting this. From the Russian side, What's being tested? The question for Russia within this is whether Russia will escalate beyond diplomatic protest when the US seized vessels flying a Russian flag. So far, Russia has filed formal complaint but hasn't responded militarily. Will Russia respond in the next few days? I don't know. And I, I just don't know. The question is whether Russia sees it— sees this particular raid as a serious enough challenge to its interests and credibility to risk military escalation, or Russian will sort of accept this as a cost of the broader sanctions environment. In either case, to Russia, this is a test of its credibility. Because if Russia doesn't respond, it loses its credibility with its own allies, because they're going to be seeing or saying, why Russia is so weak, they couldn't do anything. And this is where that deterrence dynamics are. So the US action essentially says in, in— if you are to think about it, we will enforce our policy regardless of your military presence. And by the way, this is also sent to the Chinese as a message. So a Russian military response, or even lack thereof, signals how seriously it takes this challenge. Neither side is kind of sort of appears to be backing down. But to what end? This is where the challenge is. So now the calculation— I gotta close this, uh, there's some— it's okay. Here, hold on a second, guys. There we go. All right, sorry, sorry, I had to close this. There's a lot of noise outside here. So where was I? So the idea that this suggests a calculation that direct confrontation isn't worth the risk, at least on part of the Russians. The Americans seems to— if we are raiding this, we're willing to take the risk. So even while using military assets, and that's in itself sends a loud and clear message on part of the US that strength matters. And why does this matter? Because you're gonna have to think in terms of really what took place back in history and my reverence is, for example, if you are to think about— if you are to go with, for example, what Mussolini said back then, what Hitler said back then, for example, if you think about Benito Mussolini doctrine for fascism, the fascist states expresses the will to exercise power and to command. So So you look at, or even the Roman tradition, which embodied the concepts of strength. No, once again, you think about, uh, uh, what, what even Hitler himself said: he who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world— this is quote from Hitler himself— where permanent struggle is the law of life has not, has not the right to exist. So, so it's very disturbing in a sense of, but at the same time, I'm seeing what the US is doing. It's exactly the same, just in a different time and a different setting. So, and this is, in my opinion, fundamentally about signaling the resolve in a context. Yeah, if you want to signal and resolve some sort of in a contested space where neither side wants direct conflict. But apparently the US doesn't see it that way. The Russians might be thinking pragmatically that way. Is it worth escalating over taking over a tanker? I don't know. What do you guys think? To me, it's problematic. The fact that it has a flag of a sovereign state and you are raiding it, it gives you no right to do so. So at the same time, the, the— if the Russians don't respond, that means it sends the signals that they can be pushed around. And if the Russians, despite their military might, can be pushed around, can you imagine what other countries who have no power whatsoever, what happened to them? So, and whether this now deter future similar situations I don't know, it depends partly on how the other side interprets the signals. So, but you have to put this within the bigger context, you know, and the bigger context, this has nothing to do with just the Russian oil aspect, it has to do also with the much larger picture of Venezuela. Venezuela, meaning the US control of Venezuelan oil. Yes, the control of Venezuelan oil is central to the US strategy to begin with, which by the way was pushed, as I said, by special interest groups inside Washington— Chevron, ExxonMobil, BlackRock, JP Morgan— but also pushed by the other within the administration like Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, and so and so forth. So, and this is why when you think about it, when the Donald Trump administration announced the blockade of the sanction of Venezuelan tankers, so you have to think about the big picture where this is headed because the blockade that the US imposed, some sort of, in my opinion, represents a practical sort of application of an explicit geopolitical doctrine. This one is adopted by Donald Trump, of course. I don't know if other presidents, even the Democrats, might end up doing the same. Two faces of the same coin anyway. So, but the problem with this now, it goes beyond the traditional political objective to now direct economic ambitions. And the direct economic ambitions is to take over. This is where the problem is. And the idea is for the US to move with this strategic doctrine, meaning taking oil. You know, that was part of that project. You remember when I told you last time that the, uh, the, uh, the Heritage Foundation worked on a specific project for the US government behind the scenes? So this vision, in my opinion, is summarized in the principles of, as you all know, "the spoils go to the victor," in quote. You all remember that, right? This is how Trump and his advisors are seeing this and have previously stated that oil should be a compensation for the United States for its interventions. So basically, what Donald Trump moves against not only Venezuela but also the Arabian— the Russian tanker— this move in itself, as I said, was based on that particular Project 2025 document, which I'm going to share with you. Uh, you, you can read it yourself later on should you decide to do so. Is more, you know, it's just the way it is. Because for the Donald Trump and the way the US administration will do this is through a simple mechanism. And that simple mechanism is to legitimize the control. For example, in the case of Venezuela, all we needed to do is classify the oil institutions as terrorist