For a Kinder, Gentler Society
Naked Goals of Ukraine Aggression
The main point of this graph is that by the year of 2030, the beginning of a prolonged decline in energy production is predicted. This graph is from the website of the US government's Energy Information Administration:
Voice of Sevastopol

                Found at with the note:

Initially published 22.06.2014 in Russian by VooDoo

Translator: Alice Seberry


 Various claims and messages keep coming from the South-East battle-front. Periodically folks veer from one extreme to the other — from "Putin has abandoned us all" to "we’ll do it all ourselves". In reality, if we look at certain fundamental issues, many pieces "click" into place. And it becomes clear that Russia can't just "flush away" the whole South-Eastern state of Novorossia or even the Slavyansk part. That would be the equivalent of losing at war for 30–50 years to come. I will take a try at piecing the puzzle together, convoluted as it all may be. Please excuse me in advance — just can't take it no more, the naggers and pessimists have gotten to me. Excuse me also for the lack of references— much of what I cite below has already appeared on this thread, but I have neither the desire nor the time to dig them all up.

The US public debt of $18.5 trillion is well-known and has been widely discussed. Besides that basic factor, there are various fundamental trends, one of which is that, sooner or later, the question of energy resources will stand out above all.


1. Bits of the puzzle

This is the actual power generated by different sources (blue area at the bottom - hydropower, grey area above it – coal, next layer up - gas and oil, and the uppermost - nuclear power), and the red line shows energy consumption in gigawatts. The whole table demonstrates a sort of prognosis for the period 2010-2100. Note that the green line curving upward stands for sources of energy generation that are anticipated to be developed to take the place of the traditional ones (currently, nuclear fusion energy with laser ignition).

The main point of this graph is that by the year of 2030, the beginning of a prolonged decline in energy production is predicted. This graph is from the website of the US government's Energy Information Administration:

For a long time this view was understood to be nothing but fear-mongering, just to squeeze out some money to fund scientific programs. But there is a significant point — the website itself is a solid source of authoritative information, for many purposes, including decision-making by politicians (decisions as to whom to fund, and how much).


yellow— water; blue – nuclear; red — renewable without water

Vertically — brown – gas; blue – coal; green — oil.


The purpose of the analysis is very simple — just to determine how realistic it is to think that the Power Industry can replace traditional technologies (burning gas, coal and oil) with alternatives — nuclear, hydro, solar, wind. The model takes the most optimistic scenario from the standpoint of consumption. This envisions minimal consumption due to a minimal increase in the global population, given the aging trend among the general population (whereby, in around 2045, the global population will peak and then begin to gradually decline due to aging).

If we conjecture that solar and wind power technologies will be developed at the same pace as other sectors of the power industry have done (like, for example, the exponential growth of nuclear energy in the 15 years following 1965), then by the year 2050 non-gas, oil and coal energy sectors will provide half the amount needed to keep the slowly dying, aged global population warm. That means that we’ll still need gas, coal and oil until at least 2050.

The recent (this May, if I’m not mistaken) interview with the German Energy Minister was most curious (I won’t give the citation for the same reason — no time to dig it up) in which an official of the German government finally admitted a fact long since recognized by all techies and physicists: 

Energy produced by solar and wind comes in bursts, it’s not constant. There may be sunshine, there may be a breeze— or there may not be. These types of energy resources require enormous batteries to store quantities of energy equal, for example, to the capacity needed to provide a day’s worth of electricity to a town/region/country while it’s generating, and then when the wind is dead calm or it’s raining, the battery will supply the consumers. The Minister's main point was that it will be 10–15 years before we solve the problem of how to manufacture such batteries. That means that solar and wind power stations cannot yet compete with conventional fuels. Except for those cases where, for a single-family home, a solar battery can be used — the size of an outhouse.


What does it all this have to do with Ukraine, Novorossia and the re-shaping of the world? Just look at the picture and try to imagine that all the US senators and congressmen are doing the same, Obama, Merkel, and whoever else all over the world. And it is not important how accurate the picture is — those people will be making decisions with this picture in mind. The decision is simple – it’s essential to grab the sources of oil, gas, coal immediately (before 2030), as well as the ways and means to transport them (specifically gas and oil pipelines). And the one who succeeds in taking possession of as much as possible is sure to become a leader and ride the tide of the energy crisis expected in 2030. That is just some 15–16 years off.

