Rina Lu🇷🇺 Profile picture
May 17 23 tweets 5 min read Read on X
If you still think the war in Ukraine wasn’t premeditated - read this: a U.S. blueprint to drag Russia into a costly war, published by RAND Corporation in April 2019.

RAND isn’t a blog or a fringe group, it’s an official, state-funded think tank that advises the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, and NATO.
It designs wars, regime change and psychological warfare. RAND turns U.S. power into global control.

Let’s unpack 🧵👇

What the document says (verbatim):

“The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose… Rather, they are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, causing Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage.”

Translation: how to push Russia into costly traps.Image
1. Fueling war in Ukraine:

“Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability.”

Translation: Arm Ukraine to provoke a Russian military response - and trap Moscow in a costly, prolonged conflict.
2. Economic warfare:

“Increasing sanctions and expanding U.S. energy production could harm Russia’s economy.”

Translation: Strangle Russia’s economy through sanctions while flooding the global market with American oil and gas to undercut Russian exports.
3. Destabilizing from within:

“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”
“Diminishing Russian influence in Syria could undermine its foreign policy goals and prestige.”

Translation: Use protests, dissent, and foreign policy setbacks to weaken the Russian government from the inside out.
4. Cutting Russia off from Europe:

“Reducing Russian gas exports by encouraging European energy diversification would hurt the Russian economy.”

Translation: Convince Europe to cut off Russian gas - crash one of Russia’s largest income streams.
5. Stretching Russia Thin in Syria

“Increasing support to Syrian rebels could jeopardize other U.S. policy priorities… but might raise costs for Russia.”

Translation: Arm and fund militants in Syria - make it harder and costlier for Russia to stabilize Assad’s government.
6. Promoting Domestic Unrest

“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”

Translation: Support opposition, NGO networks, online campaigns - and amplify every internal tension.
7. Disrupting Alliances (China, CSTO, etc.)

“Exploiting tensions in Russia’s relationships with its neighbors and allies could weaken its strategic position.”

Translation: Divide and conquer - peel away Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia.
8. Undermining Russian Prestige

“Diminishing Russia’s image as a great power could damage its influence abroad.”

Translation: Humiliate, ridicule, isolate.
9. Limiting Russia’s Influence in the Caucasus

“Providing aid to Georgia and encouraging its NATO membership aspirations would increase pressure on Russia’s southern flank.”

Translation: Use Georgia as bait - draw Russia into more tension in the Caucasus.
10. Naval Buildup in the Black Sea

“Increasing NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea would challenge Russia’s access and influence.”

Translation: Clog Russia’s strategic waterway - provoke military escalation.
11. Weaponizing Arms Control and Treaties

“Withdrawing from certain arms treaties could put pressure on Russian defense planning.”

Translation: Use the collapse of agreements like INF to restart arms races that drain Russia’s budget.
12. Exploiting Religious Divisions

Though not stated explicitly, the principle of internal fragmentation applies also to religion. The strategy’s logic clearly extends to:
🔸Backing the schism between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;
🔸Promoting alternative Orthodox structures loyal to Western narratives;
🔸Undermining the Church’s unifying role inside Russia.

Goal: Shake one of the deepest foundations of Russian identity and national cohesion.
13. Turning Central Asia Into a Battlefield of Influence

“Increasing U.S. and NATO presence in Central Asia may provoke Russian insecurity.”

Translation: Move into Russia’s historical backyard - stir competition and instability
14. Weaponizing Global Public Opinion

“Exposing corruption and authoritarianism in Russia may reduce its appeal as a model abroad.”

Translation: Conduct narrative warfare - brand Russia as a “pariah state.”
15. Youth Mobilization: Fueling Protest from Within

(from RAND’s general principle)
“Encouraging domestic protests or unrest could stress the Russian regime.”

Translation: Use internal dissatisfaction, especially among students and younger generations, to weaken state cohesion.
16. Undermining Electoral Legitimacy

“Reducing confidence in the legitimacy of elections or political processes could increase political instability and divert resources from external ambitions.”
(paraphrased from RAND’s operational goals in the full report)

Translation: If people stop believing in elections, the system collapses from within.
17. Brain drain: Targeting Russia’s skilled youth

“Encouraging the emigration from Russia of skilled labor and well-educated youth has few costs or risks and could help the United States and other receiving countries and hurt Russia,”

Translation: Lure Russia’s brightest minds: scientists, engineers, students - to leave the country, weakening its long-term development.
19. Undermining trust in Russian elections

“Diminishing faith in the Russian electoral system would be difficult because of state control over most media sources. Doing so could increase discontent with the regime.”

