Tag: Ukraine

Sceptic on Climate, Conventional on Russia: A Review of ‘The Age of Error and the West’s Undoing’ by Rupert Darwall

Rupert Darwall, previously special adviser to the UK’s then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont and currently Senior Fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics (NCEA), has spent the better part of two decades doing what few writers on climate policy dare to do: following the money, the meetings and the memoranda behind the West’s great green crusade.

AI generated by Meta

From Tilak´s Substack

By Tilak Doshi

The Age of Error and The West’s Undoing by Rupert Darwall (Encounter Books, 2026)

Rupert Darwall, previously special adviser to the UK’s then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont and currently Senior Fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics (NCEA), has spent the better part of two decades doing what few writers on climate policy dare to do: following the money, the meetings and the memoranda behind the West’s great green crusade. The Age of Error, newly published, is his most ambitious book (out of three) yet. It attempts nothing less than an explanation of why the West – with the significant exception of Trump’s America – chose to disarm itself economically, energetically and militarily at the very moment big-power geopolitics returned with a vengeance. The book is sweeping in its coverage of world events, learned in its focus on key issues, often brilliant in untangling the machinations that occur in the corridors of power. Yet, in one crucial respect, it is curiously conventional.

From Lehman to L’Aquila

Darwall’s age of error begins with the 2008 financial crisis. Elected politicians lost the authority to govern on their own account. Drawing on Bertrand de Jouvenel, Darwall argues that they recovered it by borrowing the prestige of experts: central bankers, climate scientists and public health officials. The result was what he calls “the co-dependency of politicians and experts with its command to ‘follow the science’”. Decisions migrated from parliaments to unelected committees (quangos in British parlance), and dissent became heresy.

The central bankers went first. Deficit financing and near-zero interest rates were supposed to restore growth; the Bank of England alone bought close to £900 billion of assets. Growth never properly resumed. What came instead were zombie firms, inflated asset prices, stalled productivity and, eventually, the inflation of 2021–22 that the monetary mandarins failed to see coming. Darwall reads this as a Keynesian conceit, the opposite of Schumpeter’s creative destruction of a vibrant capitalism. The real supply-side miracle of the period came not from Threadneedle Street or the Federal Reserve but from the shale fields of Texas and North Dakota, despite the Obama administration’s hostility to fracking.

Easy money had a further consequence. “Easy money begat ESG,” Darwall writes. Cheap capital disguised the true cost of capital-intensive wind and solar, while Wall Street embraced environmental, social and governance investing to buy itself a social licence after the crash. Mark Carney’s campaign to turn central banks into climate regulators, which I criticised at the time, and the fatal combination of central banking and ESG that followed, belong to the same story. Markets killed ESG in 2022, as Darwall wryly observes, although the regulators in the EU have not got the message, as I noted recently.

The intellectual spine of the book is the West’s abandonment of energy realism. Darwall contrasts the St Petersburg G8 of 2006 with the L’Aquila G8 summit of 2009. The 2006 G8 was the last occasion on which Western leaders spoke collectively as members of a fossil-fuelled civilisation focused on energy security. In 2009, the G8 inaugurated “an era of green Keynesianism”, promising emissions cuts of 80% or more by 2050 while claiming that green stimulus would deliver “sustainable growth”. “It was a jumble of policy incoherence,” Darwall writes. It was also a programme to replace efficient energy with inefficient energy, reversing the trajectory of progress since the industrial revolution.

The climate juggernaut, dissected

Darwall is unrivalled in explaining the anatomy of the UN climate process. His account of the small island states as climate ‘martyrs’ is a gem. The poster-child image of the Maldives vanishing beneath the waves served NGOs and island diplomats well. It helped win both the 1.5°C target and the $100 billion climate finance pledge. Yet a 2015 study of a central Pacific atoll that Darwall cites found that “no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged”. Politics, as he says, “led the science”.

His account of the Paris agreement is equally penetrating. “NGOs turned out to be the most powerful players at the Paris COP.” The formula of Net Zero by 2050 had first been pitched to Obama’s climate envoy, Todd Stern, over an “eye-wateringly expensive tea in London”. “Adopting the goal of Net Zero would be the self-inflicted price the West paid for obtaining a climate agreement at Paris,” Darwall writes. China, meanwhile, kept building coal plants and captured the supply chains of the very ‘green’ industries the West subsidised. Far from liberalising China, WTO membership meant that “America and the West had invited a tiger to eat their lunch”. The belief that climate change poses an existential threat, Darwall concludes, “is an artefact of the Western mind in thrall to an ideology – environmentalism”.

The British chapters will be painful reading for anyone who still believes Westminster governs in the national interest. In June 2019, a lame-duck Theresa May made Net Zero law by statutory instrument, approved after an 88-minute Commons debate without a vote. Her Chancellor Philip Hammond had warned that the cost would be “well in excess of a trillion pounds”. Darwall’s data show a 20.7% increase in British generating capacity producing 24.2% less electricity. “Producing less with more is the essential fact of the energy transition,” he writes. Britain now pays the highest electricity prices in the industrialised world. The folly of ‘climate leadership’ by a country with less than 1% of global emissions is a theme I have covered in these pages.

On the WHO-declared Covid pandemic, Darwall is unsparing. The cover-up of the virus’s origins “has every claim to be the greatest crime in the history of science”, and even the CIA now judges a laboratory origin more likely. His parallels between ‘The Science’ of climate and of the pandemic, from the censorship of dissent to the freezing out of advisers such as William Happer (on climate) and Scott Atlas (on public health), are insightful and right on the mark.

Darwall reads Donald Trump’s election as the populist revolt against all this. “Trump’s re-election killed climate catastrophism as a political force,” he writes. Trump told the UN General Assembly that climate change was “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”. Eleven months after the election, in Darwall’s phrase, “Bill Gates read the funeral rites for climate change”, an epiphanic retreat from doomsday rhetoric.

