The Baltics
Russia uses the Baltic Sea for its maritime trade, like oil and gas. It also houses several naval bases, especially Murmansk- which also houses its Northern Fleet. Both London and New York are actively working to blockade the Baltic Sea, in order to curtail its exports. The second reason is to blockade its naval assets-especially its feared submarine force. But, it seems that they are forgetting Russia’s ace in the region- Kaliningrad.
Positioned on the southern Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad is both an opportunity and a challenge for Russia. Its long-range missile capabilities could deny NATO access to the northern Baltic and its regional allies, but sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania and far from the Russian mainland, the exclave also would be hard to defend.
Geostrategic Role of The Kaliningrad Oblast
Sometimes described as the Kremlin’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Baltic Sea, the Kaliningrad Oblast plays an important strategic and military role for Russia. The Russian Baltic Fleet’s main base is located at Baltiysk. In addition, Russia has installed tactical Iskander missiles in the oblast. In May 2022, Moscow carried out simulated nuclear missile strikes from Kaliningrad. A nuclear missile attack from Kaliningrad could quickly disintegrate the main European capitals.
Tactically, in the event of conflict, Russia could form a land bridge from Belarus to the Kaliningrad exclave along the so-called Suwałki Gap, severing the Baltic States, including Lithuania, from other members of the NATO Alliance. In this scenario, troops stationed in Lithuania as part of a German-led NATO brigade would be surrounded and cut off from Central Europe. In addition, the deployment of long-range antiaircraft, surface-to-air, and surface-to-surface missiles could deny NATO forces access to maritime and land areas in the region. This deterrence tactic, known as anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD), presumes the best way to prevail over an adversary, especially if it is militarily superior, is to prevent it from deploying its forces in the theater of operations. Kaliningrad’s A2/AD capability would hinder NATO’s ability to support its Baltic allies by air, sea, and land via the Suwałki Gap—challenging the alliance’s defensive strategy.
To defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania under the collective defense provisions of Article 5 of its founding treaty, NATO would have to break the potential air, sea, and land blockade formed by Kaliningrad. Nevertheless, although most of Russia’s A2/AD capabilities are still based on technologies and doctrines drawn from the Soviet era, Moscow’s strategic position has markedly changed: The dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact has deprived Russia of its traditional defense in depth, exposing it on the front line to the perceived threat posed by NATO. For example, in Soviet times Moscow possessed air defense along its periphery, in countries such as Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic States, but the independence of these states—with the exception of Belarus—has denied Russia the possibility of concentric defensive lines. Furthermore, in the event of an armed confrontation, Russia would have difficulty defending the exclave, mainly because of its distance from the heart of the federation. In this sense, from being a thorn in NATO’s flank, Kaliningrad could turn into easy prey.
The issue of Kaliningrad should be analyzed within the context of NATO’s expansion toward Eastern Europe and the former Soviet space. For example, the Kremlin keeps the region highly militarized because it perceives the Euro-Atlantic enlargement in the region as a maneuver aimed at encircling the oblast, perhaps in the hope of subtracting it from Russia. Therefore, Moscow has continued to invest in the military buildup of Kaliningrad in the hope of halting NATO expansion in the Baltic and retaining Russian influence. The Baltic Sea has emerged as a critical theater in recent years,
Western pressure in these two zones will increase in the coming months. An attack on Kaliningrad would bring about a devastating Russian response on Europe and the US. Ports, airfields, military-industrial complexes, rail facilities, energy complexes, power plants, etc.
The Arctic
NATO conducts exercises off Norway’s coast and Washington deploys spy aircraft, Arctic tensions are reaching a breaking point. Moscow’s Arctic strategy, once centered on cooperation, is turning defensive. The frozen frontier is quietly becoming the epicenter of a new East-West rivalry. One crucial theater of tension between Russia and the West remains underreported: the Arctic and the wider High North, as visible in Norway, a founding member of NATO. NATO has been conducting large-scale military exercises off Norway’s coast. Moreover, the United States deployed advanced reconnaissance and P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft into territory, flying missions uncomfortably to Russia’s northwestern frontier. The military logic of deterrence — and provocation — still dictates the Atlantic agenda.