This is the engine that drives many of the games we see in the modern world. Take the shale revolution, for example. A pretty ambiguous phenomenon, actually. We have both optimistic prognoses and analyses and pessimistic ones. 

And such efforts continue to be made. The reason is pretty clear in the picture above: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If you do not have your own natural gas, production of shale gas, at today’s prices, becomes justified and profitable.

Then, we see hysterical efforts to create alternative energy sources such as nuclear fusion. The USA has already invested a couple billion bucks in laser ignition technology through the Livermore laboratory

which, after 20 years, has not managed to ignite anything, though it bounds from one success to the next along the endless path to success. 

But that’s not the end of the story. In the United States another alternative project is under way — Omega — at Rochester University. 

The problem is aggravated by the fact the $2-3 billion investment needed to keep the program going is not available; billions just melt away like snow in spring. So it becomes necessary to shift the burden of scientific research onto the shoulders of the Europeans, who since 2005 (for the first draft, and since 2008 for real) have been working on the Controlled Nuclear Laser Ignited Fusion program (with some American assistance). or 

France has a separate Nuclear Laser Ignited Fusion program of its own – Megajoule. 

Japan also has a Laser Fusion program, despite their problems with Fukushima 

France goes on building its alternative Nuclear Fusion reactor at full speed — on the basis of the old Soviet idea of containing the reaction within strong magnetic fields in a Tokamak complex [A tokamak is a device using a magnetic field to confine a plasma in the shape of a torus...-Wikipedia] 

Though now it is a large international project with participants including Europe, China, Russia, USA, India, Japan and Korea.

The fact that billions of dollars and euros are being invested in high science and Nuclear Fusion technology, despite the flood of financial crises, must clear away all illusions. The specter of declining energy production has struck politicians as quite a serious problem. It is taken as a signal to get moving. The one who secures sufficient energy resources by 2030 will be able to survive. All the rest will have to fight for resources, annihilating each other, or will quickly fall back quite literally into the era of burning wood and dung.

And here they come... the sly Ukrainians with their shale gas: 

It has long been said, you should never boast about your gas and oil, or you'll call a democracy down upon your head. They were warned but didn't hear; better to just thumb one’s nose at Moscow. 

And now let's read carefully how the Yuzivska shale gas field (southern Kharkov and northern Donetsk region) shows up in terms of statistics: 

— estimated deposits, 4 trillion m3

— planned production capacity (so far), 10 billion m3 a year

— planned investments in the development of the Yuzivska and Odessa (whoa!) gas fields in the 30 years to come – on the order of 50-70 billion dollars.

That’s assuming the price of gas in Europe remains the same – $400 for 100 m3. After a simple calculation we see that the bowels of the earth at Donetsk and Kharkov contain an estimated 4 x 400 bill= $1600 trillion.


Annual income at current prices may reach, at a minimum, 10 x 400 million = $4 billion.

Let me ask you, what might one do to Ukraine in order to get 1.5-2 trillion bucks? Anything one chooses, in the most perverted fashion. And this is the Yuzivska field only! 

Just about everything suddenly becomes clear, say, the composition of the governing board of the company that plans to help "Shell" produce gas: 

By the way, note that in that article, and above, the Odessa shale gas field is mentioned... And if we just cast a glance at the map of Ukrainian shale gas fields... 

Poltava region stands out, where test drilling has already begun.


A couple of trifling details might be added. 

1. Let's match a map of battle operations in the South-East against the map of the Yuzivska gas field 

Very curious indeed.

2. Let's recall that the tender for exploiting gas at the Yuzivska gas field was won by the British-Dutch company "Shell", which immediately expressed interest in drilling as soon as possible (first half of 2014) and gas production (already!) in 2015 (sure as hell – time is money!)—509982.html 

3. Let's recall a recent story about shale gas in the Donetsk region. Sorry for the reference, but in this case it’s suitable. In November–December 2013, housewives with pots and pans were protesting against shale gas drilling 

4. And, finally, let's look over the map of pipelines passing through Ukraine 

... and mentally try to match it against the Yuzivska field map. No great effort will be required to see that the Yuzivska gas field is very close to the "Soyuz" main pipeline and a relatively small sum of money would be required to connect the drilling area to the main and thence straight ahead — to Europe. Though "Gasprom" won’t much like it.

