New discourse of imperialism Global climate change, NATO and HAARP

Ömür Çelikdönmez discusses how global climate change is used as a political and economic tool and how it affects the concept of nuclear deterrence.

15 mins read

What makes me think that global climate change is the new discourse of imperialism?

The securitization of the climate issue, its political and economic treatment, its inclusion within the mandate of international institutions and its incorporation into market relations, albeit to a lesser extent, is a striking feature inherent in international environmental approaches.

The rationale for the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States and some NATO member states, as well as Israel, India, Pakistan, China, North Korea and Russia, is often conceptualized in terms of nuclear deterrence and given a pseudo-humanitarian-peaceful meaning. Nuclear deterrence was a military strategy for the use of nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

Today, nuclear weapons are no longer a critical pillar of political-military security, especially for NATO member states in Europe, as they were during the Cold War. In our region, Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons are being watched with concern by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

But a new generation of climate weapons, which have put nuclear weapons to the sword, is putting these fears to rest.


Because it is not for nothing that it is said that “there is a camel bigger than a horse and an elephant bigger than a camel”. From this perspective, climate weapons technology and climate change have neutralized the nuclear deterrence mission undertaken by nuclear weapons.

In this context, climate change in many parts of the world and the Middle East will exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities from conflict, displacement, marginalization and corruption, as well as create new risks. Governments in the region will need to adopt more inclusive reforms as part of their climate adaptation strategies.

Nevertheless, the US staff, in particular, is still urging other NATO allies to pay attention to the importance of nuclear deterrence. They say: “be smart, nuclear-armed countries like Russia and China are investing again in developing more sophisticated and diverse weapons. Nuclear weapons have been the basis of NATO’s collective defense from the very beginning.

The national arsenals of NATO’s nuclear-armed members – the United States, the United Kingdom and France – and the advanced nuclear weapons of the United States deployed in Europe have provided a deterrent to the Alliance and an assurance to the Allies.

NATO heads of state and government have repeatedly reaffirmed that NATO is a nuclear alliance and will remain so as long as nuclear weapons exist. Simply put, we still have nuclear weapons because nuclear deterrence is still necessary and its principles still apply.”

However, the US is deploying nuclear bombs to Europe as part of its extended deterrence efforts. An estimated one hundred warheads for dual-capable aircraft (DCA) are reportedly stored at six air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. As its name suggests, the DCA serves both conventional and nuclear roles, the latter placing the DCA mission at the center of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement.

Climate change is challenging this mission. Flash flooding, uncontrollable fires and extreme heat can pose significant risks to the systems, infrastructure and personnel supporting the DCA mission. Further efforts are needed to assess these risks and ensure that NATO is ready to respond effectively to the impacts of climate change on its nuclear deterrent.

Of course, not content with this, they justify it by saying that NATO can remain in physical reality as a sustainable and renewable structure, that it can remain a nuclear alliance as long as nuclear weapons exist.

I think Uncle Sam’s biggest fear is whether new technologies that may emerge with climate change will bring new risks to the US financial system.

Because the rapid pace of technological and geopolitical change brings with it new potential threats that need to be monitored and assessed.

There is an evolution in the global economy in terms of recognizing the challenges and opportunities in the area of climate change and related transformation processes

New discourse of imperialism Global climate change, NATO and HAARP 1

NATO and Climate change The doctrinal justification for Climate weapons!

The Americans are interested in investments to scale and apply Climate technologies on a global scale. They recognize that climate change has a “multiplier effect” on other security events, including competition for scarce resources and collisions. Given the correlation between climate change and energy supply, they seem to have embraced the use of existing fossil fuels for the time being, until new and different energy sources can be substituted for old ones.

Global oil consumption is therefore at full throttle, reaching around 100 million barrels per day. Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States and some other countries produce more than they consume and therefore export the surplus;

The increased frequency of natural disasters and climate-related crises will require more widespread deployment of armed forces and the adoption of dual-use and autonomous platforms, such as unmanned ground, air and undersea vehicles. Environmental changes caused by climate change are not linear or gradual, and there is a risk of exponentially increasing sudden instability in relation to “critical points”. In order to successfully adapt to the changing environment in a timely manner, NATO Allies must quickly begin to adjust their military doctrine.

The way armies fight depends on many factors, including culture (the culture of the department and the country in question), how military institutions are designed, the immediate threats and the environment in which the operation takes place.

