Dear colleagues and friends — there are two key energy aspects in this detailed interview with Nataliia Lutsenko of Channel 24, an all-news TV channel from Kyiv: (1) Ukraine’s attritional war on Russia’s domestic oil sector and (2) whether Ukrainian long-range drone capacities will be called upon (viz., permitted by the USA) to accomplish what the new US policy of ending Russian oil exports seeks to accomplish through secondary tariffs. Elaborating:
(1) Domestic Russian oil refining capacities: I explained that, If Ukraine can sustain these new drone attacks at a faster rate than Russia can repair them, this will be a major blow to the supply of diesel fuel required by the Russian war economy, especially to war industries, railways (i.e., to locomotive fuel), for harvesting of crops this fall, and to supply the war front and occupied Ukraine. The last time this was tried on a large scale, roughly two years ago, Ukraine caused significant hardships to Russian refining, but ultimately it did not achieve sustained damage at a rate necessary to collapse Russia’s immense national refining capacity. However, as I pointed out to Nataliia, Ukraine’s drone production and sophistication is now greater, and chances of success therefore better. We should know in some weeks or perhaps a few months if Ukraine can now overwhelm Russia’s repair capacities.
Already, fuel prices have spiked in Russia, with Moscow deciding to insure refiners receive a special subsidy they would otherwise not get due to high prices they are charging for fuel, to address difficulties with the renewed drone war. (Russian Refiners Hit Rough Patch, Hope for State Support, E.I., 20August25, [paywall].)
(2) Russian oil export capacities: Why does Ukraine’s war on the Russian oil sector not include destruction of Russia’s three westward facing oil ports, the terminals it uses to export the overwhelming bulk of its oil exports? These are Ust-Luga and Primorsk in the Baltic, and Novorossiya on the Black Sea. Why has the oil export capacities of these ports essentially never been hit?
This Friday, Trump and Putin will talk in Alaska about the future of Ukraine. Why has Putin asked for this meeting?
The two have spoken repeatedly on the phone …. but, something changed. As I indicated in my previous post (here), Trump has turned from his preferred plan to end the war, to one of confrontation and coercion of Putin (what I have called “Plan B”), aiming to force him into halting his war of aggression and seriously discuss peace proposals.
It was an honor to speak with Natalia Lutsenko of Channel 24 TV in Kyiv, and the Ukrainian national audience on these heavy issues of war and peace. The video interview – about 34 minutes long – goes into some detail of my analysis of the balance of forces.
The thesis of this video analysis (above) is that the USA, in coordination with its allies, has prepared an unprecedented “Oil War,” as I term it, against the Russian Federation to force either an end to Putin’s war on Ukraine, or the ruin of Russia’s oil sector, the main foundation of its war economy.
It is difficult to consider this to be anything less than an oil war, not merely a new sanctions or tariffs policy. Its aims to “permanently” destroy Russia’s capacity to export oil, should Putin not relent, an objective that the American Secretary of the Interior has persistently lobbied for inside the Trump cabinet.
This oil war has been in preparation, together with allies of NATO, the EU, the Saudis and various OPEC states, for several months, as I explain in detail in the video. In particular, as I endeavor to explain, the objective market balances of the past two or more years — of abundant surplus production capacity being held offline by OPEC and OPEC+, which far exceeds the total seaborn exports of the Russian Federation, taken together with the preeminent position of the USA plus its ally, Saudi Arabia — means that this objective should be very taken seriously.
In my view, media and expert commentary have simply not seen the full sweep of what has been in preparation since perhaps January, and certainly since April.
The media and both geostrategic and oil-sector commentators have been too focused on week-by-week, or even daily perspectives, and fail to consider the Trump administration’s longer term, consistent policy objectives in which these events are situated.
For some perspective, we should recall clearly that Putin, for his part, has twice weaponized the oil or gas prowess of the Russian Federation attempting to impose energy-sector and thereby geostrategic defeats on the USA — and on its European Union/G7 and NATO, Saudis and various OPEC-member allies. Consider:
— First, there was the oil price war of March 2020 – overtly aimed to “destroy” USA shale and, with it, the capacity of the USA to sanction Russian oil and gas. (See my analyses during those events.)