Translation: Shaking public trust in Russian elections could destabilize the regime, but it’s risky - it might push Russia to crack down internally or strike outward.
20. Attacking regime legitimacy through corruption narratives

“Creating the perception that the regime is not pursuing the public interest”

Translation: Expose and amplify stories of corruption to make the public believe the government serves itself, not the people, and undermine the state’s moral authority.
21. Strategic intimidation through bomber deployment

“Reposturing bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets.”

Translation: Move U.S. bombers closer to Russian borders to rattle Moscow and trigger fear - without crossing the line into open confrontation.
22. Escalating military pressure: Fighters, nukes, and missile defense

“Reposturing fighters so that they are closer to their targets than bomber.”

“Deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia.”

“Repositioning U.S. and allied ballistic missile defense systems to better engage Russian ballistic missiles would also alarm Moscow.”

Translation: Aggressively shifting U.S. and NATO forces, especially tactical fighters, nuclear weapons, and missile shields, closer to Russia could raise panic in Moscow and trigger costly countermeasures, but carries serious risks of escalation.
Conclusion (again, from RAND itself):

“The greatest return on U.S. investments may come from nonviolent measures and information campaigns.”

This isn’t a theory but a published U.S. strategy.
The Ukraine war? Planned. Funded. Executed - as written.

📖 rand.org/pubs/research_…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rina Lu🇷🇺

Rina Lu🇷🇺 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rinalu_

May 19
I seriously can’t with these Americans (or other English-speaking influencers) who’ve never opened a history book, yet run around screaming about “60 million Christians killed by the USSR/the Bolsheviks”.

Meanwhile, you Christians spilled more Christian blood than any atheist regime ever could - and somehow you’re completely unaware of it. That’s what makes these claims so jaw-droppingly stupid to anyone even mildly educated.

Let’s take a little tour through your “Christian love”:

The Crusades (1096–1291): launched by the Pope, ended in oceans of blood - not just Muslims, but Eastern Orthodox Christians were slaughtered in the Fourth Crusade when Catholics sacked Constantinople.
The Albigensian Crusade (13th century): entire towns in southern France annihilated - tens of thousands murdered by Papal armies for being the “wrong kind” of Christians.
The Inquisitions (Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc.): centuries of torture, forced confessions, and burnings at the stake - targeting everyone.
Read 20 tweets
May 14
The Hidden War: How the West Funded Japan to Break the Russian Empire

Most people see the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) as a distant clash between two empires. Japan on the rise, Russia in decline. Simple enough, right?
Not quite.

Behind the scenes, Western elites: bankers, politicians, ideologues - weren’t just watching. They were investing.

They supported both the outside attack and the internal revolt. All with one goal: take Russia down.

Back then, Russia had just completed the Trans-Siberian Railway which was a massive infrastructure project linking Europe to the Pacific. Think Nord Stream, but for land. Suddenly, Russia had a direct line to China, Korea, and Asian markets, and it didn’t need British or American naval routes anymore.

🔸 This scared the hell out of the West.
🔸 A self-reliant, land-connected Russian superpower? No thanks.
🔸 So they moved to stop it: financially, politically, and ideologically.Image
Enter Jacob Schiff.

A powerful banker from New York’s Kuhn, Loeb & Co., Schiff didn’t just support Japan but he bankrolled them.

He openly gave Japan (which, btw, had invaded Russia) loans totaling what would now be over $200 million, letting them arm up and hold their own against the Russian Empire.
His public reason? Russia’s persecution of Jews.
But that was just one piece of the puzzle.

🔸 Real motive? Cripple Russia’s reach into Asia.
🔸 Keep them boxed into Europe.
🔸 Stop them from becoming a serious global player.

📖: Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. XVI, p. 431
archive.org/details/dictio…
And Schiff didn’t stop there.

Not only Schiff help Japan win a war, but he also helped lay the groundwork for tearing the Russian Empire apart from within.

While Japan attacked Russia’s military from the outside, Schiff quietly funded the internal rot. During the Russo-Japanese War, over 50,000 Russian soldiers were taken prisoner and held in Japanese camps. Schiff saw an opportunity - and he used it.

