The Attic region is warming the rest of the world is not. This video has the United Nations Climate Change disclaimer. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. The IPCC has been transparent with its data acknowledging it is not dealing with active greenhouse gases. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the radiating surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
When the topic of so called " Nato expansion" is discussed it alway strikes me that the main subject of dispute for both sides is the question if there were any guarantees given to Russia by Nato not to expand. It seems that for both sides (western and russian) it is obvoious and unquestionable that they have a right to decide about the territory located between those powers - namely central and eastern Europe, like the numerous countries located there had no subjectivity and no right to decide for themselves about their political identity. This wasn't any "Nato expansion", this was the proces of "Accesion to Nato" of countries of our part of Europe. It was our independent decision, to which we have full right and which was widely accepted among our societies what was confirmed in referendums. Russia should understand that we in our part of Europe do not care if someone promised them that he will not expand an inch or two, we had and have our right to choose. And we really mean it which they can experience in Ukraine.
his views on geopolitics stuck me as naive and laughable while his view on economics makes so much sense，maybe I'm the idiot, or maybe he has immersed in the blob’s world view for his whole life, no way he could get out.
He says Russia has destructive power to blow up pipelines. Who blew up Nordstream again? This fella tells a good story, but he doesn’t provide much evidence. I listened to Putins Munich speech, it seemed quite reasonable, unless your the USA that wants full spectrum global dominance.
His commentary is not objective and does not compare the Nato's encirclement of Russia . The several requests of Putin to settle the matter over negotiations is ignored . The behavior of the west to impose its will over various countries and bomb it or bring in puppet Govts is ignored . How can he claim himself as an academic. The world is observing the Europeans as nothing but as a vessel state of America . When did Russia colonize any country ? Nato has right to encircle Russia with nuclear weapons , as per Medvedev it is a free world and west has every right to do whatever it likes but Russia can not and should not do anything about it . What a rubbish academicians, I think he deserves to be punished by Russian KGB . US does not want Russia as a counter weight and wants to weaken Russia and than break it up and bring NATO control of Russia.
The idea that Ukraine was able to defend itself is not quite accurate. From 2016 NATO troops were on the ground in Ukraine and Trump started sending them weapons which was continued by Biden sending $200 Billion. There have also been US and UK airsupport, surveilance, training and intelligence. So saying Ukraine is defending itself is a bit too simplistic.
Given the title of this rather mixed-bag, insubstantial and, as it proceeds increasingly boring soliloquy, it should sure be 12 months, and not 12 years Krastev talking about. Oh, but don't forget the news: we'll be in even deeper kimchi in 2024 than we already are. Who would have thought. There are, however, a couple of aperçus it would have been interesting to elaborate on - from no-brainer remarks on the stifling of freedom of expression (to the extent of now sending chilly memories of McCarthy up your spine - in case you've one left), social media activity in Brazil on the Israel-Gaza calamity, the Global South issue that many in the West still seem to be in denial of. - No, post-colonialism is not an extravagant academic ivory tower fad (read Said's 'The Question of Palestine'), but, like it or not, one of the driving forces now in world politics, after the post-1989 'unipolar moment' that some academic thought to be the end of history, obviously extrapolating from the perspective of his staid campus idyll. Isolationist trends in a new generation in US politics (should we be hopeful? Not just 1,3m in prison, but 250m presided over by a lunatic running the asylum). Then the sobriety plus hangover setting in with regard to the war of Russia against Ukraine - or rather, as in Putin's eyes, and according to Mearsheimer not totally unjustified so, against NATO. One of the issues strictly banned from public discourse during the first year or so of this war. Perhaps Le Bon was right after all? Funny, or rather sad, that people on all sides still fall for the most obvious propaganda, as long as the barrage of concerted media onslaughts on the public sphere is upheld, or as Tim Franks on the panel of Intelligence Squared said 10 years ago with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "There are few conflicts that lend themselves to such shouty certainty & loudly dogmatic positions..." Or, as Spengler writes: 'Three weeks of press