— Second, there was the weaponization of Europe’s over-dependence on Russian gas-pipeline exports in parallel to Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This energy war aimed to force Ukraine’s European allies to abandon their solidarity with Ukraine under threat of severe energy shortages and high prices aimed at ruining the European economy. (See my many analyses during those events.)
Both these Russian-initiated energy wars, one in 2020 using oil, the other in 2022 using gas, failed. However, the consequences of the gas war persist in Europe and are still a major contributing factor in its de-industrialization and uncompetitiveness – indeed, the EU victory of 2022 over the Russian gas war may yet prove to be pyrrhic if Europe doesn’t drastically reform its energy policies in a coherent, scientific manner.
So, it is not so surprising that the USA should now lead a counter onslaught, an “oil war” against Russia with the geostrategic goal of forcing Putin to make an acceptable deal to end the Ukraine war.
Should Putin not relent to Trump’s demands to end the war, this USA-led oil-sector policy could, in my estimation (see the video), severely restrict the capacity of the Russian Federation to produce and export oil, and to continue its historical role as one of the three biggest players in the global oil market. This in turn, would ruin the Russian economy and capacity to maintain the current war production.
Putin’s pre-2022 European gas-market dominance (e.g., 40% of all imports were from Russia, and Gazprom owned much of European gas infrastructure) meant that he could weaponize this position to launch a second, energy front against Europe in support of his February 2022 full-scale military invasion of Ukraine.
Many have spoken of USA “energy dominance.” The economic benefits for the USA from the oil and gas fracking revolution have been seen. And, oil remains the world’s most geostrategic resource.
This reality should be taken as seriously, not simply as a trope. As I endeavor to explain in the video, the current particulars of the global oil market (the tech, finance,, resource base, production and spare capacities, and security arrangements of the market-centered, one “global barrel” energy security system, mean that, If the Trump administration and Congress proceed as threatened, the Russian oil sector will face an existential threat to its continuation.
Appendix: Some comments I made on LnkedIn on related issues.
Some argue that the recent EU lowering of the Russian oil price cap is a “big deal.” However, it is not. Here I explain/argue that “the Russian oil-price cap is all a waste of effort.” and that “a devastating, fundamental shift in approach has been prepared.” To wit:
The cap hasn’t failed because it is too high. It is a fundamentally ineffective policy. Russia’s shadow fleet is effective as a backdoor to evade the cap, exactly as most people in the oil sector – including me – predicated it would.
Russian oil has to be simply taken offline and this enforced via harsh secondary sanctions and/or tariffs. This *should* begin within a week, led by the USA.
There has long been plenty of withheld spare supply in OPEC, OPEC+, USA and elsewhere. It was a fundamental fallacy in 2022 that Russian oil needed to be kept online for market stability, and this fallacy/timidness led to the USA’s “novel” price cap fiasco.
Only “bone crushing” [Senators Graham (R, SC) & Blumenthal (D, Conn)] oil and gas sanctions can REALLY undermine Russia’s war mchine.
This has been Trump’s, his cabinet’s and Congress’ Plan B since January for Putin.
I would argue the Saudis et al (Gulf Opec) have been prepping/shaping the global oil market since then for the possibility of an epic, anti-Russian US-led oil-sanctions war.
(I suggest looking at how easily the Saudis crushed Putin-Sechin’s oil-price war of March 2020, at GlobalBarrel(dot)com)
NOTE Secretary of Interior Burgum has long advocated “destruction” of Russia’s oil sector, Energy Secretary C. Wright speaks positively of scenarios wherein Russian oil exports are replaced by others, including the USA.
We’ll know very shortly if Trump sticks to this Plan B for the war in Ukraine.
A huge confrontation will result. Russia may retaliate, somehow, in desperation. Infrastructure (Baltic? Atlantic?) and cyber attacks? Battlefield escalations, etc.? Spreading the war? What will China do? Will Putin consider a real “deal”?
Trump will again offer Putin, undoubtedly, at some point, inducements to end the war and move away from China towards Western investments, such as a return to oil & gas markets, etc.
The Trumpian “grand strategy” is to pull Russia away from China, isolating China but, if not possible, then devastate it’s ally, Russia.
This might fail, deepening their alliance. A devestating failure is if a greatly weakened Russia allowed China, which has 1/3 of global manufacturing, to arm Russia as it’s “cats paw.” Xi speaks tough till now on all this, rhetorically backing Russia vs. USA oil & gas sanctions & tariffs.