The Russian blind spot

It is all the more surprising, then, that a writer so alert to the manufactured consensus on climate and Covid accepts the Western consensus on Russia almost wholesale. “Russia today and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s are both revisionist powers,” he writes. “Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and her band of EU appeasers had cleared the way for Europe’s most destructive war since World War II.” He calls the “Washington-backed coup” narrative of 2014, which John Mearsheimer adopted, “spurious”. Yet Mearsheimer’s broader thesis, that NATO expansion lay at the root of the conflict, echoes the warnings of diplomats such as George Kennan and William Burns.

To his credit, Darwall gives the realists a hearing. He quotes William Burns, then US ambassador in Moscow, warning Condoleezza Rice in February 2008 that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” Burns had already cabled that membership could split Ukraine and “force Russia to decide whether to intervene”. He quotes Sir Roderic Lyne, Britain’s former ambassador to Moscow, who called the push to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO at Bucharest “stupid on every level”. He even concedes that Western governments “were culpable in ignoring the advice of their diplomats and national security experts”. He names George Kennan, “the architect of Cold War containment”, among the critics but does not quote Kennan’s own 1998 verdict that NATO expansion was “a tragic mistake” and “the beginning of a new cold war”.

Darwall nonetheless dismisses the warnings on three grounds, none of which I find persuasive. First, he cites a 1990 memo by Gorbachev’s adviser Anatoly Chernyaev arguing that Moscow’s security rests on the nuclear balance, so NATO’s advance could not really threaten it. By that logic the United States, with overwhelming nuclear superiority in 1962, had nothing to fear from Soviet missiles in Cuba. It risked nuclear war anyway. Second, he notes that Viktor Yanukovych’s declaration of neutrality in 2010 took NATO membership off the table and that it returned only because of Putin’s aggression. But Yanukovych was driven from office in 2014, and the 2008 Bucharest promise that Ukraine “will become” a member was never withdrawn. Third, he cites Britain’s then Defence Secretary Ben Wallace for the claim that ethnonationalism, not NATO expansion, lies at the heart of Putin’s position. A minister who would soon be sending Ukraine made-in-Britain long-range Storm Shadow cruise missiles is hardly a disinterested witness.

The Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen put the realist case in a recent interview. The post-Cold War settlement, he argues, was meant to rest on indivisible security, the principle written into the 1990 Charter of Paris that no state should enhance its security at the expense of another’s. Darwall argues that the “not one inch eastward” assurances given to Gorbachev concerned German reunification only and that NATO expansion beyond Germany “was simply not an issue at the time”. Even if that is so, NATO’s march to Russia’s borders replaced indivisible security with the potential for NATO to base nuclear-capable missiles closer to Russia, down to seven to 10 minutes’ flight time to Moscow. In this view a neutral Ukraine was always in everyone’s interest, Ukraine’s above all, as Henry Kissinger argued in 2014.

Darwall’s account contains an unresolved conundrum. Ukraine’s move to the West, he writes, threatened not Russian security but “Putin’s rule”, and he quotes Ambassador Lyne saying the Kremlin’s leaders “know they are not legitimate”. On this telling, Putin is so weak that he cannot afford a free Ukraine moving towards the EU and NATO to be held up as an example for ordinary Russians to emulate. Yet Darwall himself concedes that Ukraine was “poorer, more corrupt, more oligarch-dominated and less politically stable” than Russia, hardly a model Russians were clamouring to follow. A few pages later Putin is Bismarck, a cold calculator bent on redrawing the map of Europe, a revisionist power akin to interwar Germany with “ambitions to re-establish Russian power in the post-Soviet space”. Darwall also cites Angela Stent’s observation that after 1991 Russia’s presence in Europe “had shrunk to its smallest extent since the 17th Century”. A Russia that could not take Kyiv in 2022 is hardly a Wehrmacht poised on the Rhine.

What the appeasement frame leaves out

Darwall sees appeasement in the West’s insistence on the Minsk agreements. He describes Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond urging Kyiv to honour them as “epitomising the prevailing spirit of appeasement”. Yet Merkel herself later admitted that Minsk was “an attempt to give Ukraine time”. The book is silent on the Istanbul talks of spring 2022, which, as Samuel Charap and Sergey Radchenko have documented, came close to a settlement built on Ukrainian neutrality. If there was a failure of Western statecraft, it looks less like appeasement than its opposite.

Darwall notes that Volodymyr Zelensky won 73% of the vote in 2019 by offering “the prospect of peace with Russia through dialogue”, and he concludes that Putin’s subsequent choices “defy reason”. The question not asked is why that mandate was never delivered, and why the Istanbul talks of spring 2022 came so close to a settlement only to collapse after Boris Johnson’s visit to Kyiv. According to Ukrainska Pravda’s sources, Johnson’s message was that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with”; Johnson calls the charge that he sank the talks “total nonsense”. By 2024, Zelensky had instead signed a law to ban religious organisations affiliated with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Darwall’s account of the green NGOs in the corridors of power in Western capitals and within the UN and other multilateral agencies is among the most penetrating analyses available in the literature about these amorphous entities. But disappointingly, there is little if any coverage of Washington DC’s ‘democracy promotion’ networks run by the State Department and its grantees and quasi-governmental bodies such as the Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy.

Darwall notes that Victoria Nuland – the Obama State Department’s point woman on Ukraine – was in Kyiv backing the protesters when she was caught on a leaked call discussing who should form the next government. Darwall casts her – not without reason – as someone who “would acquire an outsize role in the depiction of subsequent events, not least because that’s how she liked to present herself”. In December 2013, three weeks into the Maidan protests, Nuland told a Washington DC audience that since 1991 the United States had “invested over $5 billion” to assist Ukraine’s ‘democratic’ development. Tracking these vast sums through the web of the State Department’s and USAID’s NGO grantees in ‘democracy promotion’ would have been of considerable interest to understanding the events of the Maidan revolution.