Climate change will have profound, long-term and tangible impacts on these factors and, therefore, on military doctrines.

Growing awareness of climate issues will shape how, why and where armed forces will operate. Climate change will therefore affect the way armed forces are designed for the contingencies they will have to address. As a result, significant doctrinal adaptation is likely to take place, especially to integrate new technologies and capabilities.

At NATO’s 2021 Brussels Summit, Allies agreed to place climate change at the top of the NATO agenda in an effort to be the leading international organization in understanding and adapting to the impact of the most important event of our time: climate change. The new Strategic Concept agreed at the 2022 Madrid Summit confirms this commitment. Since then, NATO has produced several important reports showing the enormous impact of climate change on daily life.

However, there is still a need for further research on how climate change affects NATO’s operations in various fields. As geopolitical, military, economic, economic, social, climatic and technological situations change, the range of potential NATO operations grows and evolves. In particular, space, information space and cities are the fastest growing areas.

However, as NATO’s report on Science and Technology Trends: 2023-2043, competition in the maritime domain will become more important in the near future. However, among the various potential threats to NATO’s maritime readiness and resilience, climate change is arguably the most important. Climate change has already begun to impact NATO doctrine, operations, assets, bases and infrastructure, and will continue to do so in the future.

Was Climate Weapon used in Erzincan İliç?New discourse of imperialism Global climate change, NATO and HAARP 2

It would be unethical to blame others for the inadequacy of occupational safety measures and the negligence of the relevant foreign company and the authorities of the institution that supposedly inspects the mine site. However, there were strong indications that the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, a military technological weapon that ensures the global dominance of the United States, may have been used in the February 6 apocalyptic drill that was inflicted on Turkey by US imperialism, whose deeds are the guarantee of what it will do. If you remember, the head of the Turkish Space Agency said that America has space weapons called “God’s Arrows”.

New discourse of imperialism Global climate change, NATO and HAARP 3

It was even claimed that an oil well belonging to a US company was found in Kahramanmaraş/Pazarcık and that the cause of the earthquake was related to this well. It was said that the wells drilled with large drilling machines in a way to trigger fault lines within or near our borders were filled with ammunition to create a nuclear explosion effect, in more scientific terms, it was possible that “fault lines were triggered by thermonuclear explosions”.

Immediately, some semi-official truth-tellers took it upon themselves to debunk every allegation and news item that mentioned the name of the US. In 2022, they announced that the Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO) was conducting the oil exploration in Pazarcık, Kahramanmaraş, and that it had been granted a five-year oil exploration license in five provinces, including Kahramanmaraş.

NATO’s doctrinal approach that environmental changes caused by climate change are not linear or gradual, and that “critical points” are subject to exponentially increasing and sudden instability, may unfortunately have been applied in İliç, Erzincan. However, the fact that the US mining company was chosen as the victim should not mislead or surprise anyone. Because whether you call it a work accident, negligence, sabotage or disaster, some of the details revealed by this incident conceal the use of the HAARP technique.

New discourse of imperialism Global climate change, NATO and HAARP 4

While the repercussions of the mine disaster in Erzincan İliç, where 9 workers were buried under the ground, it was revealed with the statement of Geologist Prof. Dr. Okan Tüysüz that the mine is located on an active fault line and that this fault is not shown in the reports. According to Prof. Tüysüz’s statement; “The length of this fault is 35 kilometers. A 35-kilometer fault would create an earthquake of about 6.5 magnitude.” Prof. Tüysüz’s statement is based on the report of the General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration.

Now, which bureaucrat or politician who is an enemy of the country and humanity, if he or she has given a license or signed a petition for the gold mine belonging to the US foreign Anagold Mining Company, who can oppose the curse of the relatives of the disappeared, who say that his or her hand should dry up and his or her hearth should not smoke?

In the event of an earthquake, is it possible that the residential neighborhood around the mine site will not be damaged? Who is responsible for the chemicals used to separate the gold from the rock mass, which enter the air, water and soil and cause irreparable and incurable cancer-type diseases in the health of the people in the region?

I think someone is HAARPing with us.

Selected Bibliography














Ömür Ömür Çelikdönmez

Ömür Çelikdönmez: Journalist-Writer. He held various positions in the Turkish Prime Ministry. He writes articles on geopolitics and geostrategy.