In a refreshing break from the day-in and day-out coverage of Ferguson last week, the media picked up word of a new war.  Stretching from desert sands to corporate headquarters, a battlefield thousands of miles wide has seemingly unintentionally rocked the political atmosphere of the United States’ former adversary — Russia.

But Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, would tell you there’s more to dropping oil prices than a petty war of attrition between the American shale oil producers and OPEC. Before news had even broken of the cartel’s intention to remain at its current output of 30 million barrels of oil per day, Patrushev was recalling the downfall of the Soviet Union.

In the interview, edited by Russia Insider, the secretary accuses the American Central Intelligence Agency of colluding with the rulers of other oil producers, such as those in OPEC, to drive down the price of Russia’s biggest revenue producer. Identifying the USSR’s dependence on energy exports for a tremendous amount of their financial upkeep, the CIA sought to tip the basket in which the Soviets kept all of their eggs.

And it worked. By the mid-1980s, oil prices had fallen considerably, and the collapse of the socialist soon followed. Now, as OPEC and the United States lock horns in a struggle that has been defined in the media as one determining the fate of the shale oil revolution, politicians and oligarchs alike are preparing for the worst in Russia.

Indeed, the Washington Post is reporting that the former Soviets are set to head into recession next year for the first time since 2009.  Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has estimated lost oil revenues to range from $90 billion to $100 billion a year, while the sanctions set upon Russia by the U.S. and its European allies are only set to cost $40 billion.

Putin has spoken out on the issue, looking to boost public confidence in the economy by claiming his nation will survive waning oil revenues while accusing the West of engaging in economic warfare by way of manipulating the price of oil.

Even still, Putin’s domestic situation is dire. Russia’s currency, the Ruble, continues to tumble parallel to falling energy prices, and Forbes has noted that politicians in the Duma are now calling for an investigation into the lack of intervention by the Central Bank of Russia, showing little confidence in the current policy of letting the currency float freely on the market among further speculation. 

But Russia isn’t the only country that will suffer from falling oil prices: Venezuela, Iran, and to a small degree, even Saudi Arabia, will continue to lose out as a result of their prime revenue producer sinking. In an interview with NPR, Daniel Yergin, author of “The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World,” has claimed that Venezuela and Iran depend on oil prices to maintain order through the provision of employment and social services.

Essentially, high oil prices have propped up welfare regimes in these countries in the absence of a balanced economy. Without the cash to continue domestic programs, these nations will face financial ruin. Project Syndicate’s figures have indicated that Russia, Iran, and Venezuela will all find difficulty in maintaining their “populist programs” with oil prices as high as $80 a barrel — more than $10 greater than the price of Brent Crude at the time this column was written.

So who’s winning in this scenario? Some sources would have you believe that it’s Saudi Arabia, or even China. Reuters has discovered that a drop of 40 percent in permits issued for new oil wells in the U.S. occurred through the month of November as prices dropped, perhaps a signal that the shale oil boom has come to bust in the face of OPEC’s mounting pressure.

On the other hand, Market Watch believes that OPEC, specifically Saudi Arabia, has picked the wrong fight this time, reporting that U.S. producers have touted their ability to tolerate prices of $60 per barrel, while the Saudis begin feeling pain at just over $100 a barrel. Furthermore, the cost of production for some wells in North Dakota is as low as $29, meaning rig owners could stomach a price as low as $33 per barrel at a return rate of 10 percent.

While the Saudi cost of production remains at an average of $2 per barrel, as told by the Telegraph, their resilience will inevitably break should prices stay low. Without the revenue to support social welfare programs, the Kingdom’s coffers are sure to empty — and even if their finances can outlast shale producers willingness to accept low margins, or even losses, shale will come back if oil prices rise again and policymakers make a renewed push for energy independence.

The clear victor in today’s oil war is the average U.S. consumer. While not said to be the intended target of the conflict, Russia is indeed the first casualty on the battlefield. Whether unintentional, a revert to Cold War vulnerability exploitations, or punishment for supporting Assad in Syria and fueling turmoil in Ukraine, Putin now stares down the greatest threat to his nation since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In any case, it’s clear that this conflict is not a question of who will come out on top, but when.  The oil war was over before it began — the United States stands with nothing to lose and everything to gain, while countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, which have failed to diversify their revenues and market infrastructures, cannot stand to engage in a prolonged battle over barrels.

The cartels do not hold the reigns as they once did. The shale oil revolution and the American drive for energy independence have put us in a powerful position for the 21^st century. The world’s greatest hegemon is not set for decline; rather, it is on trajectory for its most dominant performance on the world stage yet, while its geopolitical adversaries experience economic shock.

To quote Thucydides, “The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must.”