Russia's Downfall, part 2

Russia's Downfall, part 2
-------------------------

Back in 2018, I participated in a discussion about climate change, and in particular, global warming. I showed that the counter-measures being put in place at that time to slow global warming appeared to be woefully inadequate. Just looking at the data, more CO2 was being released globally each year than the previous. With each year that passed, the situation was getting worse, not better. The steps by the developed nations to reduce their CO2 emissions, were smaller than the increases in CO2 from new factories and power plants being constructed in developing nations.

The US in particular has a lot to lose from climate change. Hurricanes increasingly threaten the US east coast - they're getting more frequent and more powerful, and cause billions of dollars of damage. Rising sea levels pose a threat to florida's very existence, because it is very low lying. Wildfires increasingly threaten the west coast, destroying communities and even the homes of the rich and famous who live in the california hills. Increasing summer heat and droughts in the western states post a serious threat to both human health and the water supply in some areas. The US has a lot to lose from inaction.

Scientists say that global emissions need to reduce to 1/3 of what they currently are, yet China alone accounts for 1/3 of global CO2 emmissions. Without China on board, climate change goals are numerically impossible. And 1/3 is very ambitious anyway, even if every nation is equally on board, which they really need to be.

I argued that individual nations are only willing to go so far, before CO2 reducing initiatives begin to cripple their economies and industries. Every nation wants (and needs) to stay economically solvent and competitive, in order to maintain certain living standards for it's citizens. People are also stubborn, and can be unwilling to give up certain luxuries.

I feel we're at a "nash equilibrium" of sorts, where the self-inflicted socioeconomic damage from climate change initiatives could end up doing more harm to one's country than the indirect damage coming from climate change itself. We're kind of at a state now where we'll be more screwed if we do more, and we'll be more screwed if we do less.

--

I was reminded of a computer game from 1993 called Transarctica, which was based on a famous book by Georges-Jean Arnaud. The story throughout the book/game was how nuclear weapons were used to engineer a period of global cooling. The dust thrown up into the atmosphere from the explosions would partially block sunlight, and would cool the planet down several degrees to mitigate global warming. In the story, this goal was overshot, and planet was plunged into a post-apocalyptic ice age!

But... is an atmospheric engineering project like this even possible, or is it just science fiction? There has long been this understanding that a nuclear war could lead us into a nuclear winter. But if things were balanced just right, could we engineer a milder outcome? Not enough to freeze the planet, but just enough to mitigate global warming.

I was also reminded of a relevant news story from the New York Times. Back in 2011, NASA had run some simulations modelling the impact of nuclear conflict on the earth's climate. They determined that a conflict involving an exchange of 50-100 Hiroshima-level bombs would lift around five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper atmosphere, where it would remain suspended for a long time. And the effects of it on sunlight would be sufficient to counter global warming, effectively pushing climate change back 50 years.

There are two facts we need to meditate on here:

1) We are at a critical juncture with climate change. The future looks bleak, with 40% of the world's population considered to be in a highly vulnerable position. And even at present, 15x as many people are dying each year from climate change induced incidents than in the 20th century. For example: more frequent/severe/widespread flooding, landslides, droughts, storms, crop failures, heatstroke, pestilence, wildfires, etc. These are all forecast to get much worse globally as we head towards 2030.

2) This nuclear option offers us a 50 year patch to the climate problem. We don't seem to have any other solution that is both big enough and can be implemented quickly enough to be effective. Remember that global CO2 emissions continue to increase year on year, despite all past and present initiatives to try and decrease them.

That's quite sobering I think. The question is, would the organisations which operate behind the scenes in our world be willing to orchestrate such a catastrophe? Nuclear strikes for the greater good??? Like performing some kind of ritual sacrifice to please the sky gods.

Such a plan couldn't possibly be sold to the general public, politically or morally. If it were to be orchestrated, it would have to *appear* to emerge naturally, from an escalating conflict somewhere in the world. And of course, one or both of the beligerants would need to be a nuclear power.

I felt that there were three possible theatres for such a conflict to occur:

1) NATO vs China.
  This wouldn't be good for the US in multiple ways. The US would be the main NATO target, and the US wouldn't want to lose any infrastructure. This war would also cripple the US's biggest trading partner (China) which would be terrible for business and any future relationship. It would leave Europe in a position to emerge as the next global superpower. It's just not an option for the US, at least at present.

2) India vs Pakistan.
  Relations between these two countries are deteriorating anyway. A conflict here wouldn't affect the west much at all, but these two nations barely have enough nuclear weapons between them to have the required effect.

3) NATO vs Russia.
  Now this is the most likely scenario. Russia and Europe would both be badly hurt in such a conflict, and the US could avoid taking any damage on home soil if it played it's game correctly. The US could indeed benefit in more ways than one, in the same way it benefitted from WW2. The weakened European empire would no longer be threatening US supremacy, and a weakened Russia would be an economic opportunity, ripe for exploitation by both the US and China. Russia and Europe both have the necessary arsenal. The US just needs to find them something to fight about...

Outwardly, the US could play the innocent party, politically distant, even reluctant to be involved in Europe's problems. But in the shadows, they would be the mastermind and instigator of the whole nefarious scheme.

As said previously, the US has this skill as an agitator. The US could aggrevate relations between Europe and Russia, creating tension and sowing the seeds for conflict. A covert operation that could be as simple as... simultaneously supporting the EU's expansionist interests, while stoking Russia's paranoia that it's very existence is under threat.

So... and this is still back in 2018... I predicted that Europe and Russia could be pushed into a small nuclear exchange in the near future. Maybe around the mid 2020s, which would be early enough that there is still a climate to save, but late enough to give all other climate change initiatives a fighting chance to succeed. By the mid 2020s, it should be very very clear if those initiatives had failed, so making the nuclear option the only possible way forward.

--

Later in 2018, the US began deploying short and medium range missile launchers in Poland and Romania. A move not unlike the Cuban missile crisis, but role-reversed. The US also signalled that it was withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Both of these moves disturbed the balance of power in Europe, and brought fear to the Kremlin. The US had nothing to lose from these moves, as intermediate-range missiles posed no threat to US soil, only to European and Russian territories.

The European Union is an expansionist empire, albeit a peaceful democratic one. The only direction it can expand nowadays is to the east, to assimilate the states on Russia's borders. And it is growing hungry for new territories to peacefully and democratically absorb.

EU membership offers a clear path to NATO membership. And NATO membership means the US will one day invite itself to install missiles or airbases in your country, like what happened in 2018 in Poland and Romania. EU expansion to the east thus ends with Russia being encircled by hostile strategic forces. So it is understandable that it would put up fierce resistance to any step of this process, viewing it as an act of aggression.

The US has for a long time been engaged in a campaign to undermine and ultimately break the Russian state. Not through a direct military assault, but through economic and geopolitical warfare. The Kremlin has been clear on it's stance - that Russia has a right to exist. And not just territorially - because this economic and geopolitical warfare of the west also pose an existential threat to what Russia fundamentally is. Putin has said that he will take steps - by force where necessary - to protect that existence. And that if the world doesn't want Russia to exist, then what use is the world to Russia?

The seeds of conflict are clear.