Read also:


“Naked Goals of Ukrainian genocide Part II"

The puzzle is how to redistribute the world according to gas (resources)

Let’s look at all the pieces. The battle is waged with one thing in mind – among others – and that is the energy crisis of 2030. It’s pretty simple: whoever can get his hands on where the resources are, wins. Whoever doesn’t make it, we’ll mourn him. So don’t expect a thing from the West. If they can bite off a chunk, they’ll take it, without regard for what is right or proper. That explains the steadfast position of the US and Europe, which appears a little inadequate but maybe it’s appropriate for those who are heading toward a global energy crisis – there’ll be no mercy for those who stand back; they’ll just be the first to die.


The development of shale gas exploitation in Ukraine has begun in two regions: in the Olesskiy part (shown in pink) near the Lyublinsk basin, and

the Yuzovskiy part (shown in red or orange) near the Dnieprovsk-Donetsk basin. The yellow marks the actual basins.


The volume of the reserves, according to various statistics:

•           Government geological services (2012) 7.0 trill cubic meters

•           International energy agencies (EU, US) 1.2 trill. cubic m.

•           Ukr. Min. for energy and coal production: 5.0 trill. cubic m.


The participation of Shell explains Europe’s position. Outwardly it seems that Europe is playing in tandem with the US to its own detriment, but that is not so. Shell is fundamentally a European company, and the main consumers of the potential shale gas are, too. They’re hoping to get gas from the Donbas for a price far lower than that of Gazprom. For that, a minimal investment is required – the transportation infrastructure is already in place. And that is why Europe will continue pushing this undying (and from the outside, absurd, although there is a certain logic to it) position on Ukraine. Since they’re always maneuvering to get gas the cheapest possible way, they hope to swallow up Ukraine in one piece. And when they pump the country dry, in 30-40 years, they’ll dump the skeleton in a landfill; anyone who wants it then, can have it. Now it’s a question of money. What’s cheaper? You can invest billions in laser fusion without any guarantees, or you can put the same amount into developing shale gas, especially given that it’s situated very close to the highway that’s already in place to deliver gas to one of the largest consumers – Europe.


A) The population. 

Despite all of Shell’s reassurances that it’s all safe, the first drilling in North Donestk gave off emissions that the local people weren’t pleased with at all. So now there’s a problem – one has to stave off any problems with the population. In the worst case, in the US, when the farmers who got $2–3 million off the companies that were extracting the shale gas and destroyed the water supply, it was very instructive. Or you can put the same amount into developing shale gas, especially given that it’s situated very close to the highway that’s already in place to deliver gas to one of the largest consumers – Europe. There are two answers to this question, two paths – good and bad. The “good” way would be to re-settle all those who are unhappy, to pay for their relocation and new homes. Let's try to estimate what that would cost.


Caption: We Want To Live!  Get Out of Ukraine!


How much is a house or two in the Donetsk region? Maybe 20,000 rub. The population in the northern part of Donetsk Province (which used to be an industrial powerhouse) is almost a million, the greatest part of them concentrated in the twin cities of Slavyansk-Kramatorsk. Let’s say the average family consists of 3 people; that gives us 330,000 families. So to relocate the whole population we’d need 330 x 20 grand, that is 6.6 million rub.


For the first stage of this development, investments in the region of 3–4 billion per year were planned . . . That is, in the first two years, there was no need to get a single drop of gas, just to apportion the money to the population, the moms, kids, oldies. . . . But does Europe need this? The bad way would be to make a deal with the Ukies (those who are already entrenched in Kiev) to prepare the terrain for gas production. And let them take care of it themselves, by shooting everybody, or interning them in camps…


The democratic Shell will turn a blind eye.  Similarly, those in Europe who are have an interest in gas will fail to notice any genocide. And a full-on genocide would be required for this plan. For this, the monetary costs of the bad course of action would be minimal. Say, half a million a day, 40 days for the entire wipe-out, and here with just 20 million your problem is solved. So the people of the Donbas region need have no illusions. They are all going to be swept out of the Yuzovsky gas field, or killed. I don’t think I’ll be far off if I suggest that modest sums have already been parceled out to all the interested parties, and the clean-up is already underway.


It’s no coincidence that Strelkov is always pointing out that the Ukies are shooting peaceful areas and cities… And Europe will studiedly avoid seeing the genocide, even if the Ukies douse Donbas with a layer of napalm. To extract shale gas you need to dissolve limestone using acid mixtures. In the U.S., this process has led to environmental problems (mainly the contamination of ground water).


