zemeunvalsts.lv note
When discussing a topic that is highly relevant and widely understood, the author of the article forgets an important nuance: what should be done in a situation where someone who is relatively strong and possesses certain power reserves decides to act contrary to what is supposedly generally accepted? What is the author herself prepared to give up or lose in her concern for the environment and climate? What does she suggest those under attack should do – refuse to defend themselves, do nothing, just put up with it, or still resist? This is not about the climate, but about one's stance; if a group of countries has agreed that war is impossible, while there are some countries that consider such an agreement a perfect opportunity to carry out their own plans, would the correct course of action be to continue talking beautifully about the climate while allowing the aggressor to take whatever they want? Those advisors who believe that the victim of a robbery should treat the thief with respect, honesty, and generosity (Take it, take it, just don't stab me!) should start by applying this to themselves.
Germany, together with the EU and NATO, is preparing for various scenarios, such as war, environmental disasters, and influxes of refugees, to ensure that its foreign policy remains fit for purpose and that its security interests are protected. It is a cynical approach, considering that those hardest hit – the very people some believe Germany needs to protect itself from – will be those who have contributed the least to global warming. Moreover, the situation seems even more absurd when one considers that the environmental destruction caused by military investments and resource-related conflicts will contribute to further climate warming.
At the same time, measures are being taken to reduce Germany's dependence on fossil fuels. However, a Greenpeace report published last year indicates that the majority of EU military missions are directly linked to the protection of oil and gas imports. The dangerous link between fossil fuels, military missions, and war must be severed.
More weapons mean greater damage to the climate, not greater security. Increasing defence budgets in NATO countries will convince Russia and China to increase their own military investments accordingly. International spending on weapons procurement has already reached 2.1 trillion US dollars.
As the war in Ukraine continues, the greatest challenge of the 21st century – the climate crisis – has slipped down the agenda. However, we must not forget that efforts to tackle this crisis can only be successful if all countries, including Russia, cooperate. A ceasefire must be demanded immediately, to be followed by trust-building measures, such as international disarmament treaties. Furthermore, Russia will need outside help if it wants to transition to a climate-friendly energy sector. A fundamental socio-ecological transformation is needed, in which policy-making is dictated by the needs of all. Currently, this may seem unimaginable, but what is the alternative? Uncontrolled global warming would be catastrophic for everyone on the planet.