When the world's at stake,
go beyond the headlines.

In her 2021 article, “Analyzing the Climate Security Threat: Key Actions for the U.S. Intelligence Community,” Erin Sikorsky of the Center for Climate Security, offered recommendations to the U.S. Intelligence Community for integrating climate security threats into its analyses. Four years later, as the winds of political change have blown while climate security risks have compounded, we asked her to reassess her argument.Image: NASAYour 2021 article argued the intelligence community needed to better integrate climate security threats into its analysis. Four years on — as global conflicts are at the forefront of the public consciousness — do you think your analysis holds true?Yes, absolutely. I will give you two examples with ties to Russian activities, illustrating how ignoring climate dynamics can cause intelligence analysts to miss critical context or make flawed assessments.First, a global food security crisis followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The decimation of Ukraine’s agricultural economy shocked the global food system, and climate hazards amplified the crisis and interrupted opportunities to manage the risk. For instance, soon after the invasion, India banned wheat exports due to an abnormal spring heatwave, which further drove up global prices and exacerbated global supplies. As African countries suffered due to these dual pressures — climate and conflict — President Putin used food shipments as leverage, exchanging aid for votes or abstentions in the United Nations Security Council on resolutions regarding the illegality of the Ukraine War.The second example relates to Storm Boris last year, which brought unprecedented rain and flooding to much of Central Europe, including Poland — experts say the severity was doubled by the effects of climate change. In the wake of the storm, the Polish government warned of a 300 percent increase in internet disinformation from Russia and Belarus regarding the government’s response to the storm. This is