Harley Schlanger

by: Harley Schlanger June 18—Given the harsh words and shrill tone from the Biden team preceding his meeting with Russian President Putin on June 16, it seemed realistic that both sides were lowering expectations in pre-summit pronouncements. In the days before the summit, Biden met with G7 leaders and NATO officials to create an impression of a united front against the "threats" posed by Russia and China. His spokesmen repeatedly painted a picture of an "Alliance of Democratic States" prepared to confront "autocratic regimes", in defense of an arbitrary "Rules-Based Order" (RBO) unified by adherence to "western values"—values which are under attack due to the "malign intent" allegedly demonstrated by Russia and China.Following the NATO summit in Brussels, Biden said, "Russia and China are both seeking to drive a wedge in our transatlantic solidarity...but NATO is rock solid and unshakeable." In the final communique, Russia is repeatedly identified as an "aggressor" and China as presenting a "systemic challenge", both posing a threat to the RBO. In the face of this threat, it states that NATO "stands by its international commitments", especially regarding Russia, which was accused of continuing "to breach the values, principles, trust and commitment outlined" in the documents defining the Russian-NATO relationship. “The U.S. is back,” Biden enthused time and again, and the others agreed, referring to the fact that the G7, in the past, had been able to shape the global agenda, based on U.S.military and economic power. The apparent unity achieved in these two summits would allow him to confidently "draw red lines" in his meeting with Putin. Yet, cutting through all the platitudes in the flood of words served up by participants at the G7 and NATO summits was a simple statement issued by the Chinese Embassy in London: “The days when global decisions were dictated by a small group of countries are long gone.” This comment in particular shreds one of the conceits bandied about by members of the G7 “Club”, that this summit marked a return to “multilateralism,” highlighted by the presence of the U.S. after the Trump interregnum. To put things in perspective, when the G7 was founded, in 1975, the member countries represented 80% of the world’s GDP; but today, it is just over 30%, according to Statista.com. In terms of population, the seven countries account for less than 10% of the world's total. Thus, while the “seven dwarfs” (as Lyndon LaRouche called them) made a show of unity in Cornwall, there were legitimate concerns over their ability to impose their will on the world, and underneath the surface, disagreements emerged, especially on how “tough” to be against China, exemplified by a push-back from Germany, France and Italy. The demand that nations nonetheless submit to this new order discredits their claim of commitment to “multilateralism.” The proceedings of the G7 summit were shaped not in accordance with principles of international law, but by the arbitrary design of the financial, intelligence, security and diplomatic communities of London and Washington, in tandem with the think tanks and Non-Governmental Organizations financed by the same Military Industrial Complex making strategic decisions. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced months ago that the G7 would be the coming out party for “Global Britain”, a thinly-disguised new imperial order at the center of the RBO. The Biden team was not only fully in step, but has been claiming ownership of this concept.

The joint statement from Biden and Putin, reaffirming that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, represents a potential for positive change. First, it acknowledges that we have been headed toward a nuclear war, which few are willing to face. Second, it raises the deeper question, how can such a war be avoided? Pronouncements like this are never definitive. Lyndon LaRouche provided the answer, that the commitment of sovereign nation states to sharing the benefits of technological progress, is the key to durable peace. And how do we achieve that? His wife, Helga, has provided the answer: break out of the imperial geopolitical paradigm, with its commitment to predatory neoliberal economics benefitting the private banks, and build a new paradigm of cooperation, to achieve the Common Aims of Mankind. This is the theme of next weekend's online Schiller Institute conference -- click here to register for this historic event!

We should not overstate the case -- the outcome of the Putin-Biden summit did not resolve most of the outstanding issues, which the War Hawks in the Military Industrial Complex have been inventing and hyping, to bring the two countries to the brink of war. However, the joint statement they issued included an extremely important agreement: "Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." See if you can find this reported in the English-language mainstream media, which instead demeaned the summit, and tried to provoke confrontation between the two leaders, exactly as they tried following the July 2018 summit between Putin and President Trump in Helsinki.