entities. Basically, when you do that, that gives you the legal foundation of transforming Venezuelan oil from commercial commodity, okay, into an illicit asset that could be confiscated because the US will say we have, we have a sort of justification because it's a terrorist entity. That is why for a month it's been saying, oh, the Venezuela, uh, Maduro was drug trafficking this and oil this and all that. But this one now is going beyond by raiding the Russian flag tanker. And that's exactly what was translated from that particular project, a naval blockade and the interception of oil tankers. And of course, the prize especially in the case of Venezuela. And I'll get into the Russian soon here because you need to understand this aspect. The largest oil reserves in the face of the collapse. Because when you think about it, economically speaking, there's a whole fiasco about Venezuela. I ain't about democracy. When you consider the— Venezuela has the world's largest proven oil reserves with 303 billion barrels, surpassing Saudi Arabia, by the way. So this is where the challenge is. So you have the production that collapsed because it collapsed under Maduro. Why? Because the sanctions, the industries there weren't getting enough, uh, the equipment they need. So Venezuela production fell from 3.4 million barrels per day in 1998 to a level between 800,000 in 2025. And that, of course, due to the technical challenges. And I'm not getting— I'm gonna get into all this one. The other aspect has to do with the mechanism of economic strangulation. Remember, how do we control countries? By sanctions. And also, this issue of Venezuela has to do also with ensuring that other countries will still use the dollar regarding energy. Because remember, Venezuela was trading with the Chinese using the yuan. The Saudis didn't want to renew the US dollar regarding the oil. That gives you the idea. This is why the US will have to engineer a bankruptcy. That's why you have to sink in or collapse the economy of a country, whatever country we— it's targeted. In this case was Venezuela. It was not random. It was the result of some sort of a financial engineering. Sanctions is part of it. So, and this takes me back now to, to Russia, because you have to understand the link between the two. So, so when you read into this operation for raiding the Russian tanker, it goes beyond some sort of procedural dimension because it is understood, at least for me as a geopolitical analyst, as a test of the Russian deterrence system. And truly, truly, truly, in fact, It affects the, the, the state of, of the Russian prestige per se on the global stage regarding the military aspects of it if it does not respond. So because when you look at it, when Moscow sent the nuclear submarine and a number of warships to the Atlantic Ocean a few days ago to protect this particular Russian transporting oil ship in the region, and the US knew about it, and they went ahead and raided it, and the Russians didn't respond. It tells you the story right there. So the question that is currently being raised in Moscow revolves around the next steps, especially with the movement now of the Russian naval fleet to confront the Americans, because what's going to be next? The US doing the same in the Black Sea, hypothetically. So, and this is again where you have to understand the big picture of all this. And I'm going to go back quickly to Venezuela here for one reason, because now you have the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, briefing Congress. Okay. And telling them that, by the way, we're gonna take over the Venezuelan oil exports, we're gonna be the one managing it. It's the same fashion we did and still doing for Iraq. Do you know that Iraq oil proceeds don't go to Iraq, they go to New York? They have to go through New York. It's their oil, and yet they have to ask us for the money. So I see the same scenario. And because you're looking now, you're looking at the State Department, U.S. State Department, uh, I'm sorry, the Department of Energy confirming that Washington will handle the global sale of Venezuelan oil with an estimated suggesting 50 million barrels could generate about $2.5 billion. You all see where this is going, and this is what appears the strategic goals of all this, especially when it comes down now to this Venezuela in connection or in context of what took place with the Russian. They both go simultaneously because you can't separate one from the other. So for the administration wanted, the US want to block the revenue for the Venezuelan oil, but also it wanted to prevent the sanction erosion. So on both sides, and this is where it's going to be shifting now the priorities for many other countries moving forward. Will they succeed in doing so? I don't know at this point. Liking this video so far? Don't just be a watcher. Go ahead and hit the like, share, and subscribe button, and don't forget to tap the bell so you will not miss any of my videos or live streams. This way, you will be supporting a channel that stands for the truth and objective reporting. The choice is yours. Thanks for your support. And to put this within this bigger picture is that the Russian case that just happened with the raiding the Russian oil tanker, the Russian dimension adds more complexities because Russia— here is the thing— Russia ain't interested in Venezuelan oil for itself, but for maintaining leverage over Venezuela and demonstrating support for a client. That is what it is. Because with all this now, by shielding Venezuelan oil shipments, Russia gained influence and shows it can challenge the US sanction enforcement. But apparently, since they didn't respond, it fall flat on its face. So, and that's why, in my opinion, the, the, the, the tanker, the seizure of the tanker sort of defies Russia's military presence. Because it is, it is as much as it is about US-Russia competition as it is about Venezuela itself. And they might end up, other oil-producing countries might end up being the winner. Since you have a blockade from the Venezuelan oil, some other country like Iran, for example, like Saudi Arabia, might end up picking up the difference. And this leads us to the other