My numbers were old, it’s significantly more now. I knew they’d been finding a lot of reserves there, especially off of the southern coast, but I didn’t know it was this much.


https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/UKR

For perspective, total natural gas consumption for all of Europe.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265406/natural-gas-consumption-in-the-eu-in-cubic-meters/

I know. The implication of the Russian deputy foreign minister's comments are that Western convoys of weapons for Ukraine are legitimate targets, therefore Russia would be right to attack them, even outside of Ukraine.

thats an assumption which i dont agree with. an attack on nato soil is an attack on nato.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 13 2022 12:04pm

Now the Ukrainians are denying the attack killed this many foreign fighters, calling it propaganda. But this flies in the face of the testimonies of two Brazilian fighters that were staying there : https://twitter.com/Caucasuswar/status/1503047769975627777

It's clearly not in the Ukrainian's interests to admit the number of casualties so as not to scare away foreigners from joining the cause

Nah, it was obvious inside Ukraine was intended. The warning is more about personnel who might be operating equipment or training fighters etc.
I think this strike is intended to demonstrate Russia will hunt down whoever is actively aiding the war effort inside Ukraine, regardless of whatever nations or organizations they might belong.

Not sure that was the implication, i don't think it was that explicit.

I don't know how that's obvious. Sure, maybe that's what he meant, but based on what he said, it's not clear. He could have easily said "when these convoys enter Ukrainian territory, they become legitimate targets". He did not. Perhaps the ambiguity was intended.

This post was edited by IceMage on Mar 13 2022 12:31pm

What do folks here think NATO should do if Russia struck targets of it, and killed personnel, inside Ukraine?
For example, some signals intel post or covert special forces or whatever?

An excellent piece, thanks for posting!


The area in which I disagree with his assessment is China. This conflict is strengthening, rather than damaging, them. They are the big beneficiary of this conflict in which the West and the Russians are slugging it out. It also dismisses the economic pain that these sanctions (and potentially the oil and gas embargo) will inflict on Western consumers and businesses. The author makes it sound as if the strong Western reaction to Russia's aggression were only a matter of mustering the necessary willpower.

Now, the New Yorker is clearly an upscale magazine catering to an upscale audience, its readership obviously doesn't give a rats ass if gas prices are 2, 5, 10 or even 15 dollars per gallon, so this lack of focus on the ramifications for working-class citizens is understandable and to be expected. It is part of a complex political calculus though. There's a real chance that Western politicians get punished at the ballot box for doing what is the right thing from a geopolitical perspective. And if that were to be the case, the Russians and in particular the Chinese will be watching with great interest and draw the corresponding conclusions.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 13 2022 01:58pm

That doesn't support your argument. If new, vast reserves of natural resources would have been found in Ukraine some time ago, it would explain the sudden interest of the Russians in keeping the country under their thumb, or the Western interest in making Ukraine Western-aligned. But that's not the case and Ukraine's fossil reserves pale in comparison to Russia's, particularly when accounting for population.

According to worldometers, Ukraine has 0.024% of the world's oil reserves and 0.6% of the natural gas reserves. Russia's share stands at 4.8% (oil) and 24.3% (natural gas).
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/gas-reserves-by-country/
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-reserves-by-country/