At its economic core, Russian-European relations have been based on Soviet and then Russian natural gas, flowing to West Germany since 1973 and a pillar of German industry for half a century. And it was disputes over natural gas trade that created “the first test of wills between the Paper Empire [i.e. the EU] and Vladimir Putin”, as Darwall puts it. Following Thane Gustafson’s account, Darwall casts the EU’s victory over Gazprom on its third energy package as proof that “the Paper Empire had teeth”. An oil and gas industry veteran might see instead gas following oil after the 1986 oil price collapse, from rigid OPEC-based oil-indexed contracts towards liquid spot markets. Darwall charges Gazprom with “softening up” Europe in 2021, while conceding that it “continued to honour its long-term gas contracts”. A supplier that meets its contracts and declines to sell more into a spot market is behaving as the liberalised market Brussels built incentivised it to.

What’s sauce for the goose

Perhaps the deepest omission in many accounts of Russia’s alleged revanchism under President Putin is the Cuban analogy. Darwall’s book offers no mention of the 1962 missile crisis. Glenn Diesen asks us to imagine a Russia helping to topple an elected government in Mexico, installing a hostile regime through ‘democracy promotion’ and arming it to strike the US heartland. No American president would or could accept it. To recognise great powers’ security interests on their borders is not appeasement but the beginning of diplomacy.

Darwall calls the 2014 annexation of Crimea, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and an overwhelmingly Russian-speaking population, “the first forcible redrawing of borders in Europe since 1945”. He relegates Kosovo to a “partial exception”. Yet the Kosovo precedent was created by NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN authorisation. The ‘rules-based order’ Darwall invokes was frayed by Western interventions from Serbia to Iraq and Libya long before 2014.

There is an irony here. Darwall quotes with approval the Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy in rejecting “the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies”. He urges taking “a hammer” to them. But he balks when the same document calls the outsized influence of larger and stronger nations “a timeless truth of international relations”, dismissing realism as “a species of utilitarianism”. He follows Trump on climate, but not on Russia.

None of this makes Russia an innocent. But Darwall, who exposes better than anyone how elites manufactured an existential climate threat, should recognise the pattern when it recurs. Having wrecked their economies with Net Zero, Europe’s leaders now ask their citizens to prepare for war with Russia. I described that descent from green folly to military mobilisation earlier this month.

Realism or dissolution?

Darwall closes with a warning that if the West does not correct its path, “the age of error” will be followed by “an age of dissolution”. It is an ominous warning. On climate, central banking, ESG and Covid, his prescriptions are compelling: smash the Net Zero ideology, re-carbonise and restore democratic choice over expert diktat across the board. But this counter-revolution cannot stop at the water’s edge. It means taking seriously the perceived security concerns of a neighbouring nuclear-armed superpower, as Kennan, Kissinger and Burns did. On that score Darwall’s otherwise formidable book remains a prisoner of the establishment consensus it demolishes so effectively elsewhere. Whatever one’s view is of the vexed Russia question, Darwall’s tour de force should not be tossed lightly aside – it deserves to be closely read and argued with.

This review was first published in the Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2026/11/02/sceptic-on-climate-conventional-on-russia-a-review-of-the-age-of-error-and-the-wests-undoing-by-rupert-darwall/

Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic’s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former (cancelled) contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.

The Coming Fuel Crisis: What Ukraine and California Have in Common

Russian transportation fuel shortages are caused by Ukraine drone attacks, while California shortages are directly related to political over regulations

Ukraine and California are using proven ways to reduce the supply chain of those vital fuels.

From The CO2 Coalition

By Ronald Stein and Mike Ariza

Russian transportation fuel shortages are caused by Ukraine drone attacks, while California shortages are directly related to political over regulations

Worldwide economies run on continuous and uninterruptable electricity AND transportation fuels like the following:

  • Jet fuel for the military and international airports, diesel fuel for trucks and construction equipment, different grades of gasoline for vehicles, and bunker fuel for all the ships arriving and departing from Ports.

Ukraine and California are using proven ways to reduce the supply chain of those vital fuels.

  • Ukraine uses military drones to reduce manufacturing capabilities of its enemy Russia.
  • California uses political overregulation’s to effectively establish an unfriendly business environment for refineries to remain within the State to manufacture the transportation fuels demanded by the 4th largest economy in the world.

Ukraine is using drone attacks on Russian refineries to reduce the supply chain of transportation fuels demanded by the Russian military and its economy.

Russia is facing a severe nationwide fuel shortages caused by Ukrainian drone and missile strikes on its major oil refineries.

  • Drivers across multiple regions, especially in Siberia and remote areas, have faced lines at gas stations lasting hours or even days.
  • Local authorities have introduced purchase limits, such as capping vehicles at a single fill-per-day in regions like Altai and banning filling portable gas canisters in others.
  • National average gasoline prices climbed over 18% since the beginning of the year,

California had more than 40 operating oil refineries in the early 1980s, but that number has dropped significantly due to industry consolidation and environmental transitions. The number of active refineries has fallen to 7, as the state overregulates its supply chain of transportation fuels demanded within the state.

  • Recent closures of major in-state refineries, including facilities operated by Phillips 66 and Valero, have slashed local gasoline production and forced a heavier reliance on foreign imports
  • California uses a unique specialized environmental gasoline blend and lacks pipeline connections to the rest of the U.S., making it difficult to quickly backfill supply from domestic out-of-state sources.
  • Ongoing conflict in the Middle East and restrictions tied to the Strait of Hormuz have constrained international crude shipments, raising replacement costs for refiners who import a significant portion of their crude oil feedstock.
  • While overall inventory numbers sit near multi-year lows, analysts emphasize that extreme price spikes tend to induce “demand destruction” where high costs naturally curb consumption at local stations.

While California Governor Newsom and policymakers remain oblivious that economies around the world run on transportation fuels for planes, ships, trucks, construction equipment, and vehicles, and the infrastructures that are supported by the products made from oil derivative extracted from raw crude oil, the State’s political policies are effectively supporting an impending collapse of California’s transportation fuel infrastructure.