He worked through the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom, an Anglo-American group committed to spreading anti-Tsarist revolution. According to a public speech by George Kennan, a leading authority on Russian affairs, Schiff financed a large-scale propaganda campaign targeting those captured Russian soldiers.

“A movement by the Society of the Friends of Russian Freedom, financed by Jacob H. Schiff, had at the time of the Russo-Japanese War spread among 50,000 Russian officers and men in Japanese prison camps the gospel of the Russian revolutionists.”

— New York Times, March 24, 1917
timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1…

The goal? To radicalize the Tsar’s own army.
And it worked.

As Kennan noted in that same speech:

“We know how the army helped the Duma in the bloodless revolution that made the new Russia last week.”

It was ideological warfare, coordinated across borders. Schiff’s money funded the leaflets, the messaging, the networks and ultimately, the mindset shift inside Russia’s own military ranks.

Schiff also funded revolutionaries: the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), pushed from within.

🔸 Mensheviks were organizing strikes and demanding an end to autocracy.
🔸 SRs were rallying peasants and calling for land redistribution.
🔸 Schiff was the money behind the chaos.

If this all sounds familiar, it should.

🔸 In many ways, Schiff was the George Soros of his era, a financier with global influence, channeling money across borders to shape revolutions, back proxy wars, and push regime change in the name of “freedom.”

The same formula, a century earlier.
Read 6 tweets
May 13
What Really Caused World War I? The Battle of Banks, Railways, and Empires

At the start of the 20th century, the world became multipolar, for the first time in modern history, three distinct financial and economic systems were competing on the global stage.

Each had its own ideology, banks, currency, industrial logic, and foreign policy ambitions.

1. The Anglo-American System

Capitalist, banking-based, global in reach

🔸 Power centers: London and New York
🔸 Based on private banks, the stock market, free trade, and capital expansion (colonies, offshore banking, loans)
🔸 Key institutions: Bank of England, U.S. Federal Reserve (est. 1913), London Stock Exchange
🔸 Main goal: global control through debt, investment, and monopolies
🔸 Backed by major financial families: Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers

2. The German System

National-industrial, corporatist, tech-driven

🔸 Power center: Berlin
🔸 Built on public-private partnerships, focused on heavy industry, infrastructure, and science
🔸 Banks like Deutsche Bank were tightly linked with industrial giants like Krupp and Siemens
🔸 Less financial speculation, more long-term funding of tech and military
🔸 Later copied in part by Japan

3. The Russian System

State-led, centrally controlled model

🔸 Power center: St. Petersburg / Moscow
🔸 In the early 1900s: Witte’s reforms, rapid railroad construction, and foreign capital brought under state control
🔸 Creation of a State Bank, national monopolies (like Prodamet, Prodvagon), and a system of concessions
🔸 Unique feature: a mix of tight top-down control with Western capital (especially from France and Belgium)Image
Here’s solid evidence that these three systems were in direct competition:

1. Germany vs Britain: The Baghdad Railway

🔸 Deutsche Bank financed a railway from Berlin to Baghdad through the Ottoman Empire: Britain and France’s backyard
🔸 Britain feared this would give Germany:
- Access to Mesopotamian oil
- A route to the Persian Gulf (threat to India)
- Economic and military power in the region

📖
🔸 The Berlin–Baghdad Express by Sean McMeekin
🔸 British Foreign Office archives (1903–1914)

2. Russia vs Germany: The Balkans and Southeastern Europe

🔸 Russia saw the Balkans as its natural sphere of influence
🔸 Germany backed Austria-Hungary’s 1908 annexation of Bosnia, sparking a diplomatic crisis with Russia
🔸 German banks started financing Balkan infrastructure (railways, ports), pushing out Russian interests

🔸 Russian Foreign Ministry Archives
🔸 Reports from the 1908 “Bosnian Crisis”
🔸 Memoirs of Alexander Izvolsky (Russian FM)

3. Britain vs Russia: Persia (Iran)

🔸 In 1907, Britain and Russia divided Persia into spheres of influence (north for Russia, south for Britain) to avoid direct conflict
🔸 Before that, they were in open competition for oil rights, trade routes, and military bases

