In Science, the Magazine of the AAAS, an editorial on the first of April 2022, caught our eyes for being somewhat clumsily bent towards the silly politics of Washington to express a viewpoint on how to solve the “climate crisis”… We have hesitated for a while about trying to explain what the Russian views were on this subject, which is the “military incursion" to de-Nazify and de-militarise Ukraine. Russia has its own problems dealing with global warming, but not as large as that of the USA, while presently something is certain: the world powers are not going to wean themselves from fossil fuels — which are adding an extra dimension to the conflict. 

Despite the grandstanding by Old Joe Biden about doing something about global warming, his actions go against his (possibly written for him and rolling-up on his teleprompter) expressed views. By all account, call Putin by whatever names you wish, some of them such as “killer” or “having committed genocide” could equally be applied to Joe Biden and many (if not all) of his predecessors — Bush, Obama, Clinton in more recent years. 

But should you wish to solve global warming with peace, sending $billion worth of weapons to Ukraine is not the way to go — even if you feel that Ukraine "deserves its freedom” from the clutches of the Russian "Empire". All this is doing is create more dead people.

This is where we have to look at the facts: Putin does not want to take over Ukraine. By sending weapons, the West is prolonging the conflict. All Putin (and the Russian parliament) wants is security for Russia, peace for the Donbass region (which has been shelled every second day or so by the Ukrainian government since 2014/15)…and Crimea officially returned to Russia.

Unless you believe all the Western media and don’t venture in the street, beyond the cries and tears of poor Ukrainians who have lost their homes and loved ones on TV, THIS IS EXACTLY what has been happening to the people of the Donbass region — because these people are Russian/Ukrainian. Did the West shed tears or condemn the Ukrainian government for bombing and killing more than 14.000 people in the Donbass since 2014? Nupe… This actually is "the" genocide — if we dare to mention the word. 

The Russians are not idiots nor murderers by breed, but when the Ukraine started to prepare an invasion of the Donbass region in mid-February for an assault in early March (yes I know, the Ukrainians claim this to be Russian disinformation — but certain documents don’t lie), which would have killed many more innocent people in the Donbass than the Russians have killed by collateral damage so far — as of 29/04/2022. Note: some innocent people have been killed by Ukrainian bombings.

Meanwhile, NATO has lied to the Russians about “not moving an inch eastwards”. By 2008, Obama was preparing for Ukraine and Georgia to become NATO members while being secretive about it. By 2014 or thereabout, joining NATO became a clause in the Ukrainian constitution.

This really pissed off the Russians who have DIPLOMATICALLY demanded three main things for the last eight years and have reiterated late last year:

— No NATO in Ukraine

— The Donbass republics to be Autonomous territories in Ukraine, as per the Minsk agreements I and II signed by Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany.

— Crimea is Russian, as it was prior 1954, in accordance with the vote of the Crimean people.

Having being snubbed by NATO, the US and with Ukraine preparing to invade the Donbass, Russia only had one option left: Declare the Donbass republics independent countries and defend them against the onslaught of the Ukrainian armies. Now, one has to also realise — despite much denial in the West — that the Ukrainian government has relied on a strong Nazi elements in its army. Hence, the Russian aim of the de-Nazification of Ukraine.

At this stage, one would have not been surprised had the Russian only set up camp in the Donbass region — the history of which is quite complex in regard to Ukraine and Russia. Limiting the incursion to the Donbass was my personal view on what Russia would be doing. 

But one had to realise that Ukraine had a large well-equipped army as well — and soon the Russians in Donbass would have been facing a much greater number of armed forces than the 60,000 troops about to invade the Donbass. 

With the approval of the Russian parliament, Putin ordered the destruction of the Ukrainian forces and equipment all over Ukraine, which was achieved to a certain degree. Some analysts say about 90 per cent of the Ukrainian resources were destroyed. Some poor villages near Kyiv got bombed mostly because they would have been hotbeds of Ukrainian forces. Meanwhile, the Russians have destroyed many of the “new” weapons shipped to Ukraine by the US and the EU.

The “incursion” as fought by Russia is about liberating the Donbass region. Mariupol is now freed from the Azov battalions, though there are still a few hard-core fighters in the steel-mill. The Western media has been torrid with disinformation — especially about Putin’s motives: such as "restoring the Russian Empire"… Please, as if he was going to take Poland as well — Poland being a member of NATO. This is a no-no. The Poles can sleep easy, unless the West does something stupid. 

The whole thing could have been avoided had the Ukraine government signed the three simple Russian demands which to say the least are not debilitating to Ukraine, but would have provided peace and security to Russia and to the Donbass region. But here, we must address the grand dream of the US, that to destroy Russia and China, by using proxies or by direct warfare. 