B) Geology.

But at least the surface doesn’t collapse, because the local shale contains a lot of sand and clay, which the acids don’t dissolve. They hold up the surface after the gas is extracted. It’s quite another thing in the Donbass. There the rocks contain much more soft limestone. Few people probably realize that Karachun mountain is known locally as Chalk Mountain. It actually consists of chalk, and in the Slavyansk-Kramators'k region there are lots of chalk quarries. From the standpoint of gas extraction, a large proportion of soft chalk is a huge plus because it will dissolve faster, easier and in large quantities, releasing more gas. And so what happens at the surface? Right. It will collapse.


So we’re back to plan A. The people have to be out of there when the extraction begins. Otherwise, 3 million won’t get you out of even one lawsuit, and the costs will rise sharply to numbers that call into question the profitability of the project. So there’s no point looking for the slightest constructive position from Europe vis-à-vis the war in Donbas. The war is in Europe’s interest, in order to clear out the people.


C) The main pipeline.

For now the government of Ukraine is in control of it, and it’s full of gas from GP, but the question has already come up, judging by the extreme statements made by Yatsenuk. And the decision doesn’t seem to be going the way a lot of people think. The goal is to provide access to a growing volume of shale gas, as is expected in the Yuzovsky formation.  And then there is the problem - how to mix Gazprom's natural gas with lower quality shale gas. I suspect that after extraction the shale gas will not purified much - after the chalk is dissolved, it will look good compared to the American stuff. However, the composition and quality in terms of the energy value will be lower than Gazprom gas ... The pipeline will be under pressure, crowding out Gazprom, but not immediately (so as not to fill the markets and raise prices too much), but slowly, in step with the increasing production at Yuzov.


Gazprom won’t be able to prove anything in any court in Europe. In the near future Ukraine will be adopting laws that Europe and the U.S. are dictating to her, by means of which Gazprom will start to be crowded out of the main pipelines. A big part of the puzzle is to extend the conflict into the Kharkiv region, more precisely, its southern part. There will also be the same anti-terrorist results and goals, as in the Donbas – to expel and/or wipe out the local population.


That stands in the way of producing shale gas and could increase production costs. The same applies to the Poltava region — there, we may soon find terrorists among the civilian population, which will be all killed by the valorous Ukies during the third stage of the ATO. The fourth stage of the ATO will be in the Odessa region. But there Kolomoisky is already successfully at work. So many pieces fall into place with this puzzle – Nuland’s arrival right in Odessa (a drug trade hub and the sole major exit to the sea are also important, but oil and gas are no less important), part of Kolomoisky’s little businesses, as recently was revealed by the experts from the USA. (Oopsie!) Revised data on the Odessa field reserves increased so much that they move it into the category of major deposits, like Yuzovka.


In Odessa we’ll see the same problem with the population, including the fact of the soft limestone bedrock which will dissolve more or less completely when the gas is extracted, leaving the surface to cave in.  So part of the Odessa province will be in the hands of terrorists again and there’ll be a genocide…


So, dear friends, those who have lost all, and those who think Putin can save the world. I strongly suspect that Putin and the right people at Gazprom know everything that I outlined. And then some. And they know that Strelkov, Abver (the Abwehr?), Borodai, and those other nice people hold in their hands the key not only to wealth, but to the life of Gazprom, and to the welfare of the Russians.


And it is they who determine whether GP will remain in the European gas market over the next 5–30 years, or will slowly but surely be pushed out in the next 5 years due to Shell’s shale gas from Donbas. The losses this would create, you can evaluate for yourself. And such losses are not acceptable for Russia. And even the most lowly of accountants would agree that it is cheaper to provide 100 million in aid to the DNR than trying to squeeze our gas into the pipeline occupied by Shell, or try to enter the European market with gas that would be more expensive than Shell’s.


Or to rebuild a completely demolished Donbas.  So you see, Strelkov has not and will not [e?]… One thing we must keep in mind: this is a VERY delicate issue, and it means so much that for the sake of a half a trillion we can easily get into a regional war. And our damned partners will jump to that without the least hesitation. I’ve already suggested what’s at stake. Therefore it is necessary to work with very subtle methods.


However, the panic online about "Putin-has-flushed-it-all-away" is quite welcome – it creates the necessary background for the Ukies and our accursed partners.