Driven by adversarial state policies and aggressive litigation from activist groups, California’s domestic refining capacity has already been crippled, and has led to the most expensive transportation fuel in the nation for its California residents.

  • Jet fuel for the State’s 40 military and 9 international airports, bunker fuel for all the ships arriving and departing from 3 of the busiest Ports in America at Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland, diesel fuel for trucks and construction equipment, and different grades of gasoline for vehicles.
  • The more than 6,000 products in our daily materialistic lives that did not exist before the 1800’s that are meeting the supply chain demands of today’s hospitals, airports, telecommunications, appliances, electronics, sanitation systems, heating and ventilating systems to support current lifestyles.

California policymakers are unaware that crude oil by itself is useless black tar, unless entrepreneurial companies build a multi-billion-dollar refinery to break it down to produce various types of transportation fuels like, jet, diesel, gasoline, and bunker fuel for ships, and oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in our materialistic world.

The global population has surged from 1 to over 8 billion in less than 200 years. This growth has been supported by the dramatic increase in the number of products and transportation fuels made from oil, and food production made possible by synthetic fertilizers, all of which did not exist before the 1800’s, just a few hundred years ago.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has yet to share his Energy Wisdom, IF ANY, publicly about all the money spent on wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage , as the “renewable industry” CANNOT support the transportation fuels demands of various infrastructures of military airports, commercial airports, merchant ships moving products through various shipping ports, truck and construction equipment fuel demands, nor meet the demands for more than 6,000 products used by hospitals, airports, telecommunications, appliances, electronics, sanitation systems, heating and ventilating systems to support current lifestyles.

The impacts on military readiness, the local economies, and lifestyles are very similar with the different approaches taken by Ukraine and California to reduce transportation fuel availability.

Please share this information with teachers, students, and friends to encourage Energy Literacy conversations at the family dinner table.

Click this Link to Sign up for Energy Literacy from Ronald Stein

Originally published at America Out Loud, August 10, 2026.

Ronald Stein, P.E., is a CO2 Coalition member, engineer, columnist on energy literacy at America Out Loud NEWS, and advisor on energy literacy for the Heartland Institute and CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.” He is also the recipient of an unsolicited Tribute to Ronald Stein from Stephen Heins.

Nord Stream blasting: Germany’s Federal Court of Justice sees Kiev behind pipeline blasts

The headline “BGH sees Kiev behind pipeline blasts” refers to a recent ruling by Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, or BGH) in the ongoing investigation into the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

Two scuba divers examining an underwater pipeline, surrounded by bubbles and marine sediment.

The headline “BGH sees Kiev behind pipeline blasts” refers to a recent ruling by Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, or BGH) in the ongoing investigation into the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

The court stated that the explosions were likely carried out on behalf of a state actor, with Ukraine specifically under concrete suspicion as the commissioning party (“Auftraggeber”). The court described the act as “geheimdienstlich gesteuerte Gewalttaten” (intelligence-service-directed acts of violence), rejecting the suspect’s claim to functional immunity (as if acting on state orders in an official capacity).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Divers working underwater near rusty pipelines, with bubbles rising around them and a boat visible above the surface.

From The Blackout News

The Federal Court of Justice assesses the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines as an “act of violence controlled by the secret service” on behalf of a foreign state and the decision names Ukraine as the alleged client.

The decision is also central because the Federal Court of Justice expressly does not consider the pipelines to be a legitimate military target and emphasizes their predominantly civilian purpose. The Federal Court of Justice rejected the detention appeal of the suspect Serhij K. and thus supported the line of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (faz: 14.01.26).

A police officer in tactical gear escorts a detained individual with a blurred face outside a vehicle, indicating a law enforcement operation related to pipeline incidents.
Sprengung der Nord-Stream-Pipelines war laut BGH geheimdienstlich gesteuerter Gewaltakt | FAZ

The Federal Court of Justice is of the opinion that the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022 was an “act of violence controlled by the secret service” on behalf of a foreign state. 

A decision published on Thursday shows that the court considers Ukraine to be the client. The court thus justified the rejection of a detention appeal by the Ukrainian suspect Serhij K.

He is accused of anti-constitutional sabotage in conjunction with causing an explosive explosion and destroying buildings. In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, the gas pipes are not a legitimate military target, they would have served primarily civilian purposes.

Sprengung der Nord-Stream-Pipelines war laut BGH geheimdienstlich gesteuerter Gewaltakt | FAZ

Blasting – why the Federal Court of Justice does not see any justification as an act of war

The defense wanted to classify the act as an act of war covered by international law, but Karlsruhe did not follow this argumentation.

Serhiy K. invoked the combatant privilege through his lawyers and spoke of a “legal act of damage to Ukraine” in the war against Russia. The BGH countered this with a clear assessment and denied a legitimate military aim.

From the court’s point of view, the purpose of the lines remained decisive.

Nord Stream had primarily served civilian interests, and thus a justification under the international law of war according to the Karlsruhe interpretation is no longer applicable.

This also has an impact on domestic politics, because gas imports in Germany trigger long-term price and supply issues. In addition, the explosion takes on the rank of targeted sabotage, because the judges assume a foreign state order.

Ukraine, detention and the line of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland

Serhiy K. was arrested in Italy in August of the previous year and then transferred to Germany, which is why the proceedings are being continued here.

His lawyers challenged the pre-trial detention, but the BGH rejected the complaint. Karlsruhe is thus strengthening the investigations of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, which accuses it of anti-constitutional sabotage and other offenses.

At the same time, a second string was running in which Polish judges decided differently.

Volodymyr S. was released from pre-trial detention in Poland in October and the court refused to transfer him to Germany. His defense also argued with international law and presented attacks on Russian-important infrastructure as permissible.

This creates a legal contrast, as the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland continues to pursue its assessment of Ukraine as a client in the German proceedings.

Nord Stream, sailing yacht and the suspicion of sabotage

In the context of the investigation, clues about Serhiy K.’s role emerged and they reinforced the image of an organized operation.