📖
🔸 1907 Anglo-Russian Convention
🔸 India Office Records – British Library

4. France and Britain vs Russia, then alliance through loans

🔸 In the 1800s, France and Britain feared Russian expansion, especially in Asia.
🔸 Russia built a railroad that connected western and eastern Russia, strengthening its position in Asia.
🔸 But in the late 19th century, France became Russia’s biggest lender, trying to build an anti-German bloc
🔸 Britain joined the alliance in 1907, forming the Triple Entente to counter Germany and Austria-Hungary

📖
🔸 Russo-French loan archives (BNF)
🔸 British Cabinet papers (1904–1907)
The US: Rising quietly, plugged into Britain’s system

The US was still a financial baby compared to the European empires, not yet dominant, but gaining strength

🔸 It built its financial system in gold, just like Britain, and closely mirrored London’s global model
🔸 In 1913, it created the Federal Reserve, preparing for a larger international role
🔸 While Europe fought, the U.S. stayed on the sidelines, and by the end of the war, it held Europe’s debt
🔸 Before the war, the US was a debtor nation, but by the end of it, it had become the world’s largest creditor.

📖
🔸 U.S. Federal Reserve Act (1913)
Read 4 tweets
May 11
Poland: The Dream of an Empire “From Sea to Sea” and the Plan to Break Up Russia (1914–1921)

In the early 20th century, Poland was still chasing the dream of rebuilding its old “empire”, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, whose borders in the 16th–17th centuries stretched from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The idea of “Polska od morza do morza” (Poland from sea to sea) wasn’t just a poetic slogan; it was a real geopolitical goal, openly backed by Polish nationalists led by Jozef Pilsudski.

But this wasn’t just about regaining independence, it was about pushing eastward, hard. The plan involved taking control of lands that were historically part of ancient Rus’: places like Kiev, Volhynia, Podolia, Chernihiv, Minsk, and Smolensk. In Polish political thought, these regions were called temporarily lost Polish borderlands, even though they had long belonged to the Orthodox Russian world and were only under Polish or Lithuanian control for limited periods of time.Image
Poland’s goal wasn’t about national self-determination, it was about building a new colonial buffer zone under Polish control, carved out of the ruins of the Russian Empire.
Jozef Pilsudski, who would later become head of the Polish state, was the main architect behind this doctrine.

In his 1904 memorandum, addressed to the Japanese government, Pilsudski stressed the need to use various non-Russian ethnic groups in the fight against Russia across the Baltic, Black, and Caspian regions. He argued that Poland, thanks to its history and “love of freedom,” should take the lead in “liberating” the peoples oppressed by Russia.

This document makes it clear: long before the Bolsheviks came to power, the Polish elite already saw Russia as the main enemy and viewed its territory as something to be broken up and brought under Polish influence.

📖 Full text of the memorandum (in Polish) was later published in Pilsudski’s collected works:
Pilsudski, Jozef. “Memorial zlożony Ministerstwu Spraw Zagranicznych w Tokio”, in Pisma zbiorowe, vol. 2
pilsudski-pisma.online/Tom%202/249-me…
Poland’s Actions in 1914: Aiming to Undermine Russia

🔶 Aligning with Germany and Austria-Hungary
During World War I, Jozef Pilsudski sided with the Central Powers, not out of affinity, but because it provided an opportunity to strike against Russia.

🔶 Formation of the Polish Legions
Piłsudski established the Polish Legions, which entered Russian-controlled territory, aiming to incite an uprising in the Kingdom of Poland.

🔶 Establishment of the Polish Military Organisation (POW)
Founded by Pilsudski in August 1914, the POW conducted intelligence, sabotage, and propaganda operations within the Russian Empire. Its goal was to undermine Russian authority and prepare for uprisings among non-Russian populations.

🔶 Support for Nationalist Movements: Poland actively supported governments-in-exile and nationalist organizations in regions like Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, aiming to create buffer states between itself and Russia.

These actions were part of a broader strategy to dismantle Russian influence and expand Polish sovereignty in Eastern Europe.

📖 wystawy.pilsudski.org/exhibits/show/…Image
Read 9 tweets
May 11
When the U.S. Realized It Was Losing the Brain War to the USSR

Back in 1959, a group of Americans visited the USSR and when they came back, they realized the real threat to the US wasn’t missiles.

It was Soviet education.

No joke, that’s a quote from Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, who literally said:

“The real and present danger to the United States is the Soviet high school.”

There was even a full NATO report written in 1959 just about Soviet education.

And right after that, the U.S. rushed to improve its own school system.

Let’s unpack 🧵👇
After WWII, the Soviet Union was recovering fast. By 1957, they had launched the first artificial satellite - Sputnik.