I should add that Ukraine has long been capable of smashing the oil-export infrastructure of Russia’s three big west-facing oil ports. Perhaps it will soon be allowed to do so?
Appendix: Some comments I make on the recent USA-EU tariffs deal (also form LinkedIn):
A key, analytically, is to see that Trump’s numbers should (obviously?) be taken qualitatively, not quantitatively. This implies, then, one should also take them, seriously.
The qualitative aspect here is that Trump has now gotten his ‘ducks’ (I.e., European NATO, EU trade and especially energy, and similarly Japan – “all in a row. This now allows him to transition to his “Plan B” vs. Putin -which will entail a severe energy shock to Russian oil & gas exports, and require an as-smooth-as-possible global oil-market reworking…. while maximally squeezing India & China. Von der Leyen et al are in on all this.
One should take as ominous his immediately cutting Putin’s days before the Western energy sanctions onslaught begins.
This required getting the NATO meeting and the EU & Japan deals done.
PS There is also a sig. Mideast angle here, re. presumed Trump/USA coordination with the Saudis/Gulf on OPEC/OPEC+ pre-shaping of the oil market for the oil-confrontation vs Russia.
I misspoke on EU agriculture. It’s not that the EU is “famous” for “tariffs” protecting its ag against imports, what it’s actually “famous” for are subsidies for its agriculture, which Trump has targeted as unfair. (Note: the EU’s higher farm subsidies are seen to be a significant factor in lower average EU vs. USA agriculture productivity growth since the early 1990s. See USDA here, esp. from p. 33 .)
I predicted a general settlement will be found before 1 August, and the EU will hold off on retaliatory tariffs to focus on negotiations.
MY COMMENTS: 1) USA long-planned surprise strategy 2) Iran leaders’ 20-year nukes brinkmanship strategy aimed for USA ssecurity-guarantee deal
ALL GUESTS – TRT-London, USA bombing
I was invited on TRT-World, London, 24 June, for a panel after US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites (see the panelist lineup below. I answered two questions at some length – see the 2nd video.)
In summary: Trump claims USA Operation Midnight Hammer “obliterated” the country’s nuclear capacity, but how much have they really been degraded?
My analysis is that it does not matter. If the USA decides to bomb again at will, without Iran having air defenses the USA and Israel can destroy or disrupt most any renewed Iranian work on its nuclear or conventional missile program. If, as he stated, repeat bombings as needed are Trump’s intention, then this should be the case. This now leaves Iran very little negotiating leverage. The regional proxies it always intended to use for retaliation in just such a scenario have been decimated by Israel.
Therefore, there is a high likelihood Iran will be forced by Trump to negotiate from a now much weaker position. If Tehran resists, it could fall back to rely on state-sponsored terrorist methods, which are of limited usefulness for maintaining a modern functioning state and economy.
Overall, I emphasize that this “12 Day War” has been especially motivated, by Trump, to assure USA Gulf allies that they can now safely enter into the Abraham Accords with Israel and the USA, establishing a new regional security structure. Trump will be constrained to do whatever is necessary, militarily and in negotiations, to insure the Iranian threat these allies have felt acutely remains under control. In turn, if these accords, which Trump’s chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, was reportedly already working on among the USA’s Gulf Arab allies immediately after the USA bombing is intended to allow the USA to move on, focusing more squarely on Great Power competition elsewhere.
This is my general assessment. There are many details and some possible derailments here, of course. – Tom O’D.
The ceasefire Trump brokered will hopefully end this “12-Day War.” I want to discuss here why this war did not trigger a global energy crisis. [Here’s what I said about this to Al Jazeera last week, in the last five paragraphs. A PDF is also embedded below. I’ll also post a TRT-London show on Iran’s nuclear strategy, recorded Tuesday, soon.]
To assess the risk to energy supplies, understanding the aims of the combatants is key. Throughout this war, it was the USA-Israel side setting the agenda, and there were two strategic aims they could pursue. One was to “only” destroy Iran’s nuclear program and its existing conventional regional power-projection capacities. The second was to go beyond this to undermine the viability of the Islamic Republic, up to forcing a regime change. Why do I say this?