According to public statements, he belonged to a special unit of the Ukrainian army at the time of the crime, and Roman Chervinskyi, his superior at the time, confirmed this in December 2025. In an interview with the F.A.Z., Chervinskyj called the action “a good thing”, but he rejected details.

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office also describes the alleged sequence of events: The perpetrators are said to have rented a sailing yacht in September 2022, then sailed to a sea area near Bornholm and planted several explosive devices during dives.

This scenario fits Karlsruhe’s classification of an operation controlled by the secret service and it makes the explosion a central object of investigation.

For Germany, the topic of Nord Stream remains relevant, because every new assessment intensifies the discussion about gas imports and strategic dependencies.

Aerial view of a circular disturbance in the ocean, creating a whirlpool effect with foamy water.

Can the weather help end the Russia-Ukraine war?

But we all know how the weather played a huge role in World War II (D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and of course the German invasion of Russia come to mind). That is one of the two examples of a major army invading Russia and the Russian winter turning the tide of the war.

3D map highlighting Ukraine in yellow, surrounded by neighboring countries labeled in various colors, including Russia to the northeast.
Stylich 3D Map of Ukraine and neighboring countries with agressive countries market with red. High quality 3d illustration

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

As many of you know, I am big on weather events impacting history. I won’t go into the examples, because, quite frankly, you could write a book on it. But we all know how the weather played a huge role in World War II (D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and of course the German invasion of Russia come to mind). That is one of the two examples of a major army invading Russia and the Russian winter turning the tide of the war. In both cases, Russia was on the defensive (Napoleon and Hitler), and the miscalculation of those leaders, combined with the weather, turned the tide of the wars.

But this time it’s different. Though it’s the winter that may be the key to ending the war with Ukraine, it’s for opposite reasons.

  1. Russia is on the offense, not the defense.
  2. Their energy sector has been hurt, and shortages are showing up.
  3. The Russian people are not on the defense, where they are fighting for the survival of their country, so shortages of energy in a harsh Russian winter may lead to popular pressure to end this war.

So the question is, will there be a harsh enough winter to impact this?

First of all, immense pressure on their energy sector has to be used. Ukraine knocking out sources of energy is crucial. And stopping their income from outside sources (how we stopped exporting LNG to Europe and made them go to Russia, which led to dependency and fed Russia’s coffers, is something I can’t get my head around). But our policies seem to be headed in the right direction. That, of course, is above my pay grade, but making it harder for Russia as far as energy goes is simple common sense. Now, what happens if the weather is cold and shortages start? This could break the Russian economy. So, what does winter look like?

Both the Canadian and U.S. models are hinting at a colder-than-average winter for many of the areas in Russia that demand the most energy.

Temperature anomaly map for Europe, showing variations expected for December 2025 to February 2026, with warmer tones indicating higher temperatures and cooler tones indicating lower temperatures.
Temperature anomaly map highlighting colder-than-average regions in Europe for winter 2025-2026.

The blend of the models would imply normal to below-normal temperatures for Russia’s most populous areas. (Remember, normal is darn cold in Russia, and if you have energy shortages due to other reasons, the pressure mounts.) A lot of the analogs are hinting at the same thing. So, the weather could put added pressure on the Russian position.

The fall will be crucial to set the stage for this… But this time, the weather will not work to help the defense of Russia; instead, it will work to limit and perhaps stop its offense. A lot will depend on geopolitical pressure (for example, taking out more energy sources both for domestic use and for income and then a normal to below-normal Russian winter showing up).

When we get to spring, we can all decide if the weather played a role.

Why Trump Needed to Declare a National Energy Emergency

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The October 7 terrorist attack in Israel. Sky-high inflation. The crushing price of groceries and other consumer goods. Pain at the pump.
One throughline connects some of the greatest failures of the Biden presidency: bad energy policy.

From Watts Up With That?

By Brian Morgenstern Sam Lyman

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The October 7 terrorist attack in Israel. Sky-high inflation. The crushing price of groceries and other consumer goods. Pain at the pump.

One throughline connects some of the greatest failures of the Biden presidency: bad energy policy.

To right the wrongs of his predecessor, President Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of declaring a national energy emergency on his first day in office. In his inauguration speech, Trump vowed to “bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again right to the top, and export American energy all over the world.” In contrast to the national malaise of the Biden years, Trump’s ambitious energy agenda promises a new morning in America. His commitment to “energy dominance” will subdue our enemies, tame the tiger of inflation, and usher in a new era of tech supremacy.

To understand why Trump declared a national energy emergency, it is first critical to understand where Biden failed on this issue. Consider the human toll of Biden’s energy policy in three arenas: Ukraine, Israel, and Mainstreet America.

Putin’s war on Ukraine was boosted by Biden’s own war on U.S. oil producers.

In the first year of his presidency, Biden kneecapped domestic LNG production by blocking new oil and gas leases on federal lands, canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline, and imposing impossible standards on domestic fossil fuel producers. As a result, U.S. crude oil production remained woefully behind pre-pandemic levels for the first year of Biden’s presidency—to the tune of approximately one million fewer barrels of oil per day.

Cheering on Biden’s restrictions just as much as the environmental lobby was Russian President Vladimir Putin. As the U.S. retreated from global oil markets, Russia advanced, increasing its production by nearly nine hundred thousand barrels a day in 2021. Putin’s ability to eat into the U.S. market share in the energy sector put Russia on strong economic footing in the leadup to its invasion of Ukraine.  

After the invasion, the high price of oil fueled Russia’s war machine, kept its economy alive, and shored up its currency in the most critical years of the Ukraine conflict. Biden could have undermined Russia’s military campaign and decreased global oil prices simply by removing his restrictions on U.S. producers, allowing them to drill to their full capacity. But he refused and exacerbated the problem in 2024 by pausing new LNG exports to European allies. Thousands of innocent Ukrainians suffered as a result of Biden’s energy policies.

