“Neglecting critical security issues and shifting the focus on global climate change undermine NATO ‘s ability to defend its member states; it is necessary to go back to basics to keep Russia at bay,” said Kochis, senior political analyst for European affairs at Heritage Foundation.
“After the arrival of Joe Biden, NATO began to view climate change as the greatest threat, at least as important as the confrontation with Russia. There is a danger that the United States and its alliance partners will practically stop investing in the development of the benefits of investing in green technologies. “
Whether it is necessary to keep Russia at bay or not, this is a matter of persuasion. From the point of view of many Russians, this is unnecessary. From the point of view of some US patriots (including Russians), this is necessary. In the same way, you can adhere to the slogan “All to fight the climate”, and “all” is NATO, or you can recall Krylov’s grandfather:
“The trouble is, if the shoemaker begins to bake the pies,
And the boots are for the cake-maker. “
When a military alliance prioritizes the fight against warming, it will most likely have both warming and combat training equally unimportant.
Undoubtedly, NATO sorrows are quite alien to us, even if all the military training of the alliance (already unimportant) goes to hell, we will bravely survive it. However, an analyst from the Heritage Foundation raised a really interesting topic, which concerns not only the fate of the North Atlantic alliance. Namely: plans for a comprehensive greening of the world (or at least Western) economy also concern the construction of the armed forces – or will the army and navy remain on their own?
The question is not idle, because the shield (as well as the sword) is environmentally rather dirty.
We will not mention the likely consequences of a nuclear war, it is clear that there will be nothing good for the climate, as well as for natural purity.
And we will not touch upon the deliberate use of nature-destroying agents during the conventional war – deliberate burning of forests, poisonous agents sprayed in the jungle (Agent Orange , used by the Anglo-Saxons in Malaya and Vietnam ), the consequences of which were extremely disastrous. We will also keep silent about the unintended consequences of hostilities. For example, the Middle and Lower Volga in 1942 was an oil mixture – the consequences of the bombing.
But even when it has not yet come to war and, God willing, will not, still no one canceled the concept of “war of motors”. Military equipment is distinguished by a high power-to-weight ratio, moreover, by an autonomous power-to-weight ratio, since hostilities are supposed to be conducted everywhere: in forests, along hills, in water, and not only where sockets with green electricity are installed. And a higher efficiency, moreover, autonomous than that of dirty-dirty hydrocarbons, has not been invented.
Any talk about pure military equipment is refuted by the question “Do you need to go (that is, to carry out a combat order) or checkers?” And war is a dirty business, not only in a moral and other figurative sense, but also in a purely ecological sense. And not only war, but also an army ready for war. Maneuvers, combat training – all this is terrible from the point of view of green ideology. It is still possible to partially reduce the volume of military pollution of the environment in peacetime, but when the harsh hour of struggle comes and our homeland sends us into the attack, everyone will have no time for ecology.
In principle, the answer to all these considerations can be very simple. “Checkers are really more important to us, and green ones, and if military construction and checkers are incompatible, it means, well, to the devil, this is military construction.” Pacifism is the best environmental protection, we will turn swords into windmills.
True, there is the problem that Sophie always agrees, but we still need to persuade the Prince of Wales, who is in the rank of general. Here all the generals, even NATO, even Russian, even Chinese, will show rare solidarity.
The only (although also, most likely, only theoretical) way is to intimidate everyone so that the public does not want to hear about any military development. A recent UN climate report paints such dire and immediate prospects: the current atmosphere is compared to the atmosphere of the Archean era (two billion years ago) that a rather frightened person would say: “What other army is there when the Earth turns into Venus?” And all the military for reforging.
When arguments about the Archean era are used, this is something like an old recipe for reconciling contradictions between powers: if the Earth undergoes an invasion of aliens, the differences between the USSR and the United States will disappear by themselves. It’s the same with the terrible climate.
But so far there is no such panic, most likely, preparation for a green world will be in itself, and military and political preparation – in itself. And the military and environmentalists will diligently ignore each other.