While it was flying through space, the West started paying close attention.
NATO, led by the U.S., became increasingly curious and nervous about how the USSR was advancing so quickly and achieving such impressive progress.

Soon, “journalists,” “scientists,” and “researchers” began showing up in the Soviet Union, many of them quietly trying to understand what exactly was fueling this unexpected momentum.

As a result, in 1959, NATO compiled a classified analytical report on education in the USSR.
In May of that year, Dr. C.R.S. Manders prepared a report for NATO’s Science Committee titled
“Scientific and Technical Education and Manpower Resources in the USSR.”

The report covered the entire Soviet education system, starting from kindergarten all the way to universities and research institutes.
It detailed how talent was identified and developed early on, with a clear focus on math, science, and discipline at every level.

Excerpts from the document

Introduction:

“Just 40 years ago, the USSR faced famine, illiteracy, and a shortage of skilled workers.
Today, it challenges the U.S. for global leadership a transformation unmatched in modern history.”

II. Factors Behind the Rapid Growth of Soviet Education

“Many elements drove the USSR’s educational progress, especially in science and technology.
Though focused on technical fields, much of this also applies to broader intellectual development.
Soviet methods often differed from those in the West, and those differences are noted here.”

📖archive.org/details/soviet…
General Observations

“The Soviet child receives more hours of instruction per year than his American counterpart, particularly in mathematics, science, and foreign languages.”

“The seriousness of purpose, discipline, and academic rigor were deeply impressive at all levels of the Soviet educational system.”

“The seriousness of purpose, discipline, and academic rigor were deeply impressive…”

IV: Soviet Educational Goals and Structure

“There is a clearly defined national purpose behind Soviet education: to produce the trained manpower necessary for national goals.”

Teaching is well-paid and respected.

“The USSR had a 7% annual net growth in trained professionals, double that of the U.S. or U.K.”

“A large proportion of trained personnel return to teaching.”

VI: Scientific and Technical Training

“The USSR prepares more engineers and scientists than the United States and with greater emphasis on depth of training.”
Read 4 tweets
May 11
Russia Before the Revolution: A Strong Nation Betrayed from Within and Undermined from Abroad

By the early 1900s, Russia wasn’t some backward empire, it was a country on the rise. The ruble was backed by gold, the economy was growing fast, factories were popping up, cities were expanding, and railroads were stretching across the map. Russia was exporting grain, oil, metals, you name it. It was already one of the top five economies in the world and had a real shot at becoming a major power in Eurasia.

And yet, in 1917, everything collapsed. Why? 🧵👇
Not a “prison of nations,” not “Asiatic backwardness”, but a country torn by internal contradictions, and feared by powers that didn’t want Russia to grow beyond what they could control. In this post, however, we’ll focus on the internal issues.

Yes, Imperial Russia had problems - just like any fast-modernizing nation. But it wasn’t collapse or savagery, as simplistic Western narratives suggest. The problem wasn’t the people or even the Tsar himself, it was an elite that feared losing power but refused to think about the future of the country.

At the root: the legacy of serfdom

The system of serfdom, formalized under Peter the Great and entrenched throughout the 18th century, tied peasants to the land and to their landlords for generations.

Even the “enlightened” Catherine the Great refused to abolish it, fearing backlash from the nobility.

It basically turned millions of people into permanent dependents, stuck in place with no way up. Systems like this existed elsewhere: the U.S. didn’t abolish slavery until 1865, and feudal structures lingered in parts of Europe too.

For the elites, that system was gold: they got free labor, total control, and a built-in social hierarchy where they ruled as mini-kings. Serfs paid taxes, worked the land, and could even be sold while their owners lived off the profits without any real responsibility.
That kind of setup split society in two and planted the seeds for future revolt.
Only in 1861 did Tsar Alexander II take decisive action and abolish serfdom. But even then, the elite ensured that:

🔶 peasants had to buy their land at inflated prices
🔶 the commune system and taxes kept them dependent
🔶 and the best land remained in the hands of the nobility

The nobility sabotaged the reform, not wanting to lose control over the village, the source of their wealth.

Modern parallels: barons then, BlackRock and Pfizer now

Today, Americans are “free citizens,” but chained to debt, mortgages, student loans, and $50,000 medical bills.

Back then it was the landlord.
Today it’s BlackRock and Pfizer.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(