fundamental question: will this incident, meaning the, the raiding of the Russian oil tanker, lead to a military escalation between Russia and the United States? To me, it's essential. It's essential, but it is also an uncertain outcome because you have to consider several factors. Suggests, in my opinion, this escalation is possible but not inevitable. It depends, depends on whom you ask. What you need to understand is that the reason for the escalation might be unlikely. The reason for the escalation— Russia's restraint so far is telling, because if they didn't respond already by now, it's kind of I don't know. Again, uh, knowing what I know about how the Russians operate, Russians are also tactical, strategic in their movement. They might respond later, maybe. I don't know. So the US proceeded with the seizure despite the Russian submarine escort, and Russia didn't intervene militarily. That could also suggest something else, which falls back into the question that was asked earlier, which I will answer towards the end. And this suggests, in my opinion, that Moscow calculated— because what is going on in Ukraine, Russia is calculating that direct military confrontation over a tanker ain't worth the risk. So even, even— and this is to me a big question mark— even Russia relies in allowing this to happen is costly to its own credibility. So, and this is again where you think about both countries, not just the Russians, the United States and the Russians— Federation, that is— both sides seem to understand the difference between acceptable competition. This is when you realize about sanction enforcement, military posturing, diplomatic protests, and so forth, and an unacceptable escalation— shooting at each other, basically. So this is why you saw already Russia filed a formal protest rather than ordering the submarine to take action, which in my opinion, once again, is signals it is staying within those bounds of the unacceptable escalation. So, but the broader geopolitical context also matters. Both powers, the United States and Russia, have many other concerns, and neither benefits from a direct military clash in, in the Caribbean area. So, but you do not ignore the possibility that reasons for escalation could also happen. Because here's the thing, and, and again, we're just thinking out loud here. What if the US continues seizing Russian flag vessels? Then what Russia is going to have to do? Because the people inside Russia is going to ask him, what the heck wrong with Putin not taking action? Not defending the country, because that's what you will expect from a president on behalf of the citizens. Because if the US continues seizing the Russian, uh, uh, uh, uh, missiles, flag vessels, Russia in this case is going to be facing cumulative damage to its credibility. And this credibility, not just for it, but for its allies the likes of Venezuela, the likes of Iran, the likes of North Korea, even though North Korea can defend itself. Because that's why we're not messing around with North Korea, because we know North Korea is not going to be bluffing. But at the same time, there is something called humiliation, because this— if Russia allowed this, that means it's a repeated humiliation that could make a military response feel that necessary at some point. I don't know if they are at this point or not. And the thing is, miscalculation is always a possibility. And that's again always my fear of miscalculation. An incident, an incident like this at the sea, uh, you, you have confusion. You have about confusion about intentions. You have this, you have that. You have also the domestic political pressure on either Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, because pressure on either could push things past the current red lines. Then you will have, at least the way I'm thinking about it, the most likely trajectory, and that the pattern probably will continue, meaning the US will continue to enforce sanctions. Russia will sort of protest and position military assets as a show of strength, but both avoid the direct military engagement. However, in this scenario, in my opinion, this will create some sort of— what's the word I'm looking for— a tense equilibrium, because that tense equilibrium could fracture if either side overestimates the other's red line, or even if circumstances themselves change significantly. Because to me, again, I found myself asking this again, another fundamental question: will this operation undermine Russia's deterrence if it does not respond? And my answer is absolutely yes, it will undermine it. And that is the core dilemma, by the way, for the Russians that they are facing right now, which is why this particular incident is such a significant test— the credibility cost. So, and again, you know, did everybody know that it was a nuclear submarine in the vicinity? So And despite its presence, the US went ahead and seized the oil tanker. So, because if Russia declared that it's sending submarine to protect and couldn't protect it when the US raided, then what's the point? And this undermined Russia's ability to credibly shield allies, as I mentioned earlier, let alone protect shipping line lanes, or lines rather, and/or enforce its own sphere of influence, maybe near the Arctic, maybe soon Greenland, or what have you. So, and that's where it will be the impacts on the allies of Russia, in this case Venezuela, Iran, and others, because they are watching. They are watching. If they see that Russia's military back down or doesn't prevent the US seizures of their asset, they're going to lose confidence in Russia's protection. So, and of course, they'll become more cautious about relying on Russia's support for, for sanction evasion or any other activities. Of course, that paves the way for China, because China so far is the one that is seen the only credible country on the global stage as of now. And I might do a video for you separately on this particular aspect here. And that is again, where you're going to have to start to think in terms of the trap Russia is in, because it is a trap for Russia. If Russia responds militarily, it carries cost with it. It truly risks genuine escalation. So will he gain, or sort