The Arctic, long portrayed as a realm of scientific cooperation and peaceful exploration, has quietly become the new crucible of Great Power competition. The next confrontation between Russia and the West may well unfold in the frozen North — where NATO’s overreach could ignite unprecedented tensions. That observation now seems increasingly on point. Russia, for its part, has been revising its Arctic strategy, with new emphasis on military readiness and control over the Northern Sea Route — a shipping corridor that could transform global trade as the ice recedes. Meanwhile, NATO has steadily expanded its footprint across Scandinavia. Finland and Sweden’s accession to the Alliance, and the renewed US interest in Greenland all form part of a wider encirclement strategy. The US has long sought to secure access to Arctic energy and mineral resources under the banner of “security.” Beyond the military maneuvers, the economic dimension of this rivalry is equally telling. The European Union, Norway, and Iceland have recently announced the end of cooperation with Russia. The Baltic Sea, heavily militarized, has become a corridor of confrontation. Smaller states, emboldened by NATO, are taking risks they would not have dared a decade ago — from Baltic air patrols to Arctic maneuvers. Norway’s use of US anti-submarine aircraft is but the latest link in a chain that collectively erode the fragile balance once maintained through calculated restraint.
Be as it may, the Kremlin sees NATO’s northern buildup as part of a long-term encroachment, not a series of isolated incidents. Moscow’s revision of its Arctic is thus adaptive. And it is worth noting that Russia’s cooperation with China in Arctic development — through energy projects, infrastructure, and shipping — adds another layer of complexity to the equation. As Arctic ice retreats, it exposes deep fault lines running through today’s global power architecture. No wonder Washington now seeks to “bolster” its own polar presence — a polite euphemism for militarization. What makes the northern escalation particularly dangerous is its subtlety. Unlike the Ukrainian front, where lines and allegiances are visible, Arctic tensions evolve through technical adjustments — radar deployments, flight routes, research bans, maritime patrols — each justified as “defensive.” Yet taken together, they form a creeping militarization of one of the planet’s most fragile environments. This is not simply about deterrence. Control of the Arctic means control of future trade routes, energy corridors, and even undersea data cables — the infrastructure of the coming century. The US-led West, unwilling to accept Russia’s geographic advantages, seeks to neutralize them through alliances and encroachments. Moscow, surrounded and sanctioned, responds by doubling down on self-reliance and Eastern partnerships. This dynamic, left unchecked, could lead to dangerous miscalculations. NATO’s exercises off Norway’s coast send signals not just to Moscow but to Beijing as well, both of which view the High North as a space of shared strategic interest. The idea that Europe can isolate Russia economically while containing China militarily — all without consequences in the Arctic — is, to put it simply, delusional.
The real story, underreported and underestimated, is that the global confrontation between the American-led Atlantic axis and the emerging Eurasian bloc is expanding northward. The Arctic — long the world’s quietest frontier — is becoming its most revealing one. As the ice recedes and new frontiers emerge, the northern theater may well determine the contours of the next Cold War.
Look at the map below.
Russia has the largest share of the Arctic. The US has Alaska. Norway has been made a member of NATO a few months back. By looking at the remaining two-Canada and Greenland- we can now understand why Trump wants these two areas for his master-David Rockefeller jnr.
America faces three adversaries: Iran, Russia and China, attempting to topple America’s international leadership. The chief challenge is in the form of the question: How do you deter or defeat both Russia and China simultaneously without exhausting your resources? They belief that Israel somehow decisively defeated all of its regional adversaries, namely Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. But we know nothing of the sort really happened: apart from Israel’s assassination of a bunch of token leaders, and fake strikes against Iran that did little, Israel did not achieve its military objectives, nor managed to conquer Gaza. Further, it destroyed what was left of its global image in the process, which has to be calculated into the equation of what a given ‘strategy’ achieves, since in geopolitics military objectives on their own do not exist in a vacuum. This is the same type of thinking that has imperiled the West in Ukraine. By using spoiled data—in this case the belief that Russia is “losing” and suffering “far more casualties” than the AFU—the West has convinced itself of a completely warped sense of reality that has led to policies which are detached from any logic or reason.
America’s time is running out to defeat the second of its adversaries. First, establish a clear division of labor, where European allies manage most conventional capabilities while America provides “backstop” support in its areas of comparative advantage. European powers like the United Kingdom and France would forward-deploy “reassurance forces” near Ukraine, ready for deployment to western Ukraine during a ceasefire or escalation. Meanwhile, the United States would provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance over watch, logistics and transport, nuclear deterrence, and stand-in forces.