My comments are linked here:: -1- 02:21, -2- 06:52 -3- 14:30 -4- 20:50, but hear Aura & Oktay too!
I was happy to address Türkiye’s push to become a gas hub: both for its own domestic security of supply, and to become an indispensable supplier to the European market. I was on with esteemed gas-sector analysts Aura Sabadus and Oktay TanriseverI, and host Yusuf Erim. TRT is a state-supported Turkish national broadcaster. The Turkish, East Med, Central Asian, Caspian regions involved are fairly complex, and I will simply let the interview speak for itself. Turkey is making progress but needs to end market-price setting, as Aura Sabadus stressed – and I agreed, as well as further diversification of supplies. I stressed the self-destructive EU lack of interest in long-term new pipeline gas from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan it could indeed contract for, which would all transit Turkey.
You will see (my 3rd answer) that I raised again my view that Europe will become ever more deeply in need (i.e., dependent) on natural gas imports, but is acting rather “schizophrenic” about this. Brussels et al seems not to be willing to face this reality. Natural gas importance and its geostrategic nature will only increase due, perhaps counter-intuitively, to EU over-dependence on renewables. But, where is the urgency, then, to sign long-term pipeline-gas contracts from neighboring states via a developing Turkish gas-sales hub? Such supplies would generally be cheaper than LNG imports, especially if the LNG is purchased on short-term spot markets. Indeed, even its main pipeline supplies now, from Norway, are reportedly mainly via short-term spot purchases (See Morten Frisch, Norwegian gas-sector veteran). I find this astonishing for both price and security of supply.
In the last two weeks, I was in Warsaw twice. First, for the Three Seas One Opportunity conference (3S1O) on 27 April, organized by the Opportunity Think Tank, where I co-chaired a session. This was an official side event of the Three Seas Summit (a ministerial conference). Second, for the Warsaw Security Forum’s Public Dialogue. (WSF) 7 May. I will soon post here about both these very interesting events.
However, I was asked by TVP, the Polish national broadcaster, to come to their Warsaw studios on 8 May, the day after the WSF, for a live-on-air commentary on the recent drama in the German Bundestag (parliament) where the new Chancellor, Fredrich Merz, embarrassingly failed to get the necessary votes on the first ballot. He finally succeeded on second ballot, after intense politicking and consultations within his party, the center-right CDU, in its Bavarian sister party, the CSU, and in his coalition-partner party, the center-left SPD.
So, first; I was asked to explain this surprising electoral fiasco for the new chancellor, Merz, and his party, and how it may have weakened his new government.
Secondly, Merz immediately, after being sworn in, undertook a one-day whirlwind trip to Paris and then Warsaw, to visit his prospective main partners in the European Union, President Macron of France and Prime Minister Tusk of Poland. (Continued ….)
El día de Pascua, 20.04, me entrevistaron en directo por radio, en muchas ciudades de Europa y del hemisferio occidental. On Easter Sunday, April 20, 2025, I was interviewed live in several cities of Europe and the Western Hemisphere.The interview was in Spanish. An English Google translation is below (RHS column). The topic was the negotiations of the Trump USA administration between Russia and Ukraine to end the war. Tom OD.)
Mi agradecimiento por la invitación de María Eugenia Plano, productora del programa radial Corresponsales en Línea, realizado por las corresponsales de los diarios Clarín y La Nación en París y Londres (María Laura Avignolo), París (Danielle Raymond), Madrid (Silvia Pisani), Berlin (Araceli Viceconte), Washington ( Paula Lugones) y San Pablo (Cristina Veiga) con la conducción de Silvia Naishtat (Editora de Economía de Clarín). en vivo y en directo para Radio Ciudad en Buenos Aires, los días domingos de 10 a 12 AM Hora Argentina. My thanks for the invitation from María Eugenia Plano, producer of the radio program Corresponsales en Línea, made by the correspondents of the newspapers Clarín and La Nación in Paris and London (María Laura Avignolo), Paris (Danielle Raymond), Madrid (Silvia Pisani), Berlin (Araceli Viceconte), Washington (Paula Lugones) and Sao Paulo (Cristina Veiga) hosted by Silvia Naishtat (Economics Editor of Clarín). live and direct for Radio Ciudad in Buenos Aires, Sundays from 10 to 12 AM Argentine time.