Sadly, Biden’s war on U.S. oil producers not only strengthened Russia—it also empowered Iran and endangered Israel.

Like Russia, Iran was able to capture a significant portion of the global oil market share that would have otherwise gone to the U.S. were it not for Biden’s harmful regulations. And like Russia, Iran was able to leverage this oil revenue to launch its own war. Using Hamas as its proxy, the Iranian regime engineered the October 7 terrorist attack against Israel, sparking one of the bloodiest conflicts in the region’s history.

From Europe to the Middle East, Biden’s disastrous energy policies made the world a more dangerous place. They also made it more expensive.

Mainstreet America was just another casualty in Biden’s war on oil. Everyday citizens foot the bill for this war in the form of high inflation, which reached a peak of over 9% in 2022 and caused the dollar to lose over 22% of its purchasing power in only four years. Exacerbating the highest inflation our country has seen in a generation were rising energy prices that resulted from the Biden administration’s attempts to curb fossil fuel production in favor of renewable energy.

Seeing the damage wrought by his predecessor’s energy policies—both here at home and abroad—Trump had no choice but to declare a national energy emergency. Thankfully, the new president understands what the former never did: Energy is the base layer of all matter, life, and human activity. Or, as Einstein put it, E = mc2.

As the fundamental currency of the universe, countries rise and fall on their ability to maximize energy production. And any attempt to manipulate the supply-and-demand dynamics that govern its use leads to distortions—not only in global markets but in monetary systems and international politics as well.

Trump intuits this. Which is why “Drill, baby, drill!”—beyond being a catchy slogan—is a promising, first-principles approach to getting our country back on track.

The logic is simple: Biden’s policies hurt energy providers here at home while enriching our enemies abroad. These policies drove up the price of energy and inflation in our country, making all Americans poorer. And they made electricity harder to acquire than ever before just when critical emerging industries in tech and transportation needed it most.

That’s why, as part of his national energy emergency, President Trump must revoke Biden-era energy regulations. Every last one.

The economy of the future—including Bitcoin and AI data centers, electric vehicles, commercial space exploration, and quantum computing—will require far more energy than we are producing today. According to research from S&P Global, electricity demand from U.S. data centers alone is expected to more than double over the next decade, increasing from 185 TWh to 440 TWh. Failing to meet this demand would give China the edge in the race for artificial intelligence, putting both our economy and our national security at risk.

Given the challenges facing our nation, securing energy dominance is the only option.

If the U.S. is to succeed in weakening its enemies, wrangling inflation, spurring GDP growth, and onshoring manufacturing, then it needs to use its God-given energy assets. This includes nuclear, hydro, solar, and yes, fossil fuels.

Almost no clean energy project would succeed without the manufacturing and infrastructure that fossil fuels make possible. Case in point: Texas.

Policymakers in the Lonestar State recognized long ago that oil and natural gas were critical companions in scaling up renewable energy. So in contrast to California, Texas lawmakers opted to encourage fossil fuel production, rather than restrict it. This decision has resulted in more—not less—renewable energy generation overall and the cleanest energy mix in the country. Our country’s leaders should embrace this all-of-the-above approach to energy production.

For the last four years under Biden, the federal government’s foot has been on the brake pad of energy generation. Trump must move it to the accelerator—because cheap and abundant power is the key to a safer world, lower inflation, better tech, and a stronger economy.

Brian Morgenstern is head of public policy for Riot Platforms and served as White House deputy communications director and deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury during the first Trump administration.

Sam Lyman is director of public policy for Riot Platforms and served as chief speechwriter to United States Senator Orrin Hatch.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Ukraine Approves $20 Billion Green Energy Plan Despite Ongoing War

The Ukrainian government approved a plan to significantly spur green energy development on Tuesday as its war against Russia continues to drag on, according to Reuters.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Nick Pope

Contributor

The Ukrainian government approved a plan to significantly spur green energy development on Tuesday as its war against Russia continues to drag on, according to Reuters.

Ukrainian officials stated that the development strategy will require about $20 billion in investment to be realized, and will aim to increase the share of the country’s power coming from sources like solar and wind up to 27% by 2030, according to Reuters. Ukrainian energy infrastructure has been hit hard by the ongoing war, and the U.S. government has approved at least $175 billion of assistance to the Ukrainians since Russian forces crossed into Ukrainian territory, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. (RELATED: Pentagon Says $62 Million In Ukraine Weapons Aid Was ‘Lost Or Destroyed’ — But It Doesn’t Know Which)

Trump Weighing Plan To Cut Off Ukraine Aid Unless Kyiv Agrees To Negotiate Peace Deal With Moscowhttps://t.co/J4WXXoZmUY— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 25, 2024

Specifically, the Ukrainian government is aiming for green energy generation to provide 33% of the power needed for heating and cooling systems, 29% for overall electricity generation and 17% of the power consumed for transportation, according to Reuters. While the government did not disclose what percentage of power demand is currently met by green energy generation, some local media reports have pegged the figure at about 10%.

The war in Ukraine continues to rage nearly two-and-a-half years after it started. Ukrainian forces have broken into Russia’s Kursk region in recent weeks and taken control of Russian territory, showing that the fighting may not wind down any time soon.

The manpower situation for the Ukrainian side has also become an increasingly significant problem, with tens of thousands of soldiers having perished in the war to date. The Ukrainian military has started to send thousands of convicts to the front lines to take up arms in response to its numbers problem.

Russian forces have damaged or otherwise incapacitated approximately half of Ukraine’s energy generation infrastructure with drone attacks and airstrikes over the course of the war, according to Reuters. The country has been forced to rely on solar, wind and nuclear generation, which has caused safety concerns given the potential for the fighting to cause a nuclear incident.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The EU Is Willing to Go to War Over Lithium?

The riddle of unhinged EU support for the Zelensky regime in Kyiv is now solved. Anyone inclined can unravel why the Germans, in particular, backstabbed Russia in the Minsk peace boondoggle. Lithium.