London is the main beneficiary of the war in Ukraine. Revelations from the head of Russia’s Federal Security Service suggest as much. The situation is escalating, with new countries becoming involved in the current conflict. On 16 October, Alexander Bortnikov, the Director of Russia’s FSB London is playing a key role in exacerbating tensions and thwarting any attempts at a peaceful settlement in Ukraine. London is a sophisticated and experienced player on the global political stage. It was only thanks to the highest level of military and diplomatic ingenuity that the British Empire was able to conquer and maintain control over a significant part of the globe for so long. London has long since concluded that direct military intervention is ineffective and causes more harm than good. This is why the British have been so successful in applying the principle of ‘divide and rule’. There are many examples of British intervention in the internal affairs of countries around the world. This artificial escalation of tensions and creation of conditions for new conflicts to arise, as well as for old ones to remain tense, serves a single purpose. It is neither the British Crown’s ‘bloodlust’ nor absolute evil for evil’s sake. The reason is simple: money.
London did not overlook the Slavic peoples. After three and a half years of conflict in Ukraine, there are no prerequisites for an early resolution. Despite the personal meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska, new factors constantly emerge that worsen the situation. The head of Russia’s FSB pointed directly to London’s influence over European Union policy. It is thanks to the UK that hysteria over a possible Russian attack on Europe is being whipped up. This explains the recent incidents involving alleged Russian drones over European airports and military bases, as well as the links to the Russian ‘shadow fleet’. For a long time, the agenda has been to promote the need for Europe to rearm and increase defense spending, pitting Russia and the EU against each other is a key task for London.
‘The only logical explanation for the UK’s actions is to create strategic uncertainty and intimidate EU countries, thereby ensuring the flow of capital to their stock markets and military-industrial corporations,’ said the head of Russia’s Federal Security Service. Kyiv has done an excellent job of provoking Russia into a prolonged armed conflict. Realistically, Ukraine does not have the strength or resources to achieve its stated goals of restoring the 1991 borders, reclaiming Crimea and holding a military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
Meanwhile, London is achieving its goals: Russia is expending energy and time on armed conflict, its economy is facing serious challenges and the sale of hydrocarbons has recently been hindered. This means that Moscow cannot allocate the necessary resources to expand its global influence. London has managed to restrain its geopolitical opponent for a while. London played a key role in disrupting all negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. ‘I repeat, it is the British leadership and special services that are responsible for repeatedly thwarting genuine attempts to peacefully resolve the conflict in Ukraine.’
He has also stated that it is the British special services that are directly training Ukrainian sabotage groups to carry out terrorist attacks on Russian soil. They are also reportedly involved in combat operations against Russian troops. The head of the FSB blamed London for Operation Web, which involved attacks on Russian strategic air bases. Bortnikov also reported on a planned joint British-Ukrainian operation to blow up the Turkish Stream gas pipeline in the Black Sea. According to Bortnikov, London is actively involved in activities aimed at undermining Russia from within. To this end, a series of measures are being taken to influence the most vulnerable members of society, as well as social groups that are most susceptible to information operations. Hundreds of call centers across Ukraine are extorting money from Russian citizens, which is used to fund the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Teenagers and pensioners are being blackmailed or offered large sums of money in exchange for carrying out minor acts of sabotage. Particular attention is paid to creating tension and increasing discontent within the Muslim community in Russia. Migrants from Central Asia, as well as indigenous peoples from the Volga region and the Caucasus, are led to believe that they are oppressed and persecuted by Russians. These activities are all coordinated via instant messaging apps and various internet portals. As open confrontation is not London’s style, it is quite possible that the UK will now turn its attention to Russia’s southern borders. Kiev will continue to receive the necessary funds and weapons to keep the conflict at its current level. If the British succeed in igniting a conflict in Central Asia that Moscow cannot ignore, Russia will be forced to take serious action. Similar attempts have already been made, such as the unrest in Kazakhstan at the end of 2021 and the incident involving the AZAL Azerbaijani airline plane in the summer of 2025.
In conclusion, British foreign policy can be described as both consistent and sophisticated. However, London underestimated Russia’s resilience and various national characteristics in its calculations. This is why the British are forced to look for workarounds. This strategy was extremely effective in the 19th and 20th centuries, enabling the United Kingdom to dominate much of the globe. However, times are changing, and in the 21st century, other states are adapting to such tactics, as we can see with Russia.