work, and the truth is acknowledged by everybody.' (Decline of the West, Volume II, p. 461; Atkinson Translation, New York 1928). For the rest, a rather weird hodgepodge of poll-based generalisations, random remarks, and, above all, beating around the bush. Just the right toast perhaps for an audience looking for an evening of 'let-me-in-a-bit-on-the-small-talk-in-the-corridors-of-power-edification' - while not being too bothered with what's really going on behind the closed doors one enters from these corridors - how disappointed they must have been! It's perhaps fair to say, and it should have been said much clearer in this talk: the geopolitical shifts are irreversible, the authoritarian, right-wing and openly fascist trends that besiege liberal democracies are too conspicuous & powerful, and on top, globally, the West has lost too much of its authority when it comes to human rights, democracy, and the liberal idea of allowing for - helas mostly economic - pursuit of happiness, simply because it has never seriously lived up to the lofty standards it has set itself. Add to this that the wealth (that allows for the luxury of democracy (Toynbee) has been accumulated at the expense of the rest of the world, and that this has led to the most severe crisis humanity has ever faced as a global collective. So will democracy survive? Only if - and this is very unlikely given the current state of affairs - Western societies will be able to disprove Boeckenfoerde's dictum, that 'the liberal secularised state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself' which means that it is not able to develop within itself the ethical forces needed to keep its liberal foundations intact. But since modern democracies are in fact built on the shaky foundation of industrial economic growth (still keeping slaves, but nowadays outside the walls of national fortresses), a radical shift in policies required to prevent the globe from becoming inhabitable seems impossible. We are now really in very dangerous terrain, and just because it is so difficult from our perspective of a wealthy, comfortable life to imagine what can happen, doesn't mean that it will not. So let's brace for the descent into the most unpredictable & unfathomable 'Moskstraumen' in 2024 and beyond.
Said, Mearsheimer and Spengler, a sickening marriage if I've seen one 😂 But hey, to each his own perversions... As for the "weird hodgepodge of poll-based generalisations, random remarks, and, above all, beating around the bush" argument, I'm sure you realize your statement reads in much the same way (minus the 'poll-based..'), right? Your claims are just as obviously rooted in an ideological position, which you've spelled out for us wtih your choice of references (not to mention the Underground Man tone of it all), and they are no less 'just a language game', which is to say, empty talk. This is just the comment section on youtube, of course, but still, I'm wondering - where do I turn to look for what you say is missing here: form utilised in an undeceptive way to reveal 'the truth'? The very mention of Mearsheimer makes me seriously doubt your judgement, but do wow me
Steve Martin has nothing on him. "Russia's defeat is a faith accomplish." As Martynov would put it "these analysts are uneducated uncultured, and don't understand what Russia is."
Ich nenne das Totalitarismus. Alles wird per selbstauferlegtem Farming der neuen Klimareligion unterworfen. Spurt jemand nicht, droht ihm die Ausschlusshölle. Wo sind wir eigentlich?! 😂
If you need more resources to switch to "green" this means your switch is fake, cyz you'll pollute more then before & more carbon too, cuz more materials means more extraction works that produce CO2, damage land, soil, water, air. You f liar!!!
Her expertise in science comes from a BA in International Development and Middle East Studies, McGill University. His knowledge of the climatic changes comes from a BA in Journalism in Sofia University.
What is more valuable for humans...10€ gasoline or 10€ pokemon cards? The rational of our monetary System brought us here. Do not expect a solution within.
I agree. And yet, the cards should be valued, because people cannot be trusted with gasoline. High energy consumption, and growing financial debt will never resolve as long as fossil energy is available.
Only those people may agree with S. Medvedev who do not know real history Russia and Russian mentality. Many incompetent historians are in Russia like Medvedev they give the wrong information to western world. His presentation is very strange.
But they don't. They have never mattered to any of the men who have owned Russia the last 500 years, and Kremlin has made sure the people will comply, some even enthusiastically, and at the very least cause as little trouble as possible.
@@medeology4660 I sit here in the UK. I see the only two political parties that have any opportunity of forming a government. I look at them and can’t tell the difference between the two, which means my vote has zero value or meaning. We aren’t so different from Russia in terms of monopolies of power.
@yp77738yp77739 Yes, we are. Now, Western democracies have problems, for sure. Inequality, broken education systems, lack of community. Corruption is a problem. The outsized influence on politics from wealthy people and corporations is destroying public trust. Polarization and social media culture wars are a problem because they prevent us from envisioning a common future, building stable and free societies based on the reality: that we sink or swim together. Any society will have its 25% people who are very traditional, hierarchical, and dutiful, and about 25% who are much more unconventional, comfortable with change and creative - and a spectrum between. We value different things the highest - a conservative might value family and duty, while a progressive might value justice or equality. We can't get rid of each other. We can't defeat each other. If only equality is allowed to matter, the we lose the value of duty. If only traditions and faith are allowed to matter, we lose things like justice and autonomy. Any successful society, that thrives, invents, works hard, builds beautiful things, learns, evolves, cares for its children and its environment - it needs to be free and stable enough to accommodate the pursuit of all those values. We still are, for the most part. Some countries more than others. We need to do better, but we still are. If you dont see the difference between the west and Russia (Iran, North Korea, all the rest of the autocracies), where you get sent to a penal colony if you say what you think, if you question what you see? Where you get beaten and tortured for displeasing the powerful, or just because beating you pleases the powerful? Where you can go to jail for liking the wrong thing?
@@medeology4660 States are indeed mixtures of diverse ethnicities, diverse value systems and abilities. As the state becomes larger, in terms of both population size and land mass it becomes increasingly difficult to incorporate all these competing ideologies into a coherent state. Therefore I have some sympathy with, for example, China, Russia or India to have decided that the well being of the collective is more important than the freedom of the individual. The history of these regions validates that to do otherwise, has and will, jeopardise the coherence of the state. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is not our business to impose our value systems on these states. Indeed, it is easy to point to many such interventions in smaller states, where our intervention has only resulted in chaos, disorder and death. Let’s leave these people to live how they choose to live, if they want a new way of life let them revolt and overthrow the power structures themselves. But we should not intervene in their affairs, that has proven to be unsuccessful. Let’s not forget that the country with the highest incarceration rate and inequality rate is the US, proving that freedom is not a universal output from democracy.
He knows more about Russia than I do but the question isn’t really would this have happened without Putin and rather is would it have happened if we had been honest about NATO expansion it’s an unacceptable sin of omission
NATO has never expanded. Countries (normally the ones that have been attacked and occupied by ruSSia) ask to join, wanting peace and safety from the agressive neighbour, ruSSia. Finland after all didnt join NATO because NATO forced it to, Finland joined NATO because putin invaded Ukraine. So your ruSSian propoganda is just basic lies.
This war has nothing to do with NATO, it is about a corrupt, authoritarian Russia with a ruling class with no ideas about the future and no tools of state craft except violence, myths and domination, no other way to increase the wealth of their oligarchs than to rob and steal and occupy. It's about a Russian culture that has had an unhealthy obsession about Ukraine for decades, about their politicians ("stupid, corrupt") their language ("peasant russian dialect"), their strife for democracy ("n***st, ungrateful"), the ukrainian women ("cheap ****"), and Crimea ("ours, we took it, ukrainians are so weak" ) All horrible. Much like obsessing about an ex-wife, constantly going "who does she think she is, what is she doing, why is she seeing that guy, she is so stupid, she thinks she can manage on her own, she is nothing without me, she has no money, who are those new friends, she belongs to me, she should respect and obey me, I'm gonna show her" They are not stupid, they know NATO is not attacking them. But they know what lies will work to make some westerners doubt and hesitate to push back at them.
36,000,000 refugees from the War on Terror, + from Syrian drought due to climate change are flooding Europe and other democracies who always clean up after the elephants when the GOP circus leaves town. GOP's economic terrorism via social disorder is to kill democracy once and for all.
In 2008 in Bucharest NATO declared Ukraine and Georgia would join, even over the objections of Germany (Merkel) and France (Sarkozy). Ever since then Putin and Lavrov have repeatedly warned the west that this was a Russian red line, they would not permit it. Even William Burns, the then US ambassador to Russia, warned Condoleezza Rice that all elites in Russia saw this as an unacceptable threat (in his "Nyet Means Nyet" memo). Why were experts like Medvedev surprised when it happened? They should not have been. He is just a Russophobe and it stains much of his talk.
but the American aggressions in Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.........and all the other more than 60 aggressions done since 1945, these are OK? Joseph.........be honest
36:39 - he talks of Moscow being moved to Kazan. I would agree - in fact I would specify that the kremlin takes up its new residence in 'Syty Papa' restaurant on Bauman street.
ADDITIONAL RESPONSES BY SERGEI MEDVEDEV TO CHAT QUESTIONS THAT COULD NOT BE ANSWERED DURING THE LIVE EVENT: ▪Elisabeth Sorantin: How can Russia be defeated without all out war? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Russia can be defeated in a conventional war, like it was defeated in Afghanistan, Chechnya etc, or like the US was defeated in Vietnam. The use of nuclear weapons is not automatic and carries unbearable risk for Russia itself. ▪Carola Schneider: Dear Sergej, why do you think, that the 3rd scenario (reconstitution of Russia) is the most likely? To me, it seems to be the most unlikely. Or did I get you wrong? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Correct, Scenario 3 is the least likely - but the most desirable. ▪Isabelle de Pommereau (Independent Journalist, Germany): I am interested in the importance of Russian speaking communities in other countries - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - do you think they are changing, that there is rising awareness of the nature of the Putin regime. and if not, how dangerous is that for the stability of Europe? Thanks! ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Russian-speakers in Europe, especially in the Baltics, are a real threat. By my assessment, they are predominantly Putinist (especially the older generation) and exposed to the Russian propaganda. Yes, it is dangerous for the internal stability of the EU countries, as shown by recent clashes in Berlin on 9 May. ▪Clemens Zavarsky (Kronenzeitung): I have a question on 3rd Scenario as well: How much time will be needed to complete it. Because I see a huge potential on revanchism there, if done to quickly. ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Scenario 3 may take the entire 21 century to realize. ▪Margarita Khartanovich (Tampere University): Regarding the positive post-war scenario, what do you see as enablers of it? Will current Russian opposition play any role in it (Navalny, Yashin, True Russia forum, etc)? What about those that immigrated? Can it be influenced by the West? Or where will the change for all things de- come from? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: The main enablers of Scenario 3 are the Ukrainian Army - who will hopefully defeat the Russians - and the West who should continue supporting Ukraine. As much as I respect the Russian opposition, especially those who are now in jail, I do not believe they will play a role in the future remaking of Russia. The émigré opposition will play a very limited role as well. Change should come from with the country. ▪Stefan Schocher (freelance journalist): You have mentioned Russia should de-imperialize. Ukraine is in a process of decommunisation and derussification. New laws are in place that imply the renaming of places named after Russian personalities. What is your take on that process? Is is a possible model for Russia? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Ukraine is de-communizing and de-Russifying itself, and this is the right way to go for it. Russia should be de-colonized internally -- the country, first of all its territories, should liberate itself from the colonial imperial state. As I mentioned in the talk, one possible avenue is the de-Muscovization of Russia. ▪Stefan Schocher: Another one. You mentioned the braking point in relations to the west was the Munich speech 2007. What caused this break? One could argue the imperial idea has always been there and the speech was nothing more then a visible sign of a change of methods rather then a real shift in aims. ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: The Munich speech was not a break, but the first visible declaration of it. The break occurred around 2004, and was Putin’s hysterical reaction to Beslan, to the first Maidan and to the Color Revolutions. His judgement, like that of Nicholas I in 1830s-1840s, was that the West threatens Russia with revolutionary ferment ▪Pedro Sousa Pereira (Portuguese News Agency): In a framework where dozens of international armies lost a 20-year war in Afghanistan overnight two years ago and if we are facing the Third World War, how is NATO and specifically the European Union facing Putin? As a regional danger or as a world threat? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Putin is definitely not a regional threat but a global danger, and NATO and the EU are not yet completely aware of that, in my opinion. ▪Pedro Sousa Pereira (Portuguese News Agency): You said that Russia was militarily defeated in other places - but then you also said that the Ukraine is of special importance to Russia. So will Russia likely accept military defeat in the Ukraine? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Russia will have to accept a military defeat in Ukraine - it is already a fait accompli, and it takes time for Russia to take it in. ▪Simone Brunner (DIE ZEIT): As you talked about appeasement and that many Westerners still do not perceive the situation with the war properly. How do you assess this discussion in Austria? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Austria, like the entire West, is still not fully aware of Putin’s threat, pacified by years of beneficial cooperation with Putin’s regime (and, sadly, corruption by it). Sitting between East and West may be a good position in the times of détente, but it carries a double threat in the times of war.
The presenter must be on the US government payroll. It’s amazing how someone so supposedly educated can believe the things he is saying. His analysis of Russia is straight from the US propaganda machine. His facts are way off also , for instance he said that minorities are the ones fighting the US wars, when in reality it is white Americans who serve & die more than their makeup of the population.
What we need is a small group of informed, caring individuals who are at the hearts of the governments and industries that are essential to green energy. A Central Planning Commitee, if you will. They can decide just what is the best solution for the remaining 7 billion of us. Only they can make everyone go slow enough to ensure the energy transition happens in time.