From The  New Eastern Outlook

By Phil Butler

The riddle of unhinged EU support for the Zelensky regime in Kyiv is now solved. Anyone inclined can unravel why the Germans, in particular, backstabbed Russia in the Minsk peace boondoggle. Lithium.

Energy Monitor’s parent company, GlobalData, recently released a report showing that Europe’s biggest lithium reserves lie in the Donbass region of Russia. The former Ukrainian Shevchenkivske field in the Donetsk region and the Kruta Balka block in the Zaporizhzhia region are now part of Russia. These reserves add tremendously to Russia’s humongous Lithium deposits (now 1.5M metric tons) and solidify the country’s top ten position globally. If we consider other BRICS nations’ reserves, including China (2M metric tons), EU industry is at a leverage point.

What’s most significant about this is that the EU, and Germany in particular, desperately need the rare mineral to manufacture green energy technologies such as wind turbines, electric vehicles, and a wide variety of electronic devices. This text from the Critical Minerals Thematic Intelligence Report overview is telling:

“Critical minerals are key to transitioning to a low-carbon world. There are over 70 countries globally that have set net-zero targets and pledged to lower their emissions. However, these widespread measures for a greener future are straining natural resources, especially the minerals required to produce energy transition technologies such as electric vehicles (EVs) and solar panels…”

The report goes on to reveal how these rare minerals are monopolized by just a few regions and how supply chain problems affect their recovery and distribution. In short, if Europe does not procure more Lithium, the energy transition EU President Ursula von der Leyen toots her horn about every other day will either be delayed or made unfeasible because of demand shortages.

While the United States, Australia, and a few Latin American countries hold the lion’s share of Lithium reserves, EU access to these supplies will be expensive. In addition, the U.S. and these emerging nations will surely use the biggest part of their reserves for domestic needs.

The demand (need) for European Lithium supply is so intense, German CDU MP Roderich Kiesewetter came right out and admitted the Russia-Ukraine conflict is all about the 500,000 tons or more of the mineral under the ground of the Donbass region. Kiesewetter said, “The European Union supports Ukraine because of lithium deposits in the Donbass.” The politician also took note of the Donbass being part of Russia now, means Berlin’s dependence on Moscow.

Kiesewetter, a retired colonel, is also suggesting that Germany provide Zelensky’s regime with the highly accurate Taurus cruise missiles, which have a 500km range. The Swedish/German air-launched missile carries a 1,100-pound warhead and is essentially a bunker-buster type weapon. The missiles would be far more useful for Zelensky’s remaining Nazi battalions than a few rusty old Leopard tanks. What the MP’s statements mean, however, is that Germany and the EU intend on taking Ukraine’s vast resources by force now. The Euromaidan Coup only got the Western elites’ feet in the door, and now the singular order has few options left since the failed Ukraine offensive.

The EU commissars are in the process of slitting their own throats. Just the other day, the commission passed another round of sanctions aimed at Russia’s luxury diamond exports to the bloc. This will not affect the average EU citizen, but the upper-middle class and the wealthy will have to fork over more Euros to get pretty round diamonds. The Americans (or British) blowing up the gas pipelines, the potential for grain shortages in the EU, and other key minerals Russia and nations friendly to her export begin to take their toll on an already shaky confederation of member states.

Consider what EU member states manufacture and export to elevate their GNP. In the lists here, you’ll click on two vital exports. Cars and/or refined petroleum are vital to every country. Cars are, by far, the biggest import and export commodities. So, when these autos finally go electric, just imagine how desperate EU industry and consumers will be for Lithium! The Europeans will flounder if forced to import quantities of this strategic mineral from distant sources that have their own batteries to make. If there is a WWIII over the Russia/Ukraine situation, I am sure we’ll be able to name it “The Great Lithium War.”

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Nord Stream attack: Escape route leads to Ukraine

A year ago, a secret commando blew up the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Who is behind the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines?

A year ago, a secret commando blew up the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea. Who is behind the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines?

In the dispute over Russian gas supplies, many believe that the Kremlin is the mastermind after the attack on the Nord Stream pipeline. Several intelligence agencies are investigating the case. Now investigators can largely rule out Russian involvement.

Nord Stream attack in the Baltic Sea: The clues lead in one direction – to Ukraine – DER SPIEGEL

In Ukraine itself, it is difficult for the Germans to investigate. The German government has so far shied away from a request for legal assistance to Ukraine, probably because the German investigators would then have to reveal what they know. Officially, the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky has denied that Ukraine is involved in the attack. But Berlin does not trust Kiev.

Nord Stream: Saboteurs probably used stolen identity – ZDFheute

The Dutch military intelligence service and the CIA had already warned months before the attack of a Ukrainian sabotage squad and exactly the scenario. In Berlin, the warnings had been assessed as irrelevant after the originally suspected time for an attack had passed.

Keine “False Flag”-Operation: Bericht: Nord-Stream-Saboteure flohen in die Ukraine – n-tv.de

After the attack on the Baltic Sea pipelines, Western politicians had also brought a so-called “false flag” operation by Russia into play as a possible explanation. Moscow could have caused the explosion and deliberately laid the wrong trail in Ukraine, according to the considerations. However, according to the report, there is no evidence of this.

German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) is confident that there will be an indictment against the saboteurs of the Nord Stream pipeline. “I hope that the Federal Prosecutor General will find enough evidence to indict the perpetrators,” Faeser told the magazine “Spiegel”.

 “We have to bring such crimes to justice,” the SPD politician told Der Spiegel on Friday. “This also strengthens citizens’ trust in the rule of law if we succeed in clarifying such complex issues.”

Europe Has Spent More Than $1 Trillion on Gas Since 2021

The wholesale price of natural gas in Europe started rising above its historical average in the summer of 2021, around the time that Russia began reducing gas pipeline exports. After reaching a level 2000% higher than its historical average in the summer of 2022, it then fell dramatically. The price is now only 30–60% higher.