The US did not want Ukraine to sign about becoming a neutral country (though the US officially say Ukraine can do so), because this would have been an impediment for this next conquest. Yes I know, some people would say here that this is not the US intent — BUT IT REALLY IS. Study the recent steps of history again, from about 1800 onwards, including the Opium Wars.

All present US diplomacy — if we can call this diplomacy — is designed to annoy, humiliate and shove Russia and China. And in regard to China, the US is using Australia as a “mate” to do the dirty work.

This preamble was so written to address some of the misconception in the following article in Science (AAAS).

GUS COMMENTS WILL BE AS USUAL, IN CAPS.

. . 

SCIENCE • 31 Mar 2022 • Vol 376, Issue 6588 • p. 7

To solve climate, first achieve peace

AGREED: IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE PEACE, PLEASE AMERICA/EU STOP SENDING WEAPONS TO UKRAINE

BY H. HOLDEN THORP

The horrific invasion of Ukraine by Russia has many devastating effects. The most immediate are on the people of Ukraine, but the long-term implications for the entire planet are enormous. 

LIKE IN ALL WARS, THE ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE THE ONE SUFFERING MOST. THE INVASION OF UKRAINE IS NO WORSE (POSSIBLY LESS) THAN THE INVASION OF IRAQ, THE BOMBING OF LIBYA AND THAT OF BELGRADE.

For science, the disruption to international collaboration must be addressed and we must give our strongest support to Ukrainian scientists, as outlined by Marcia McNutt and John Hildebrand in a recent Science editorial. 

GIVE YOUR SUPPORT TO THE UKRAINIAN SCIENTISTS BUT DON’T STOP COOPERATING SCIENTIFICALLY WITH THE RUSSIANS.

But for climate change, the effects may be the greatest. If we want a positive energy future for a healthier climate, the West must start by recasting foreign policy with climate and energy issues at the forefront. That can only succeed if nations strengthen the commitment to settle differences with diplomacy, not war. The only truly life-sustaining climate will be one accompanied by international peace.

THIS IS A BIT GLIB. AT THIS STAGE, EUROPE IS DESPERATE ABOUT GETTING FOSSIL FUEL — GAS AND OIL FROM RUSSIA. SUCH DEMAND, AS WELL AS FOSSIL FUEL DEMAND IN THE USA WHICH STILL IMPORTS OIL FROM RUSSIA DESPITE THE “SANCTIONS” PLUS GIVING WEAPONS — WHICH ARE TERRIBLY NOT GLOBAL-WARMING-POLICY FRIENDLY, SHOWS A HIGH LEVEL OF HYPOCRISY. AT THIS STAGE, WHILE THERE IS TALK OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF GAS FROM RUSSIA, THE EU IS LOOKING AT SOURCING IT FROM ALGERIA AND OTHER PLACES. THIS MEANS THAT APART ROM TAKING COLD SHOWERS (WHICH NOBODY IS REALLY DOING) THE EU IS NOT GOING TO STOP ITS DEPENDENCY ON FOSSIL FUEL. 

IN REGARD TO GAS FROM ALGERIA, THIS SUPPLIER IS PREPARED TO CUT SUPPLIES TO SPAIN, SHOULD SPAIN SENDS SOME GAS BACK TO MOROCCO WHICH ALGERIA REFUSES TO DO DIRECTLY DUE TO THE WESTERN SAHARA CONFLICT.

The impact of climate change on national and global security is not new. But this association was not always front and center. The push for renewable energy has deep roots in geopolitical and security concerns rather than in climate. But for too long, this geopolitical tension has been kept in a separate bucket from climate dangers. 

AS MENTIONED, SUPPLYING UKRAINE WITH MORE WEAPON IS A TERRIBLE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY. AS WELL, WHAT THE EU OR THE USA DOES NOT BUY FROM RUSSIA, OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA WILL GET. AS WELL, THE PRICE OF FERTILISERS IN THE US AND THE EU HAVE SKY-ROCKETED DUE TO “GAS RESTRICTIONS”, WHILE STILL MUCH CHEAPER IN RUSSIA.

Last week, in addressing the Ukraine war, President Biden pledged that the United States would help Europe become less dependent on Russian oil. But nothing was said about climate. People should be made aware that the future of the planet is inextricably intertwined with international conflict. 

WE CERTAINLY AGREE THAT CLIMATE POLICIES OR NON-POLICIES ARE LINKED TO INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS AND THIS IS WHY SENDING MORE WEAPONS TO UKRAINE IS CRAZY. NO MATTER HOW MANY WEAPONS THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT GETS, IT WON’T WIN THE SITUATION (GUS’ VIEW). SO WHY DELAY THE INEVITABLE AND MAKE MORE PEOPLE SUFFER. 

Many fossil-fuel–dependent countries, including the United States, have long been subjected to a volatile global oil market that is largely controlled by the Middle East. The war in Ukraine has served as a grim reminder that Europe has allowed itself to become dependent on fossil fuels from Russia—a country that is now an enemy. 