The meeting today in Geneva has been played down by both sides. Yet, the fact they are meeting is significant. It comes in the midst of worsening relations between the U.S. and Russia. And it follows a not-fully successful effort by the Anglo-American geopolitical War Hawks to pull the "Alliance of Democratic States" into an agreement for heightened confrontation with Russia and China. While some of the rhetoric was harsh, with wild accusations against both states, it is also clear that not everyone was buying into the idea that more sanctions and bluster against them would accomplish anything, especially when no real evidence backing the charges against Putin and Xi has been presented. In the absence of a solid front in favor of heightened confrontation against Russia and China, is it possible that an actual dialogue might begin?

Instead of engaging the leaders of Russia and China in a serious deliberation on what to do about the multiplicity of crises affecting the world, the G7 and NATO leaders put forward a series of unserious, if not downright lunatic proposals, during their confabs over the last days. Their proposals for global infrastructure and battling the COVID pandemic were not serious, but instead would continue the policies which have left infrastructure -- including that of public health -- incapable of serving the needs of nations and their people. As for their strategic communique, it is more of the same false accusations against Russia and China, to justify military buildup and geopolitical confrontation. Where are the statesmen and women, when they're needed? They will be at the Schiller Institute online conference, June 26-7. Join us!

The G7 summit followed through with most of the plan composed by the City of London/Wall Street bankers and their allies among the Davos billionaires, adopting a Green agenda which will harm, if not eliminate, human life on the planet, and a call for increased economic warfare against China. While there was some hesitation in adopting the most extreme language pushed by host Boris Johnson and his new buddy, Joe Biden, it is expected that this will be reinforced when NATO heads-of-state meet today in Brussels, to discuss transforming NATO into a global alliance, i.e., into the "Indo-Pacific" region, to "contain" China, which is accused of violating the sacrosanct Rules-Based Order. But the Green New Deal took a hit, with voters in Switzerland rejecting a referendum which would have mandated Swiss adoption of the extreme energy austerity demands of the G7 communique, and support for the Green Party in Germany has fallen sharply in the last weeks.

June 11 -- Buoyed by praise from Congressional Democrats and Republicans for his commitment to "stand up to Russia and China", Joe Biden's first words on arriving in the U.K. for a series of summits reflected that bipartisan consensus.

Can Peace Be Achieved Between Israel and Palestine? With the week of three summits now underway, the question on everyone's mind -- at least those who are sane -- is will the London/Wall Street/Silicon Valley War Hawks who control the Biden administration succeed in forcing Russia to give up its sovereignty, and submit to their unilateral order? Or, if Russia does not submit, as I expect it will not, will that move the world closer to nuclear annihilation? On the question of peace in the Middle East, it is not in the hands of either Israelis or Palestinians. The issue is, can the hands of the same geopolitical forces pitting the U.S. against Russia and China, be removed from the throats of Israel and Palestine, so that a broader agreement for economic cooperation, encompassing the whole of southwest Asia, can be reached?

As we enter into a period of hyperinflation, which will steal the life's work of middle-class families, while shutting down more industries and businesses than a year of lock-downs has, why not learn from the past? The 1933 Glass Steagall bill reined in bank and financial speculation, by defending commercial banks and their depositors, while forcing the speculators in investment banks to eat their own losses. Today's varieties of speculative bubbles have created debt many times larger than world GDP -- these debts can never be paid off, but the central banks continue to pump liquidity into the bubbles, while cutting off credit to good producers, dooming the manufacturing, agriculture and trade sectors, all to be enforced by a global central banker's dictatorship. Learn how restoring Glass Steagall can put an end to the bubble economy, and send the swindlers in the banks and shadow banking system, who keep producing new, bigger bubbles for their personal profit, to jail.

Joe Biden is on his way to Europe today to participate in a series of summits, with his minder, Tony "Rules-Based Order" (RBO) Blinken, faithfully at his side. What has been pre-scripted to occur -- if this week's Congressional testimony by Blinken is an accurate foretaste -- will be a disaster for humanity, as geopolitical provocations against Russia and China would most likely turn out badly for all. But the G7 and NATO can't presume to speak for everyone, as many nations are looking to Russia and China as defenders of the principle of sovereignty, against the arbitrary unilateralism espoused by the imperial authors of the RBO.