From The Daily Sceptic

By NOAH CARL

The wholesale price of natural gas in Europe started rising above its historical average in the summer of 2021, around the time that Russia began reducing gas pipeline exports. After reaching a level 2000% higher than its historical average in the summer of 2022, it then fell dramatically. The price is now only 30–60% higher.

Yet bills for households remain well above pre-crisis levels. As of July 2023, the typical U.K. household will pay around £2,074 per year for energy ­– almost double what they were paying in April of 2021. What’s more, the thinktank Cornwall Insights predicts that household energy bills will not return to their pre-crisis levels until the end of the decade “at the earliest”.

How can this be? Wholesale prices of natural gas are way down from their peak, and are now only slightly above the historical average. Why are energy bills set to remain elevated until at least 2030?

The main reason is that energy bills aren’t determined by current prices; they’re determined by the prices wholesalers paid in the recent past. And over the last two years, wholesalers have paid an absolutely huge amount for gas. Just how much?

Seb Kennedy of Energy Flux estimates that since 2021, European energy firms have spent around $1.1 trillion on gas. This is about equal to the amount they spent over the ten years between 2010 and 2020. What’s more, gas consumption has actually fallen since 2021 (which helps to explain why the wholesale price has come down) so the rise in expenditure comes entirely from an increase in price.

Kennedy admits the figure is based on a “simple calculation” and therefore has a “high margin of error”. But he believes it’s “in the right ball park”. (Note that he includes the UK, Turkey and Ukraine as part of Europe.)

Here’s more or less what happened. When gas prices spiked in the summer of 2022, European policymakers panicked. Fearing there would be shortages in the upcoming winter, they told energy firms to buy up huge quantities of LNG – with the goal of refilling gas storage. And while they succeeded in refilling gas storage, the cost of doing so was enormous.

Chart taken from ‘Europe’s pyrrhic gas victory’.

The chart above puts the figure of $1.1 trillion into perspective. As you can see: it’s bigger than the GDP of Saudi Arabia, more than twice as big as the estimated reconstruction costs for Ukraine, and more than 44 times bigger than the cost of Hinkley Point C – the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant.

“The rush to fill underground gas storage facilities at the height of the market was understandable,” he notes, “but the costs were apparent at the time, and governments put consumers on the hook”.

Since the winter of 2022/23 passed largely without incident, it might appear that European policymakers “solved” the energy crisis. But what they really did was hide the costs. You can’t a spent a trillion dollars in two-and-a-half years and expect there not to be consequences. European citizens will be paying off the debt for years into the future.

Will “Climate Denial” Become an International War Crime?

And now it looks like Ukraine may be helping their UN backers to attack our freedom to even criticise these green plans, with their push for “ecocide” crimes like “climate denial” to be recognised as crimes against humanity, on a par with wartime mass murder of civilians.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine. By President Of Ukraine link

Greta Thunberg recently dropped into Kyiv to Help Ukraine Push the UN Ecocide Narrative – the push to treat environmental crimes on a par with war crimes. But “Ecocide” goes a lot further than acts of war.

https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1674475847225319433?s=20

Russia is accused of ‘ecocide’ in Ukraine. But what does that mean?

By Radina Gigova, CNN
Updated 3:55 AM EDT, Mon July 3, 2023

CNN — 

On June 6, Ukraine suffered an environmental catastrophe. The collapse of the Kakhovka dam in the south of the country sent water thundering downstream, killing more than 100 people according to Ukrainian officials. It wiped out villages, flooded farmland and nature reserves, and swept up pollutants like oil and agricultural chemicals as it made its destructive path towards the Black Sea. 

The causes of the collapse have yet to be established – whether it was targeted as part of Russia’s war in Ukraine, or whether it was a structural failure – but what is certain is that it is one of the biggest ecological disasters Europe has seen in the last few decades. 

And Ukraine is calling it “ecocide.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the collapse as “an environmental bomb of mass destruction.” High profile figures outside the country have agreed. The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, on a visit to Kyiv on Thursday, told reporters that “ecocide and environmental destruction is a form of warfare as Ukrainians by this point know all too well, and so does Russia.”

…

As the world continues to witness ecological disasters that span national borders, criminal accountability is rare, due in part to a lack of proper legislation and investigative process, experts say.

…

The fact that ecocide would not just apply in conflicts could be an obstacle, Weir said. “It also applies in peacetime, and it’s also potentially targeting corporations, like big oil companies, who may well be committing ecocide through their actions,” said Weir. There are a number of countries that may fear “how far it could go, or what it could constrain,” he added.

…Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/02/world/ukraine-ecocide-dam-collapse-crime-climate-intl-cmd/index.html

Assuming it was actually Russia which blew the dam, punishing people for ecologically damaging attacks on civilian infrastructure seems reasonable right? Deliberate acts of war which lead to large scale environmental disasters and widespread suffering should be prosecutable at the Hague.

The problem is the target of proposed Ecocide laws is a little broader than prosecuting physical war crimes.

British campaigner urges UN to accept ‘ecocide’ as international crime

Juliette Jowit
Sat 10 Apr 2010 01.37 AEST

Proposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/09/ecocide-crime-genocide-un-environmental-damage

Note the article above was written over 10 years ago – but I doubt the plan to use UN ecocide laws to attack climate skeptics has changed, given there is still an intent to apply the laws during peacetime, against individual companies, and possibly against individuals.

Make no mistake, climate activists are finding lots of ways to take advantage of public sympathy for Ukraine.

Back in March George Soros explained how resources liberated by the breakup of the Russian Federation, following a Russian defeat, would help fund his green energy ambitions. I’m not sure if Soros has asked Russians how they would feel about Soros using resources liberated by the chaotic breakup of the Russian Federation to fund his personal green ambitions.

And now it looks like Ukraine may be helping their UN backers to attack our freedom to even criticise these green plans, with their push for “ecocide” crimes like “climate denial” to be recognised as crimes against humanity, on a par with wartime mass murder of civilians.