NO. RUSSIA ISN’T AN ENEMY. IT IS ONLY FIGHTING IN UKRAINE EXCLUSIVELY AND WE (THE WEST) HAVE CHOSEN TO SEE RUSSIA AS AN ENEMY. RUSSIA HAS NO BEEF WITH ANYONE ELSE, THOUGH THE US COULD BE PUSHING “HATE A BIT TOO FAR".

Without Russian oil, which nations can Europe turn to for fossil fuels without leaving itself the potential victim of future conflicts elsewhere on the planet? And that may be a short-term solution while it tries to transition to renewable energy.

EVEN A SMALL TRANSITION WON’T HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS. AT THE PACE WE ARE GOING, THE FULL TRANSITION WOULD BE IN 2150 AT BEST.

Meanwhile, China keeps building coal-fired electricity plants. Why aren’t countries working with China to slow this down? While the United States hurls invectives toward Beijing about the origins of COVID-19, economic espionage, and intellectual property protection, it is losing the opportunity to cooperate with China on energy sources cleaner than coal. 

CORRECT. THE US CONSIDER RUSSIA AND CHINA AS ENEMIES. THIS IS UNFORTUNATE AND LIMITS THE SCOPE OF COOPERATION ON GLOBAL WARMING REDUCTION. MEANWHILE CHINA IS ALSO BUILDING MANY LARGE SOLAR FARMS, FIELDS OF WIN TURBINES AS WELL AS NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS.

Is a purely adversarial foreign policy the best strategy when China produces greenhouse gases (more than any other country in the world) at its discretion?

PER CAPITA, CHINA PRODUCES FAR LESS GREENHOUSE GASES THAN THE US OR AUSTRALIA.

Unfortunately, solar and wind power won’t provide enough energy in the foreseeable future. That leaves an opening for more nuclear power—but again, the war in Ukraine reminds us that it’s not only a matter of building more nuclear plants but also of reducing the risks they present during times of tension. A nuclear power plant is a dangerous military target. The attacks by Russia on Ukrainian nuclear facilities are alarming—they have the potential to scatter nuclear waste over large areas and even provide the ingredients for a dirty bomb. 

THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISINFORMATION IN THE WEST ABOUT THE RUSSIAN TAKEOVER OF THE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS IN UKRAINE. ONE OF THE BATTLE WAS TO ELIMINATE A NAZI BATTALION NEXT TO ONE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WITH HIGH PRECISION BOMBING, PREVENTING SABOTAGE BY THIS NAZI UKRAINIAN ARMY. THE NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS HAVE SINCE BEEN RETURNED TO THE UKRAINIAN ENGINEERS. 

HAD THE RUSSIANS DECIDED TO CUT ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES TO UKRAINIAN PEOPLE, THEY COULD HAVE DONE THIS EASILY. 

Nuclear power cannot provide a path to a more equitable and healthy energy future in a world of geopolitical conflict. Also, if a country can build a nuclear power plant, it can build a nuclear weapon. The scientific case for replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power is strong, but the political case gets much weaker in a hostile world.

CORRECT. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE — AND THE US HAVE BEEN A MAJOR CULPRIT.

Last year, President Biden said that climate change was the greatest threat to national security. That is correct and a reassuring statement from a president when so many climate deniers vie for power in the United States and around the world. But the reverse is also true. A hostile world is the greatest threat to a generative policy for dealing with climate change.

JOE BIDEN HAS NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT HE SAID, IS SAYING OR WILL SAY. IF HE WAS GENUINE IN HIS PLEA, HE WOULD NOT SUPPLY WEAPONS TO UKRAINE — WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING GOING APESHIT AND STARTING WW3.

It’s time for US and European foreign policy to be reframed in the context of addressing climate change. People around the world must better understand that a healthier world where all forms of energy are appropriately utilized requires a world that focuses first on peace. 

AT THIS STAGE, DESPITE THE WILL OF NATIONS, FOSSIL FUELS ARE HERE TO STAY, WITH DIVERSIFICATION OF ENERGY SUPPLY

Without working toward peace as the first step, international efforts to tackle global climate change and promote renewable energy and sustainable development cannot progress. Global governance becomes more fragile, and as climate change worsens, it will threaten world stability, trigger humanitarian crises, and provoke more war, in a deadly cycle.

YES. IT’S GOING TO BE A WEIRD DIFFICULT FUTURE FOR SOME, BUT WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO BRING PEACE.

To win the climate war, we must win the climate peace.

THIS IS GLIB. THERE IS NO WAR ON CLIMATE. WHY DO AMERICANS ALWAYS SEE THINGS FROM A WAR PERSPECTIVE — EVEN IF WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DRASTIC ABOUT PREVENTING GLOBAL WARMING?

GL &Co.

Atheists.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW……………..