FLASH
Shkruar nga Gjergj Zefi
After pouring billions into weakening Russia through the war in Ukraine, Washington is facing a new strategic paradox: escalation with Iran, rising oil prices and global market volatility are giving Moscow more revenue, more financial breathing space and an advantage that the West claimed it would take away...
America entered the Ukraine conflict with a grand strategic objective: to strike Russia not only militarily, but especially at the heart of its economy, energy. The logic was clear: cutting off Moscow's main source of revenue would weaken its ability to finance the war, to finance the state, and to fuel the Kremlin's geopolitical machine.
For this, billions of dollars were thrown at it, sanctions were imposed, diplomatic pressure was exerted on the markets, and the narrative was sold that Russia would emerge exhausted from this confrontation. But now, with the new war on Iran and the major shock in the global energy market, a bitter truth is emerging: what was intended as a strategy to 'dry up' Russia is turning into a mechanism to enrich it.
This is where the popular expression "Lena's downfall, Prena's upfall" comes into play. America paid dearly for Ukraine against Russia, and now it is paying billions more for a new crisis with Iran, which instead of harming Moscow, is enriching it.
According to the International Energy Agency, Russian oil export revenues rose to $19 billion in March. In the same period, Russian exports of crude oil and refined products reached 7.1 million barrels per day, or 320,000 barrels more than a month earlier. In addition, there is a significant political element: the US temporarily allowed buyers to take delivery of Russian cargoes already at sea until April 11, creating a favorable window just as prices were rising rapidly.
So the paradox is brutal. Washington has spent years politically, financially, and militarily trying to contain Russia, and now another hotbed of conflict is having the opposite effect. The crisis in the Middle East is not just a military clash; it is also a giant machine that moves energy prices. When tensions flare in the Persian Gulf and when traffic in the Strait of Hormuz is threatened, the market does not wait. Prices react immediately, supply tightens, panic grows, and exporters like Russia start counting profits. Thus, the price of oil passed $ 100 a barrel, driving Russian Urals oil to its highest levels in a decade. This means that Moscow does not necessarily need to sell much more; it just needs to sell more expensively.
At this point, the editorial needs no empty rhetoric, because the numbers speak for themselves. The IEA calls the current situation in the oil market “the largest disruption in the history of the oil market.” In its April 2026 report, the agency says that global supply fell by 10.1 million barrels per day in March, dropping to 97 million barrels per day. The IEA also highlighted that the war in the Middle East has created the most severe shock to global supply, while flows through Hormuz have shrunk from about 20 million barrels per day before the war to minimal levels. This is not just a regional problem; it is an energy earthquake with global consequences. And in any such earthquake, countries that export oil and gas often gain more than they lose.
This is why the headline “Take the Lena, Put the Prena” is not just a folkloric quip, but the most accurate summary of strategic absurdity. America threw money, weapons, political capital, and diplomatic weight at Ukraine, claiming it would exhaust Russia. Now it is throwing more money, bearing the burden of another major military escalation, and facing the economic costs of a new crisis, while the final result once again comes out in Moscow’s favor.
One war was justified as a means to weaken Russia; the other war is increasing the price of goods Russia sells. With one hand it strikes, with the other it feeds. That is the essence of the title.
One might say that this is simply an unintended consequence of the market and not a direct gift to the Kremlin. True, but therein lies the great problem with American power politics: it is often measured by statements and short-term objectives, but not always by the ripple effects on the economy. In theory, sanctions should isolate Russia. In practice, when the global market enters a crisis, when supply is tight and prices explode, a country like Russia regains its breath. The higher the fear in the market, the higher the strategic value of every barrel of oil leaving Russian ports. So this is not just a tactical failure; it is proof that wars and crises do not always serve the victors predicted by the propaganda of the day.
The other side of the equation is just as important: who pays the bill? It’s not just governments. It’s American taxpayers, who have seen billions poured into Ukraine and now into another costly showdown in the Middle East. It’s Western economies, who face inflationary pressures whenever oil prices rise. It’s European consumers, who feel it immediately at the pump, in transport, in food and energy. The IEA has warned that global demand is already being hit by high prices and uncertainty, revising its 2026 forecast from growth to contraction, a big change from its previous expectation of a 730,000 bpd increase to a 80,000 bpd decrease. This shows that the crisis is not just producing profits for exporters, but also slowdown and pain for the rest of the world.
In this sense, Russia is gaining not only money but also time. And in geopolitics, time is bought with money. The more energy revenues, the more space the Kremlin has to withstand sanctions, to keep its war industry fed, to finance the budget and to show that it is not as isolated as the West says. This does not mean that Russia is invulnerable or that sanctions have had no effect. It means something more cynical: that a new international crisis could undo part of the effect that an entire strategy sought to produce for years. And therein lies the historical irony of the moment: the enemy that was supposed to be weakened is getting oxygen from the chaos of the next crisis.
For the Albanian reader, this story should not be seen as a distant battle between superpowers. Every movement in oil, every upheaval in Hormuz, every escalation in the Middle East directly affects the European markets to which we are connected. Albania and the region are not players at this table, but payers of the consequences./ Pamphlet
Sa per Ukrainen, ne baze te ligjit nderkombetar eshte popoulli Ukrainas qe vendos per fatet e tij, te shkoje me Rusine apo me Europen. Nese ka patur ndikim per keq qofte per Rusine apo Ukrainen eshte vetem Administrative Trump me ndihmen e spiunit te Mosad dhe FSB, Xhefri Epstein. Per luften me Iranin eshte po linja e spiunit te Mosad dhe FSB,Xhefri Epstein qe nxiti Hamasin,nepermjet Ajatollah Ali Kameneit te Iranit me 7 tetor 2022 te godase popullsine civile izraelite, e normalisht situata eshte jashte kontrolli edhe per shkak te delirit te madheshtise se Trump dhe nxitjesxse Mosad se Kamenei donte ta vriste. Po te fitonte Administrative Biden sot te dyja lufterat do ishin shuar me kohe.
Ne politike nuk ka vella, mik e shok, pervecse para. Kush e leviz parane Izraelitet. Kush e krijoi Izraelin, Anglo-Amerikanet. Kush e furnizoi Izraelin me force cifute njerezore, BRSS e co. qe derguan ne Izrael tere sorrollopin cifut qe ishte atje. Kush i dha Izraelit arme berthamore, "i beri vete". Thone se jane inteligjente, ha ha ha. Nuk ka me inteligjente se popujt Gjermanike.