banner
Oct 25, 2021
0 Views
0 0

Will Russia survive the climatic war predicted by the CIA?

Will Russia survive the climatic war predicted by the CIA?

Photo: McPHOTO / M. Gann via www. imago / Global Look Press

No later than 2040, a series of military conflicts will begin in the world caused by climate change on the planet. Such a forecast is contained in the CIA report “Views of the Intelligence Community on Climate Change.”

It is about aggravating cross-border geopolitical hot spots, as states will defend their interests. The main subject of the dispute will be water resources. Geoengineering technologies are expected to amplify natural disasters such as floods and droughts. In particular, in the basins of the Nile, Indus, Mekong and Congo rivers.

In addition to the United States, the CIA names Russia, Australia, China, Britain and several European countries as leaders in the development of climate weapons. It is noted that at present there are no legally binding documents, international conventions that would regulate the creation and use of climate technologies used as weapons.

In addition, the CIA foresees tensions between countries over the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement. The focus is on the largest economies of India and China. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming is closely tied to the pace of economic development of a country – no one wants to be left behind.

The report names the countries for which the negative consequences of global climate change will have especially serious consequences. These are China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Afghanistan, Myanmar, some Central American states. The presence of 3-4 countries with nuclear weapons on this list makes the CIA forecast apocalyptic.

The gloomy predictions of US intelligence officials came amid rising greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 (noted in the Climate Transparency Report 2021) and just a week before the 12-day COP-26 global summit kicked off in Glasgow. Participants call it “the last chance” to coordinate the efforts of countries to combat climate warming.

“It’s all very fantastic. An attempt to artificially tie the “hype” agenda (climate change – Auth.) To military affairs, “said SP military expert Viktor Murakhovsky

However, back in 2009, the CIA think tank released a report on global trends until 2025, in which it predicted “the emergence of a highly contagious respiratory disease among people, against which adequate measures are not taken, could cause a global pandemic.” Russians are experiencing a lockdown caused by the coronavirus right now.

So maybe climate upheavals and wars are real too?

According to American political scientist, expert of the Center for Security Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Konstantin BlokhinThe CIA’s “horror stories” may be an attempt to influence the situation in the world.

“Believing CIA reports is like reading Nostradamus. Many of the American predictions, just as they did not come true during the Cold War, are not coming true now. For example, the RAND Corporation at one time set aside many years for the Soviet Union to create nuclear weapons, and Moscow announced the bomb just two weeks later. And this is the leading American think tank.

Many CIA forecasts are either written with a very strong alarmist spirit or are imbued with ideology. There are many examples of how the political authorities exerted pressure on the special services. Let’s remember the famous test tube of Colin Powell, which he publicly demonstrated at the UN. The establishment then demanded to justify the invasion of Iraq.

“SP”: Why does the CIA publish its reports?

– From the point of view of logic, if the report was created by the special service, then it should be for internal use. However, we see that in this case the document is being brought up for public viewing. Is it not in order to form a certain discourse, a trend, not so much to predict, but to influence the situation? For important global players to act in a pro-American trend. This is a PR campaign.

Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Leonid Krutakov noted that while the world is frightened by military conflicts due to the climate in the future, the green agenda is being actively used to achieve advantages for developed countries in the present.

– There are no contradictions between what will be and what is. Ahead of the summit in Glasgow. The introduction of a global climate tax is envisaged. However, its recipients will be quite specific. The funds will not be collected in some common UN treasury, for climate programs, but in favor of the economies of the countries of Europe and the United States. The payments will be made by producing countries and resource countries producing hydrocarbons.

We do not see a single design justification for the future carbon-free world. There is not a single calculation of how much rare earth metals will need to be mined, high-voltage networks for the transmission of electricity to be built, what storage capacities will be needed etc. As a business project, such a world does not exist. Threats, goals and ways to achieve them are declared. This is a political project developed by a few countries, and not by a common decision of mankind.

Thus, there are already winners and losers in the current design of the future. It will only get worse further, there will be more and more conflicts if the format does not change. Not by chance, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping refused to go to Glasgow. Finally, the realization came that what was happening had nothing to do with the climate or ecology problem. And it has to do with the economic and political reformatting of the world space.

About how dangerous climatic changes are for Russia, “SP” talked with Boris Voronov, Scientific Director of the Institute of Water and Environmental Problems of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

– Russia has an advantage over many countries. We are well provided with inputs for both personal use and agricultural or energy use. Therefore, there are no major threats yet. Except for our own unreasonable actions, voluntarism. For example, the construction of reservoirs leads to the flooding of huge spaces. All large economic projects need to be checked from an environmental point of view.

“SP”: Climatologists talk about an unfavorable trend …

– To the extent that climate change is now taking place, this process will not seriously affect our water supply. In addition, any climatic changes are periodic. For example, the Caspian either dries up or increases the water content. Another thing is that these periods are difficult to predict. People have been observing the same Cupid for about 200 years and still there are complications with predictions.

“SP”: Our water resources can be of interest to other countries …

– You can’t renounce. So, in Turkmenistan there have always been serious problems with water. At one time they wanted to transfer the runoff of Siberian rivers to the south for her sake. The USSR no longer exists, but claims against Russia remain. This is all from ignorance of natural laws. In Uzbekistan, they decided to develop cotton growing, which requires a huge amount of water. They began to use water without measure, the washing out of salts led to the formation of clay “screens”. Lands began to fall out of agricultural turnover.

China hopes that we will still allow them to throw the water pipeline from Lake Baikal. But we have problems with Baikal as a result of our own mismanagement. In particular, the construction of the state district power station on the Angara. This is a serious problem – fluctuations in the level of the lake due to hydraulic structures. In the event of a shortage of water, some acute situations may arise in the future. Damansky showed that there is only one step from friendship to hatred. Problems need to be discussed.

SP: Is the Paris climate agreement about the environment or about politics?

– There’s a little bit of everything. Of course, it would be good if all countries followed such agreements. Both the Parisian and the preceding Kyoto Protocol. But the Americans first provoked other countries to create the Kyoto Protocol, and then withdrew from it. It turned out that they calculated that if you pay countries that will ensure the neutralization of pollution, the United States will go broke. Why do they need it? They found an excuse and refused to comply with the conditions.

Article Categories:
Politics
banner

Leave a Reply