Zelenskyy Tariffs on U.S. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel- Continued Cost of Sanction on Russian Oil Exports to Consumers

 The President of Ukraine, who hasn’t allowed an election since 2019, in a conversation with President Trump recently said something about Russian diesel production, Ukrainian attacks on it and his willingness to stop blowing up Russian diesel infrastructure if he is provided many of the dwindled stock of U.S. Patriot missiles. The United States has only 750-850 remaining, and years are required to build more.

President Trump’s reply card might be to unilaterally lift sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports in order to lower the price U.S. consumers and truck drivers pay at the pump. That would bring the price of gasoline down by 50 cents per gallon if done by the weekend. Plainly remaining European sanctions would keep the cost of fossil fuel high for Americans. The Ukraine war is a hidden tariff on fuel prices for Americans that European leaders generally insist on.

I asked AI if the ban on Russian oil and gas is equivalent to the Arab oil embargo Americans experienced in 1973-74. It said that combined with the Iran conflict the situation is far worse.

AI– Gary– Is the reduction in oil for the world equivalent to the Arab oil embargo

AI-The current global oil supply reduction is significantly larger in scale and volume than the 1973 Arab oil embargo. [1, 2]

Scale Comparison

• 1973 Embargo: Created a global shortfall of about 4.5 million barrels per day, which accounted for roughly 7% of the world’s oil supply at that time. [1]
• Current Crisis: Ongoing disruptions—driven by conflicts restricting transit through critical checkpoints like the Strait of Hormuz—threaten or remove upwards of 12 million to over 20 million barrels per day, impacting roughly 11.5% to 20% of global consumption. [1, 2]

Key Differences

• Volume: Today’s potential and active disruptions affect a volume of daily oil nearly four times larger than the shortage experienced during the 1973 crisis. [1]
• Broader Impacts: The current situation also heavily impacts non-oil supplies, such as a substantial portion of the world’s fertilizer transit, compounding economic stress. [1]
• Market Response: While the 1973 embargo led to extreme physical shortages like long gas lines and strict rationing in Western nations, the current shock has driven severe price surges (such as Brent crude climbing over $100 per barrel) with more muted direct consumer rationing in most major economies. [1, 2, 3]

Gary– If sanctions were lifted on Russian oil exports by the United States how would that affect the United States price of oil and gas?

AI- If the United States were to unilaterally lift its sanctions on Russian oil exports, it would trigger a cascade of shifts in global and domestic energy markets. Because oil is a globally traded commodity, any change in how Russian crude flows directly alters the prices American consumers pay at the pump. [1]

Here is how lifting the sanctions would affect U.S. oil and gasoline prices:

➡️ Direct Impact on U.S. Oil Prices (WTI and Brent)

• Immediate Price Decrease: Lifting sanctions would immediately lower global oil benchmarks, including Brent crude and the U.S. benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI). Allowing Russian oil to flow seamlessly into Western supply chains reduces the geopolitical risk premium that traders currently bake into the price. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Reintroducing Stranded Supply: Lifting restrictions provides legal clarity for Western insurers, shipping fleets, and banks to handle Russian barrels. This frees up logistically constrained oil (such as oil stranded at sea or caught in complex “shadow fleets”), raising the global pool of available crude and easing supply crunches. [1, 2, 3]
• Normalizing Global Trade Routes: Right now, Russia diverts its oil over massive distances to buyers in Asia (primarily India and China) at a discount. Removing U.S. sanctions allows for shorter, more efficient shipping routes, lowering global transit costs and ultimately deflating the overall cost of oil. [1, 2, 3]

➡️ Direct Impact on U.S. Gasoline and Diesel Prices

• Lower Costs at the Pump: Because retail gasoline prices closely track global crude oil costs, a drop in crude prices would pass directly to U.S. consumers, lowering the price per gallon.
• Relief for Diesel and Distillates: Russian exports have historically been heavily weighted toward heavy crudes and refined products like diesel. Reopening Western markets to Russian petroleum would significantly ease tight global distillate supplies, helping lower the cost of diesel used in commercial shipping and trucking, which in turn reduces inflationary pressures on goods. [1]

⚠️ Critical Constraints on Price Relief

While prices would drop, the decline would be limited by a few major realities:

• European Sanctions Remain: Even if the U.S. lifts its restrictions, European Union and British embargoes might stay in place. Because Europe was historically the primary buyer of Russian oil, localized price relief would be staggered unless Western allies move in lockstep.
• OPEC+ Countermeasures: If global prices drop too far or too fast, the OPEC+ alliance (of which Russia is a leading member) would likely cut its own production to artificially tighten supply and defend a higher floor price for oil.
• Domestic Refining Limitations: U.S. refineries are heavily optimized to run specific blends of crude. Reintroducing Russian crude would require time to reintegrate into complex domestic refinery schedules before yielding maximum gasoline output. [1, 2]

Gary- How much do you estimate the price of gas at the pump would drop by November 7th of this year if sanctions were lifted this weekend?