Above: Audio of my comments to (various) press on 22 April 25, on the impact of falling oil prices on Russia’s capacity to war on Ukraine. Also, a scenario I have discussed for over a year, first privately and then publicly, of how the USA could shut down the great majority of Russia’s seaborne oil exports, to devastating consequences for its oil sector and capacity to continue the war. In the present market situation of oversupply and anticipated continued weak demand, this could be done in a way that does not spike global oil prices.
This will only be done if Trump decides he needs to use harsh coercion to force Putin into an acceptable peace deal with Ukraine, AND if Trump were willing to impose lasting harm on the older Russian oil fields.
Xi Jinping has still not built China’s domestic market to escape its trade-war vulnerabilities from over-dependence on exports, a weakness he openly discussed back in February 2012 on his USA tour before becoming premier.
For the USA, Trump had apparently planned to have resolved the Ukraine war and in some way undermined the Russia-China alliance, inducing Russia to move closer to the USA before going after China. But, ending the war has proven far more difficult than he anticipated. His lack of success with Russia will weigh on his ability to negotiate from a position of strength with all the countries he is competing to win away from China’s geoeconomics orbit such as India, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Philippines, Thailand and etc. — the states that Treasury Secretary would say are in the “yellow zone” as opposed to the USA#s closest allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, in the so-called “green zone.” For details – see this post on my blog,
Here’s my interview and a written elaboration – in lieu of a transcript:
Trump’s “tariff shock” on everyone was intended mainly to force negotiations. Especially this is to insure no country:
Functions as a transit state for Chinese exports to get into the USA without paying crippling tariffs, or
Provides a Chinese-owned manufacturing site in their country with the same aim of accessing the USA market without crippling tariffs..
Trump’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Miran and Treasury Secretary Bessent have been fairly clear about this, if one listens in detail.
Trump Tariffs’ impact on Europe – Deindustrialization. German auto sector as an example.
While Trump and his circle militate against “deindustrialization” of the USA accomplished over the past few decades by the growth of Chinese manufacturing capacity and the export of these products into the USA market, Europe has an immediate problem, however, with the current advance of its “deindustrialization” or, as some more optimistically say, its new industrial “evolution”. [Some references from major German economic institutes on deindustrialization: IFO Institute, IW Institute, Kiel Institute, the latter of which has evolved a bit on this].
Taking the German auto industry as an example, it was already suffering from well known, chronic problems of Germany’s own making. These include two decades of low infrastructure investments, poor digitalization, high taxes, and being subjected to arbitrary government mandates to reduce diesel sales and increase battery electric vehicle production, and etc. ON top of this, German industry has also suffered high energy prices due to the countries exceptionally complex all-renewables energy transition model. On top of this came suddenly, from 2021, the Russian energy war, which denied Europe half of the cheap gas that European, and especially German industry was relying on to compensate for the high-cost of the all-renewables transition.
This energy war – and on the heels of the Covid shock – was devastating to German manufacturing and heavy industries, providing the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. In my assessment at the time, this was the point at which German industry’s problems of multi-faceted uncompetitiveness morphed into a form of deindustrialization,
Germany is in its third year of recession. However, this is not just a recession. Note that the VW, the German auto firm, for example, in September 2024, began mass layoffs for the first time in 87 years in September 2024. BASF is in a similar conundrum. In my view this is a systemic, secular problem over and above any present economic downturn.
So, the point of painting this detailed picture of the crisis of German automobile manufacturing, as an example, is that one can now really only imagine what a sharp knock-on effect Trump’s auto tariffs and his other tariffs might have on top of all this. This is devastating. Already the CEO of Mercedes has said if the tariffs continue he will move the production of the cheaper models to the USA. Already one of the largest exporters of cats from the USA is a German factory.
My response (critique) of Jeff Sacks‘ dollar-decline predictions
I was asked to listen to a clip from Asharq/Bloomberg’s earlier on-air interview with Nobel Prize economist, Jeffry Sachs, about his prediction that the US dollar would lose its reserve currency status in this decade and be replaced by regional currencies.
