First to the joint statement:
It does not seem likely that this statement was issued solely for Pakistan's benefit.Keep in mind the other day China was calling for cooler heads to prevail.
On Wednesday, the foreign ministers of Russia, India, and China met for the 16th ministerial meeting of the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral in Zhejiang, China. The meeting was the first high-level diplomatic interaction between Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Russian and Chinese counterparts, Sergei Lavrov and Wang Yi respectively, since the Tuesday morning airstrike by the Indian Air Force on Pakistani territory.
India is seeking diplomatic support for its position after its strike on Pakistan. On Wednesday, as the RIC was meeting, Pakistan undertook strikes of its own against Indian positions in Indian-administered Kashmir. With the crisis in full swing, the RIC is just one of several forums where India would be looking for support. China, notably, is Pakistan’s “all-weather” diplomatic partner and has shielded Islamabad from international scrutiny in the past.
Somewhat surprisingly, the RIC joint statement, issued at the conclusion of the meeting, showed some advancement that may be in India’s favor on the issue of terrorism. The statement noted that the three ministers “strongly condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations” and “called on the international community to strengthen UN-led global counter-terrorism cooperation by fully implementing the relevant UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law.”
Most important for India, however, was the inclusion of language that the three ministers “stressed that terrorist groups cannot be supported and used in political and geopolitical goals.” Though Pakistan and Jaish-e-Mohammed — the terror group that claimed the February 14 attack on Indian paramilitary personnel that sparked the current crisis — weren’t named, the language implicitly supported India’s position.
Separately, the joint statement called for “those committing, orchestrating, inciting or supporting terrorist acts” to be held to account. The language does not break through a major impasse that has separated India and China, in particular, on Jaish-e-Mohammed: the listing of the group’s leader Masood Azhar as a “global terrorist” under United Nations Security Council resolution 1267. Over several years, China has used a technical hold to prevent his designation.
But, on balance, taking the reality of Chinese and Russian preferences into account, the RIC trilateral statement is probably as good an outcome India could have hoped for. The statement came at a critical time in the ongoing crisis, with New Delhi now considering its possible retaliation for Pakistan’s strikes on Wednesday. If India chooses to press ahead, the crisis may escalate into an all-out war of sorts.Interestingly the author viewing the statement as one that was "somewhat surprisingly" made indicates to me, this is quite possibly an unexpected change in stance.
But if India resorts to diplomatic efforts to push back on Pakistan and isolate it, this kind of support might go a long way. China won’t change its strategic posture of support for Pakistan anytime soon, of course, but even Russian support would be valuable for New Delhi‘s diplomatic efforts.
From the nutty carbon cult- Even if this is tongue in cheek it's in such poor taste .. One wonders why it was seen fit for publishing?
"How a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could reverse global warming"
"To be abundantly clear, what follows isn't meant as a how-to guide advocating nuclear war as some sort of out-of-the box alternative solution to climate change"What frightens me, personally, is some crazed persons may see this as viable. Including crazies at NASA who actually entertained this idea. Going so far as to create models and generate reports? Why? We're they thinking about geo engineering projects to "save" the planet?
"In 2011, NASA scientists released a report based on a model that predicted the climate effects of the use of 100 Hiroshima-size bombs in a regional conflict.Pay attention to the temperature reduction (1.8 F = 1 degree Celsius) delivered via the lessened sunlight/cooler temp along side the out sized affect predicted for global agriculture in the limited nuclear war scenario
That's because the bombs would inject up to 5 megatons of black carbon into the upper troposphere, the highest point of the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere. As National Geographic wrote, "In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky."
These carbon clouds were projected to cause temperatures to fall 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, over the first three years, then to as low as 2.25 F before starting to creep back up. Even after 10 years, temperatures would still be expected to be 0.9 F lower than they would have been without the nuclear war"
Agriculture ... would likely be disrupted from the combination of cooler temperatures, less precipitation and decreases in solar radiation reaching the surface," the lead scientist on the study, Luke Oman, said. "This would cause widespread interruptions to growing seasons by producing more frequent frosts."
Then ask yourself why?
The result could be famine in parts of the world.
Truly think about why it is the carbon cult, yes it is a cult, insists that global temperatures need to be reduced to levels below that of a limited nuclear war (nuclear winter) which would result in even worse global famine and disruption to global agriculture?
As a means to save the world?
Why does this not strike the true believers as an anti human global depopulation agenda when it so obviously is?