AI- If U.S. sanctions on Russian oil were unilaterally lifted this weekend, retail gas prices at the pump would likely drop by an estimated $0.30 to $0.55 per gallon by November 7th.

Assuming the baseline national average sits around $4.20 to $4.45 per gallon, this would bring the pump price down closer to the $3.80 to $3.95 range by early November.

This estimate and its timeline rely on three key market factors:

💡 1. The Immediate Crude “De-escalation” Discount

Every $10 change in the price of a barrel of crude oil translates to roughly a $0.25 change in the price of a gallon of gasoline. Lifting U.S. sanctions would immediately puncture the “geopolitical risk premium” currently propping Brent and WTI crude near the $95–$100 mark. Global crude prices would likely slide by $12 to $20 a barrel as legal pathways re-open for Western shipping, insurance, and banking networks to move Russian barrels directly. This chunk of crude relief account for a $0.30 to $0.50 drop at the pump.

🗓 2. The 4-to-6 Week Transmission Lag

Because you specified November 7th—roughly six weeks from this weekend—the timeline perfectly matches the historical lag of the energy supply chain. When crude oil prices drop on Wall Street, it takes time for that cheaper oil to be purchased, shipped to refineries, processed into gasoline, and distributed to local stations. Stations also tend to lower their prices slowly (“rockets and feathers” effect) as they flush out inventory they bought at higher prices. By early November, the full impact of a late-September policy shift would finally be visible to consumers.

⚠️ 3. The Chilling Effect of Remaining Sanctions

The reason the price wouldn’t drop even further (back to early 2026 sub-$3.00 levels) is that European Union and UK embargoes would almost certainly remain active. Since the U.S. historically imported very little Russian crude directly, the relief relies on global market sentiment. Furthermore, OPEC+ would likely respond to a rapid price drop by cutting its own production targets to artificially restrict supply and defend a price floor, capping the maximum relief American drivers see at the pump.

Would you like to see how this price drop might vary by region (such as the West Coast vs. the Gulf Coast), or would you prefer to look at the impact this move would have on diesel and commercial transport costs?

Zelensky Sides with Russia on Building Earth-Launched Anti-Satellite Weapons

 Europeans have continuously fueled the martial law President of Ukraine with weapons transfers, weapons development technology and so forth in the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. Now the martial law President for Life Zelenskyy wants anti-satellite weapons in order to strike Russia’s quasi Starlink network that is gradually being assembled in low Earth orbit. Much of the west including the United States had expressed the wish for a ban on such weapons and to have a moratorium on development because blasting satellites in orbit would create dangerous space debris. Russia, India and North Korea want to develop such systems because of some tactical or strategic paradigm for war.

Ukraine has accelerated development and proliferation of low cost, effective weapons technology that will be replicated in other wars now and in the future; jeopardizing world peace more than usual. At some point even Europe might have an interest in settling the war instead of throwing more gas onto the fire since the weapons systems may find their way onto their cities down the road. Ukraine’s weapons systems are affordable for many nations and terrorist actors unlike high-end aircraft and carriers that only nations with vast public debt can afford.

Creating debris in orbit to collide with future space missions and existing satellites is quite a bad idea. ELon Musk should pledge to turn off Ukraine’s Starlink access if it blows up satellites in orbit. The use of anti-satellite technology would set a very bad precedent for the security of all of those satellites that unite the global economy so far as it is united.

Gemini wrote-“There is no comprehensive international treaty banning the development, possession, or use of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, but the U.S. and several allies have pledged a voluntary ban on destructive, direct-ascent ASAT testing that creates debris. While the 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in orbit or on celestial bodies, conventional space weapons remain legally unregulated, creating a push for new international norms. Arms Control Association +3

Current Status of ASAT Bans and Limitations

• Voluntary Testing Ban (2022): The United States announced a ban on destructive direct-ascent ASAT missile testing in April 2022, aiming to establish a new international norm against tests that create dangerous orbital debris.
• Coalition Supporters: Several countries have joined the U.S. in this voluntary moratorium, including Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and New Zealand.
• Opposing Nations: Russia, China, India, and North Korea have not signed onto this ban and have previously tested or expressed opposition to such restrictions.
• The Outer Space Treaty (1967): This foundational treaty bans placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into orbit or on celestial bodies (such as the Moon). It does not specifically prohibit conventional weapons, such as lasers, kinetic kill vehicles, or earth-based missiles that target satellites. Arms Control Association +4

Types of Space Weapons

• Destructive Direct-Ascent ASATs: Missiles launched from Earth to destroy satellites (e.g., China in 2007, Russia in 2021).
• Co-orbital ASATs: Satellites equipped with explosive devices, kinetic weapons, or robotic arms designed to disable other satellites.
• Non-Kinetic/Soft Kill Weapons: Cyberattacks, ground-based lasers, or electronic jamming designed to disable satellites without creating”

Ukraine Upgrades Psyops War on President Trump

Ukrainian negotiators apparently decided to change the name of areas of the Donetsk Oblast Ukraine to 'Donnieland' to spite President Trump's unwillingness to supply Ukraine with weapons and cash. President Trump also has said that the Ukraine should cede the Donetsk to Russia as a way to bring the war to an end through negotiation rather than forcing Russia and Ukraine to continue the body count  way of negotiating.