of, will he face international condemnation? I don't think so, because the majority of the world will want to see somebody sort of push back against the US. But on the other hand, Russia is thinking in terms, if you do that against the US, you could trigger NATO involvement if things get out of control. So, and Russia doesn't want this, doesn't need this at this point. Its main focus is in Ukraine. This is why I asked the hypothetical question, and thank you very much for participating in that survey when I asked you if the US and Russia can cut a deal. The US takes over Venezuela, and in return, Russia takes over Ukraine. Something to think about. And this is why, in my opinion, the seizure functions as a deterrence test. Because in this case, it forces Russia to either accept diminished credibility or risk escalation. So the— as we say, the saying goes, the ball The ball is in Russia's court. So Moscow's decision now, of course, protesting diplomatically and so forth, but not escalating militarily. And that in itself, for me, it, it, it suggests that it chooses the former. So for now, things could change, we don't know. So, and that is where you see the difference between military escalation or restraint. So analyzing Russia's response, you're going to have to think of a lot of— at least, you know, if you do quick analysis, of course, this kind of stuff you have to dig deeper. But if you are to think, those two options, I don't see any third. So the response will be to use military unit deployed in the region, which would mean a direct confrontation with US forces, or resorting to self-restraint and limit oneself to a political condemnation. And that's exactly what the Russians decided to do at this point. So, and that's why I'm leaning towards these aspects of it. What do you think? In your opinion, should Russia And I don't know if I should use the term retaliate. What do you think? Should Russia retaliate against this particular act? And before I share with you my conclusion, I'm going to answer the question that Say It Like It Is put it first. Right here. Dr. O, was oil tanker an empty ship? To my knowledge, It was, and there were no missiles on the ship either. And that leads me to believe— could it be just the Russians want to test the water? I want to rule that out. They wanted to see how far the US will go? I want to rule that out. Could it be that it will be on a much larger scale? Meaning Russia thinking of something? The possibility. The one thing that I'm certain of is that the credibility of Russia now is really under a big question mark, is questioned, is questioned big time. But so far, to my knowledge, and I checked one source in England, in London, from a security entity, and was informed that there is no oil, or there was no oil. On the tanker. Some were thinking that there were some military hardware, especially missiles. There were no missiles on that, to my knowledge. So, so thank you very much, Say It Like It Is, for your super sticker. Uh, F.U., much appreciate you. Late to class? No worries, there will be more. Thank you so much for your continued support for the channel. I'm very, very grateful to you. I want you to know that how much it means to me. So, and to all of you, if you want to support the channel, you know where to go, right? Right here. This is where, if you want to support the channel, I will greatly appreciate it. So, so let me share, uh, excerpt from my Russia book that I wrote about Russia, uh, and, uh, highlight to you the bigger picture of all this. Okay, it is what I wrote back then. What is the core argument? And the core argument of the US-Russia relations? So the answer depends on whom one asks. Two different schools of thoughts provide a different perspective. I am referring to realists versus liberalists. I do not intend to turn this section into a philosophical argument about the core tenets of each school of thought. That said, I will briefly describe what each school stands for, especially regarding international politics and where Russia fits in the debate. Realists believe that every state pursues its own interests. To do so, a state needs to build up its military forces so that it can dominate other states. Liberalists, on the other hand, believe that states can cooperate with each other using international treaties, agreements, and organizations to reach consensus on global issues. Unlike realists, liberalists oppose military buildup and do not see the role of the military as a way to solve conflicts. But reality on the ground suggest otherwise where we are going, where we are headed. And it appears that the US is adopting the realist form of our school of thought by flexing its military muscles on whatever. And that's going to lead again, it's like what happened back in time, you know, with Mussolini, with the, with the Roman Empire, with Hitler, and all the other empires that died before us. So because they were some sort of, uh, uh, the worship of war was very, very, very, you know, go back to the 15th century with the Spaniard under King Philip II, go back to the 16th century with the Dutch, go back to the 17th with the— between all way when, when the, the British all the way from '17 all the way to the '19. Then you have the Nazis, then you have the Americans now. And we are at that phase of, of going down, which— that's a conversation for another day. I would be happy to do it. So anyway, that's all I have to share with you. Remember to join me with my, uh, friend Jayant Bahndari. We will be talking about the crash of the Indian stock. And to those who say, this India superpower nonsense stuff. I'm gonna have, uh, Jayant Bhandari here. We will be talking. I'm waiting to hear back from him, and the moment I set it up, and, uh, uh, we'll— I'll let you know. Also remember to join me tomorrow for my conversation with Elizabeth. I'll be— we will be talking on the other channel. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna see if I can get you the link to that. Uh, I, I will confirm it with you. I will confirm it with you later on. So, all right, hope you guys enjoyed this analysis. I look forward to seeing you next time. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye.