Economics

Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via RealClearWire,

The climate movement’s annual showpiece, the United Nation’s Conference of Parties (COP), held this year in Baku, Azerbaijan, has been exposed to an unprecedented level of disinterest—even dissent—from developing nations.

Leaders of some of the world’s most resource-rich, economically aspiring countries have opted to sit this one out, sending only low-level delegates, if any. This is the latest signal of a growing resistance to an anti-fossil fuel “gospel” advanced by the United Nations.

Last year’s COP28 in the Middle East, where oil wealth underpins entire economies, forced the climate community to confront its contradictions. Today, COP29 in central Asia continues this reckoning and presages the demise of an unscientific and anti-developmental policy framework wrecking global economies.

Host of COP29 Educates Climate Woke Delegates

The tone of COP29 itself is a marked departure from prior gatherings. In Azerbaijan, where oil and gas production are integral to the national economy, the summit’s host, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, called fossil fuels “a gift from God,” lauding their contribution to global prosperity and stability.

Fossil fuels have moved from being a taboo “elephant in the room” to a subject of open discussion at COPs. The leaders of countries in Africa and Latin America are freely questioning the premise of banning their use of fossil fuels while much of the developed world continues to consume record amounts of coal, oil and natural gas. The notion that high-income nations can dictate the energy agenda is seen as a remnant of a power structure that primarily serves the interests of the world’s most privileged.

The International Energy Agency projects that developing countries will see substantial growth in energy demand over the next decade, an expansion that cannot be met by renewables. Leaders in these regions understand that hydrocarbons are critical to achieving their development goals.

Unprecedented Pullout From COP Conference and Resistance From Global South

In a surprising move, Argentina’s newly elected president, Javier Gerardo Milei, withdrew his country’s 80-person delegation from Baku less than a third of the way into this year’s 11-day COP. He cited the need for pragmatic energy policies that encourage development rather than stymie it.

For Milei, whose presidential campaign was based on a pro-business, anti-bureaucracy platform, the message is clear: Policy must serve the economic needs of his country first. Argentina’s ongoing energy crisis, its untapped shale gas reserves and a crippling economic situation demand a level-headed approach that prioritizes national interests over global climate ideals that are both batty and corrupt.

Milei’s political philosophy resonates with a growing number of leaders in the Global South who view economic growth as paramount and recognize that access to energy is fundamental to achieving it.

Argentina’s departure from COP29 is a turning point that should serve as a wake-up call to the U.N. and its allies. The time for one-size-fits-all mandates is over. The rigid orthodoxy of fossil fuel divestment pushed by the U.N. and wealthy nations is losing ground, challenged by leaders who refuse to sacrifice their national interests to a destructive agenda.

For much of the Global South, the idea of an immediate energy transition remains, at best, aspirational and, at worst, profoundly out of touch. The reality is that fossil fuels still power 80 percent of global energy consumption. This isn’t just an inconvenient truth; it’s an inescapable basis of modern civilization that developing nations understand viscerally.

As the COP29 circus concludes in Baku, the world is seeing the crumbling of the long-held illusion that a global transition to green energyis feasible, much less fair and desirable. Developing nations are proclaiming that they will not be deprived of necessary energy sources by nations that continue to feast on the very fossil fuels they frown upon. The disconnect between rhetoric and reality is stark, and developing countries are calling attention to it.

Fossil fuels are not a relic of the past; for many countries, they are the key to a prosperous future—truly “a gift from God.”

The key logistical hub of Ukraine’s eastern front, Pokrovsk has been under steady contention for the past three months. Russian forces have spent the better part of that time pushing westward to flank just south of the city.  They have now taken Kurakhove and cut off supply routes coming from Pokrovsk to a large portion of the front line.  Some reports indicate that Ukrainian troops trying to leave Kurakhove may be cut off.  The slow motion flanking maneuver has set the stage for Pokrovsk to be enveloped from the south.  

Since the beginning of the war the area has been the primary staging ground for resupply of Ukrainian troops across the east.  After Pokrovsk is cut off or taken, it is expected that Russia will then be able to gain significant ground across the entire front and move closer to controlling all of Donetsk.  

Losses for Ukraine have been stacking up in 2024 and lack of manpower has been the overarching theme.  Though numerous western officials and think-tanks (including The Institute For The Study of War) claim that Russian gains have been paid for with “massive casualties”, they’ve provided no concrete proof so far to support their stats.  The “Russian meat grinder” narrative is beginning to sound like a coping mechanism or propaganda as it becomes clear that Russia is gaining troop strength instead of losing momentum.

(There has been similar propaganda surrounding mass casualties of North Korean troops in Kursk – There are still no verified reports or video footage of actual DPRK troops in combat against Ukraine.  Rumors abound, like the “Ghost of Kyiv”)

What we do know is that Ukraine is desperate for new soldiers to refresh their defensive lines.  NATO leaders and the Biden White House have been putting pressure on Vladimir Zelensky to draft men from the 18-25 age bracket; a move Zelensky has avoided to prevent the complete loss of a generation.  The average age of conscripts is now well over 40 years old.  

This may be why Joe Biden recently gave the green light for Ukraine to use long range missiles (ATACMs and Storm Shadows) within Russian territory.  Every time Ukraine faces a strategic failure, NATO offers up new weaponry as a public distraction.  They said Abrams tanks would be a game changer for Ukraine, then they said the F-16s would be a game changer.  Now they claim the long range strikes using smart weapons will be a game changer.

Most military analysts agree that these weapons have had little effect on the course of the war.   

Russia’s typical methodology for dealing with urban centers has been to surround and then bombard with artillery and FABs until the majority of buildings and defenses are rubble.  A renowned Ukrainian military officer, Serhii Filimonov, commander of the Da Vinci Wolves battalion of the 59th Motorised Brigade, described Pokrovsk’s defense as a “disaster”.  Senior officers are placing “unrealistic” demands on units and are unfamiliar with circumstances on the front line, Filimonov wrote on his Telegram channel this week.   

Just days after the rapid collapse of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad, and now with Israeli warplanes having complete domination over Syria’s skies for the first time in modern history, the priorities of US and Israeli officials in the region have drastically changed.

Both US and Israeli leaders are now mulling the possibility of striking Iran’s nuclear program, amid several reports in recent weeks saying the Islamic Republic is expanding its program and enriching more nuclear-grade material. Tehran is now much more on the defensive, and could be more desperate to achieve nuclear weapons.

A significant Friday report in The Wall Street Journal says that “President-elect Donald Trump is weighing options for stopping Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon, including the possibility of preventive airstrikes, a move that would break with the longstanding policy of containing Tehran with diplomacy and sanctions.”

“Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent calls that he is concerned about an Iranian nuclear breakout on his watch, two people familiar with their conversations said, signaling he is looking for proposals to prevent that outcome,” the report continues.

“The president-elect wants plans that stop short of igniting a new war, particularly one that could pull in the U.S. military, as strikes on Tehran’s nuclear facilities have the potential put the U.S. and Iran on a collision course.”

Currently the United States still has some 1,000 troops occupying northeast Syria, and they have come under internecine attacks by Iran-backed militias over the recent years. In any broader US-Iran war, these troops would be sitting ducks for attack via Tehran’s proxies in the region.

Trump in his first administration tried but failed to bring the troops home, but deeper entanglement in striking Iran could surely draw these troops into a broader conflict. The Pentagon would in that case likely expand its deployed forces in the region as well.

“Iran has enough highly enriched uranium alone to build four nuclear bombs, making it the only nonnuclear-weapon country to be producing 60% near-weapons-grade fissile material,” WSJ has noted further. “It would take just a few days to convert that stockpile into weapons-grade nuclear fuel.”

Iran has long maintained it develops only peaceful nuclear energy, and there’s little doubt that after the dramatic events unfolding in Syria, and with Hezbollah top leadership largely decimated, Tehran finds itself on a back foot. 

Some Israeli and Western officials believe that all of this will make Iranian leaders more desperate to ensure they have a final and ultimate defense against any threats (as in rapidly developing a nuke).

But if Trump were to authorize strikes on Iranian facilities, this would also obviously violate his frequent vows to his voters to not start new wars in the Middle East. The reality is that even ‘limited’ strikes still constitute an act of war. The potential for runaway escalation involving the US, Iran, and Israel would be a much bigger likelihood.