My take was that there was little new (or old) factual evidence of this, plus Trump’s tariff shock is not necessarily a long-term tactic. So, I commented that Sachs has had this theory for a long time, an it is nothing new. (I think it is fair to say he is quite sympathetic to China in various interviews, for some years now.) So, I simply said I was not surprised he says this, as he has for a long time.
However, I explained (with a bit more factual detail than Sachs, I hope) that indeed, even Trump’s theorist Miran and Bessent too agree that the tariffs strategy is designed to reduce the value of the dollar (its aims is precisely a weak dollar), and this should normally mean that the dollar loses its reserve currency status, its preferred use in the world, that these Trump theorists have a plan for a “Mar-a-Lago” or similar accord for states that are seen as being key, close allies, who would agree to peg their currencies to the dollar, and that they should be expected to agree as they need to trade into the USA market.. This is based on the observation that the USA market has a special status in the world. If this were to pass, they theorize that this would in fact preserve the special, preferred reserve status of the US dollar. Trump likes this as he has said that if this status is lost, then the destiny of the USA is to be a “third world” economy. **Continued at GlobalBarrel.com ….
Credit: Vėjo jėgainė | J. Stacevičiaus / LRT nuotr.
My gratitude to LRT.lt journalist Vaida Kalinkaitė-Matuliauskienė for this in-depth print interview. We spoke just after Baltic states had disconnected from the Russian-Belarus electrical grid, BRELL, and had connected with the European grid. This was a complex and costly project, executed rapidly and flawlessly. [My comment continue below, after the English (first link) and Lithuanian (second link) versions:]
The Baltic states’ impetus was obvious: a deep mistrust of Russia after its 2022 cutoff of half of all European gas imports intended to pressure EU states to abandon solidarity with Ukraine as Russia invaded it. So, switching to the European grid is a great relief. However, the dangers haven’t ended.
Last night, I was live on Al Jazeera’s evening news to give an “EU perspective” on Trump’s sweeping tariffs on the EU and have a bit of a debate with Hon. Robert Arlett, Sussex County Council, Delaware, USA – a MAGA supporter. I was happy to do so.
I think I made several decent points of criticism about how the entire premise for “retaliation” against the EU on trade was “made up” under an “arbitrary” formula that “makes no sense.” I allowed that, as is often the case with Trump, much of this, the “retaliatory” portion, might be a pressure tactic for some other, still-to-be-revealed concession Trump is aiming for from Europe.
Of course, this is the geo-economic side to Trump’s geostrategic undermining of a unified USA-EU approach to facing Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. (However exactly how that new geostrategic relationship with Europe and NATO might all fit into Trump’s larger, global security strategy is still mostly up in the air, a matter still taking shape.)
However, as for these massive tariffs on Europe and Asian allies, these are a systematic attempt to dismantle globalization as we have known it and instead to focus on the subordination of European and Asian allies to a system where hegemon is unwilling to pay certain costs of maintaining its allies within its system.
Trump envisions a system where the USA makes no sacrifices or pays no communal costs, but must profit at every step from each and every ally. Indeed, the USA has powerful tools afforded it from its geo-economic dominance, tools which Trump seeks to exploit to unilaterally shape international economic and geopolitical relations, while forcing its allies to pay for the privilege and advantages of belonging to the USA-hegemon-maintained system.
I felt greatly honored to speak in Ireland, the home of my ancestors, at a high-level Irish-Polish event, invited by the Polish embassy as part of Poland’s Presidency of the European Council. [Spoiler alert: my assessment of the Green Deal’s impact on EU energy security and competitiveness was highly critical. And, I called for a radical reform, modeled on the 1970-80’s French Messmer nuclear program, the response to a similarly dire European energy and competitiveness crisis.]
For Ireland we had Secretary General Oonagh Buckley and Wind Energy Ireland CEO Noel Cunniffee; for Poland, Daniel Piekarsky, Head of Energy Security Unit in the Foreign Ministry, and myself, Global Fellow of the Wilson Center, Washington (external) working in Europe, from Berlin.
Our moderator, from the Polish Embassy, Dublin, was the Polish diplomat and patriot, Dr. Jacek Rosa — a good friend, with whom I had the great pleasure of closely collaborating, for several years, in opposition to the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 gas-pipeline partnership, before the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Below is the lineup, the initial invitation and some pictures. The event was off-the-record, so I show here only my own, slightly redacted talk.
The Global Barrel 