It is possible that President Trump may retaliate by renaming Kiev, Zelenskyy.

Step by Step, Inch by Inch, Zelenskyy and E.U. Leaders Escalate to Nuclear War

 I wasn't surprised by the news that Martial Law President Zelensky is finding more Ukrainian bodies to fling into the line of combat by returning expatriates and scraping the nation for 35,000 inductees each month. Russia has had somewhere fewer than 500,000 fatalities and Ukraine fewer than 200,000 fatalities in a pointless war that cannot be stopped unless Ukraine recognizes Russian sovereignty over select portions of eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

Russia is battling to recover land lost at the end of the Cold War, when it was re-emerging from more than half a century of communist rule. Russia was completely defenseless at that time in history and uncertain even of how to organize a free-enterprise economy, when all property under Soviet rule had been owned by the state. Russia needed twenty years of peace to change its economic infrastructure and prepare an army able to recover land that was integral to historical Russia before the communists.

The West began methodically expanding NATO eastward at the end of the Cold War and became an obvious threat to the new Russia. At the present stage of this protracted war in Ukraine—sponsored by the West and largely by Europe now—the conditions to end the war remain much the same as they have been since it started in 2022. Ukrainian President Zelensky has only sought ways to recover all of the land lost to Russian military advances, and European countries have provided a huge element of support, actually seeming to insist that the war continue until the last Ukrainian has been sent to the front.

Zelenskyy recently mentioned Russia's developing starlink like system as something that needs to be destroyed. He probably is likely to seek anti-satellite capabilities and create a precedent for global attacks on satellites- and that could be devastating for the economies of developed nations.

Recently, what may be the final mass mobilization of Ukrainian men available for combat has started, though the return of expatriates from European nations isn't quick. Perhaps more than 300,000 will become available in the next year. Russia may also require a mass mobilization commensurate with total war in order to survive the Ukrainian troop increase. The logic of the war remains the same, though.

Europe hopes to win a war of attrition and sanctions against Russia—a completely useless program that is creating limitless suffering for the casualties and their families, as well as costing the lives of the dead. Russia cannot really afford to just quit the war—it would never voluntarily vacate the hard-fought territorial gains—and that vacuum would be filled by European-backed Ukrainians and NATO membership too, presenting an existential threat to Russia.

Unfortunately, Europe plans to mentor Ukraine on how to build missiles for air defense that will replace the American-sourced Patriot missiles it no longer receives. Ukraine is also building its own ballistic missiles. A Zelensky without any rational option beyond total war to recover the lost land, given ballistic missiles to attack Russia, will attack Russia. That can escalate into nuclear exchange fairly swiftly. European leadership seems as irrational as Mr. Zelensky on the subject of the war.

The parameters for finding reasons to counterattack that might win are based upon some sort of status quo in war parameters continuing into the future while new plans are being implemented. When the time arrives for the new personnel or weapons systems to finally appear, the nature of the conflict often has already changed. That is why the calculus of the Ukraine war—with its increasing and high number of casualties—is rather tragic. The final situation, short of nuclear devastation, is likely to be the same as it was several hundred thousand fatalities and a million casualties earlier.

If Europe did somewhow begin winning a war of attrition and Ukraine was attacking RUssian cities with profusion of missiles it is probable the war would be upgraded to a nuclear level with Europe finding it difficult not to participate. With an end to the war and Russia finally accepted along with eastern Ukraine as part of Russia by Europe, the situation would return to normal peaceful life with little changed from the way it was before the war.

Summary by Gemini-"While Ukraine cannot currently build Patriot interceptors from scratch due to technical complexity, it is developing domestic, dual-purpose "Patriot-like" systems capable of both air defense and offense. These new Ukrainian systems are designed to operate in a ground-launched, "fire and forget" mode to act as both air-defense and, with different hardware/ammo, potentially as offensive surface-to-surface missiles. 

Key developments regarding this capability include:

• Dual-Purpose Development: Ukraine is developing mobile air defense systems, such as HMMWV-based launchers, that can use R-73 air-to-air missiles, providing high maneuverability and allowing the system to engage targets and immediately relocate.
• Alternative Systems: As of early 2026, Ukrainian defense firms like Fire Point are developing low-cost, domestically produced alternatives to the Patriot system, including new ballistic missile models.
• Sapsan Operational-Tactical Missile: Reports indicate Ukraine has begun serial production and deployment of the "Sapsan" (or Grim-2) system, a domestic ballistic missile capable of targeting long-range ground targets.
• Patriot Limitations: While Ukraine has received advanced Patriot PAC-2 GEM-T missiles, these are specialized for interception rather than offensive ground-to-ground use.
• German Partnership: Germany is establishing production lines for Patriot missiles that will support Ukraine's defense needs by late 2026 or early 2027, according to. 

Although "Patriot-like" in defense capability, the domestic systems being built are primarily new, independent designs rather than modified Patriot interceptors."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYP1OBZfFK0