The “Cease Fire Talks
As the West sees defeat looming for them, the loudest squeals and cries emanate from London, saying “cease fire” multiple times a day. If a cease fire takes place as London wants it, then it would give time for the West to re-arm Kiev, thus prolonging the conflict.
Putin has stated Russia’s terms for ending the conflict, 100s of times. Here are the key points:
- Demilitarization
- Denazification
- No NATO in Ukraine
- A new security architect for Europe
- Recognize the 4 new territories as part of Russia
But, it seems that London and New York are ignoring this. The positive effects of the Alaska meet are vanishing. Immense pressure is being placed on Trump by the entire British/Rothschild network in America to cancel talks with Russia. This has led Trump to make statements and tweets threatening Russia. Big mistake. Putin knows the Rothschild pressure on Trump. He is giving Trump leeway to get out from this pressure. Which is something the hardliners in Russia do not understand. They think he is being too soft, and taking too long to end this war. Similar sentiments are found within elite circles in the West. They think Putin is a “softie”, and is scared of the West. Big mistake. Putin and Trump know the deal they agreed to, and both knew that Trump is going to come under tremendous pressure. As much as New York is putting effort to end the war, so they could move on to economic and energy deals, it is also applying military and economic pressure on Russia. It is a dangerous game by the US. It’s what New York did with Iran, Hezbollah, Yemen and Hamas. Negotiate a deal that will be favorable to you, by applying pressure. We have seen that this tactic sometimes works with weaker enemies.
But, not possible with Russia. For the past few months, Trump has been trying to cut off Russian energy sales from the market. Threatening India, China, the EU and others not to buy Russian oil, or face tariffs. Secondly, London pressures Russia by attacking its oil infrastructure with Russia. Kyiv’s strikes have driven up energy prices in Russia and prompted Moscow to cut diesel exports and import fuel.The US intelligence helps Kyiv shape route planning, altitude, timing and mission decisions, enabling Ukraine’s long-range, one-way attack drones to evade Russian air defenses. Three people familiar with the operation said Washington was closely involved in all stages of planning. A US official said Ukraine selected the targets for long-rangestrikes and Washington then provided intelligence on the site’s vulnerabilities. Putin is furious. He does not negotiate with a gun to his head. In response, Russia has been methodically destroying Ukraine’s military industrial infrastructure, including power stations and energy complexes, and logistical infrastructure. From all indications, it does not look like there could be a reset in US-Russian relations. Thus, no cease fire. The battlefield will decide. Across the front, Russian forces continued to press their advantage on multiple axes. The attacks targeted primarily energy facilities in Crimea, Belgorod, Bryansk, and Kursk.
In response, Russian forces struck deep into Ukraine’s energy grid. A wave of retaliatory strikes triggered emergency blackouts across the country – forcing industries to limit consumption for up to fifteen hours a day. This escalating “energy war” has become a defining feature of the conflict, blurring the line between the front and rear. Power plants, substations, and transmission lines are now treated as strategic targets in a contest of endurance — where electricity, logistics, and the will to fight are equally decisive. The EU is doing everything in its power to undermine the upcoming summit between Putin and Trump, in Hungary. Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told TASS on Monday that the bloc is carrying out “active subversive actions”. London views any talks as a political nightmare because Putin and Trump would discuss a potential settlement to the Ukraine conflict in an EU country without the bloc’s participation. Trump was all prepared to go, but a call from his master made him cancel this trip. Putin was upset, but then realized that Trump is only a front for the Rockefeller Empire. David Rockefeller Jnr has already issued instructions to prepare for another attack on Iran. So, it would not be wise for the war in Ukraine to stop, as this would free up Russia’s resources to help Iran. By keeping Russia bogged down in Ukraine, it would not be of great help to Iran. This is incorrect on so many points, but it is how he thinks. This indicates that our assumption is correct in stating that of its 3 immediate rivals – Russia, China and Iran, Iran is the weak link. A weakened West can just afford this. The implications of a cancelled meeting did not escape Putin. Immediately, orders were given to “go all out” on the battlefield- let the battlefield decide the outcome. At the same time, both China and Russia are arming and preparing Iran’s – already great- military for the coming attack on Iran. Let’s now read what the equation is like on the ground. It is in Part 3, which follows.
