March 19—It is becoming increasingly clear to the industrial entrepreneurs and the average citizens of the trans-Atlantic region that the Western economies are rapidly approaching free-fall collapse. |
March 12—President Putin has now responded to the West’s tightening sanctions with a combination of measures unprecedented in modern times, to defend the Russian economy against an attempt to “destroy Russia, Putin and the Russian system.” |
March 12--The UN Security Council held an emergency
session Friday, called by Russia, on the information the Russians
have discovered in Ukraine regarding the activities of over 30 Bio
Labs, funded and controlled by the U.S. over the past decades. |
March 6—The facts regarding the multiple fascist organizations in positions of influence in Ukraine since the 2014 coup has generally been kept out of the Western press, although a number of independent journalists and several Israeli institutions have documented (and strongly objected) to the fact that these Nazis were not only tolerated by the Ukraine government, but in fact had power over many aspects of policy—and, this was accepted by Kiev’s controllers in London and Washington. The many Russian documentations of the atrocities committed by these organizations (including a major role in the genocidal military attacks on the mostly Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas region who refused to accept the illegal fascist coup) were dismissed as Russian lies.The full story of the overt role of the British and U.S. governments’ intentional nurturing of these fascist organizations, going back to the post-World War II CIA and MI6 recruitment of the defeated Nazi networks as tools of their anti-communist Cold War operations, up to the Obama/Biden/Victoria Nuland $5 billion project to overthrow the elected Ukrainian government in 2014 and install the Nazi-linked leaders of Washington’s choosing, is fully documented in the pages of EIR.See, for example “Western Powers Back Neo-Nazi Coup in Ukraine”; “Ukrainian Patriots Expose EU Support for Neo-Nazi Coup”; and “How Obama and Soros Put Actual Nazis in Power in Ukraine.” Now, the repressive screen placed over these facts is crumbling. Vladimir Putin’s clearly defined intention in his military deployment into Ukraine—to demilitarize and de-Nazify the country—has provoked hysteria in the Western world. The leading advocates of all-out economic warfare against Russia, while preparing for military warfare, even nuclear warfare, have been forced to defend the indefensible—support for swastika-wearing defenders of Stepan Bandera, Hitler’s fascist ally in Ukraine. One hears from them that Ukraine cannot be accused of fascism because its President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is Jewish. Col. Douglas Macgregor told a stunned Fox Business broadcaster on Friday that Zelenskyy was a “puppet,” and certainly no hero. “The only heroic thing he could do is to come to terms with reality and declare Ukraine as a neutral state, which would be good for us as well as for Russia.” You can read below and in the Sunday EIR Daily Alert how Zelenskyy’s original intention, and the reason he was elected overwhelmingly in 2019, was to stop the war on the self-declared independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, and to make peace with Russia. This intention was crushed by the Nazis, who threated to orchestrate another coup, that Zelenskyy “would lose his life—he will hang on some tree” in Kiev if he were to implement any part of the Minsk Agreement or stop the war on the Donbas republics. For fear or for incompetence, Zelenskyy capitulated, and now is calling for NATO to intervene, to create a no-fly zone, which is a call for a NATO war with Russia. Every military and political figure who is not totally insane has insisted that such a war could mean the annihilation of the human race. There is no reason for war. The resolution of this global crisis, of benefit to all, lies in the convening of an international conference as called for by the Schiller Institute petition, Convoke an International Conference to Establish A New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations ). If you have not signed already, sign it now, and circulate the petition to your political representatives and other institutional leaders, and follow up with a phone call to insist they sign. The age of geopolitics, of zero-sum divisions of the world into warring blocs, is over. The Feb. 4 Joint Statement by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping presents the new paradigm of peace through development for all nations. The British imperial division of the world is no longer accepted by the vast majority of the world’s nations or the world’s citizens. Let us celebrate a new era of mankind, cooperating for the development of the Earth and the Solar System. |
March 4—In key venues of international relations this week, it was evident not all nations are lining up behind the lies of the U.S./British/NATO bloc associated with the demand that the economy of Russia must be destroyed, and by extension, that of China too, and other targeted nations with them. The truth is—even if only partially presented and understood amidst the fierce media cover-up and social control—that the Western bloc has been encircling and provoking Russia for decades, as part of its intent to preserve the Western casino economy at all costs, especially now that the casino is untenable. Even the Green Reset gambit cannot put it back together again.It is anathema to this crowd that Russia and China are collaborating on economic development, especially as declared by their Presidents on February 4, as a joint commitment for a new worldwide development era. And so we are at the point of extreme confrontation, extreme chaos and extreme danger. But the truth remains free. At the Quad meeting (by video) yesterday of heads of state and government of India, Japan, Australia and the United States, the bully bloc expectation was to have the leaders form a united front and issue a statement that condemned Russia and its invasion of Ukraine, but India would not go along with it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called instead for an end of hostilities and diplomacy. The report afterward from India’s Ministry of External Affairs underscored Modi’s insistence that the Quad remain focused on its core objective “of promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” On Ukraine, Prime Minister Modi emphasized “the need to return to a path of dialogue and diplomacy.” The day before, the UN General Assembly met to vote on a condemnation measure of Russia. While 141 countries out of a UN roster of 193, voted for the resolution, this tally left out 47 nations—virtually 25% of the world, not going along. Most of these abstained, or listed themselves as absent. Of these 47, fully 27 are from Africa, and constitute half of the 55 nations of that continent. They did not line up for the lies. From Uganda, Lt. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of President Yoweri Museveni tweeted after the UN vote that, “the majority of mankind (that are non-white) support Russia’s stand in Ukraine. Putin is absolutely right. When the U.S.S.R. parked nuclear armed missiles in Cuba in 1962, the West was ready to blow up the world over it. Now when NATO does the same, they expect Russia to do differently.” On March 3, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an extraordinary press conference, amidst the intensifying NATO censorship, at which he took questions from major Western media from the U.S. and Europe. He summed up at one point, that what is at stake is the world order itself. He said, “In the final analysis, this is not just the situation in Ukraine—the efforts to demilitarize and de-Nazify it—to prevent the continuing manifestations of genocide on its territory, putting a stop to any violence and ensuring for the Ukrainians an opportunity to decide their destiny themselves; no, it is the world order that is at stake. It is for this reason that the West is avoiding, in any way it can, giving a response to our implicit, clear-cut proposals on the security system in Europe that rely on existing agreement.” Mr. Lavrov’s description of the situation today makes clear the vital importance and urgency of the Schiller Institute’s statement and petition process for a new world security and development architecture, “Convoke an International Conference to Establish a new Security and Development Architecture for All Nations.” This weekend in the United States, the LaRouche movement is taking the message to the streets as the Truckers Freedom Convoy converges on Washington, D.C.. The newly-printed, mass circulation report will be on site from The LaRouche Organization, “Stop Global Britain’s Green War Drive.” |
Feb. 22—In a televised address delivered shortly after signing the decrees grant recognition to the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, Russian President Vladimir Putin effectively charged the US with aiming to break Russia up into pieces. “Ok, you do not want to have a friend and ally like us, but why depicting us as an enemy then? The answer is one. Our political regime or something else does not matter. They simply do not want to see such a large and independent country as Russia,” Putin said, adding that this answered all questions. "This is a source of traditional US policy on the Russian track.Putin also said that Ukraine will serve as a NATO foothold for a strike against Russia, should it join the alliance. “I will explain, that the US strategic planning documents […] stipulate an option of the so-called preemptive strike on enemy’s missile systems. And we know who the main enemy for the US and NATO is. It is Russia. NATO documents officially, straightforwardly declare Russia as the main threat for Euro-Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a foothold for such a strike,” he said. Even without alliance membership, Ukraine is already in practical terms already integrated into its military command structures, Putin continued. “This means that the command of the Ukrainian armed forces and even separate formations and units can be directly exercised from NATO headquarters. The United States and NATO have already begun shamelessly exploiting Ukrainian territory as a theater of potential military operations,” he said. “We see how the Kiev regime is being persistently beefed up militarily,” Putin stressed. “The United States alone has channeled billions of US dollars for these purposes since 2014, including the deliveries of armaments, ammunition and specialist training. In recent months, Western weapons have been continuously flowing into Ukraine demonstratively as seen by the entire world,” he said. The activity of the Ukrainian armed forces and special services is directed by foreign advisers, Putin continued. “We know well about that. Military contingents of NATO countries have been present actually constantly on the territory of Ukraine under various pretexts in recent years,” the Russian president said. “Regular joint drills [of Ukraine and NATO) have a clear anti-Russia bias,” Putin pointed out. In fact, the Kiev regime has already passed a law permitting the presence of foreign forces in Ukraine for tem major exercises in 2022. Earlier in the speech. Putin provided a historical overview ini which he argued that Ukraine has never had real statehood any time in its modern history, particularly from the time of the October 1917 Revolution and the Civil War of 1922. Without actually using the term, Putin described what amounts to the creation of a failed state in Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union, one that has never had true sovereignty, particularly in the realm of the economy which has been dominated by external interests only concerned with removing as much loot as they can from the country. As examples, Putin cited the shutting down of major Soviet-era industrial complexes such as the Nikolayev shipyard on the Black Sea, which has gone out of business; the Antonov aviation concern which hasn’t produced an aircraft since 2016; Yuzhmash, a factory specialising in missile and space equipment, which is bankrupt; and the Kremenchug Steel Plant, which is also bankrupt. “This situation begs the question: poverty, lack of opportunity, and lost industrial and technological potential—is this the pro-Western civilisational choice they have been using for many years to fool millions of people with promises of heavenly pastures?” Putin said. “It all came down to a Ukrainian economy in tatters and an outright pillage of the country’s citizens, while Ukraine itself was placed under external control, directed not only from the Western capitals, but also on the ground, as the saying goes, through an entire network of foreign advisors, NGOs and other institutions present in Ukraine.” |
Feb. 22—On February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin, after the announcement of Russian recognition of the territories of Donetsk and Lugansk as sovereign republics within Ukraine, delivered a televised speech, not to Russia, but to the world. English speakers were able to watch and hear Putin’s message as well. Putin made it clear that, whatever the delusions of those in the trans-Atlantic sector, Russia regards Ukraine as fully integrated into the NATO command and control structure. He specifically stated, “I will explain that the US strategic planning documents (such as Prompt Global Strike, released in Feb. 2007) stipulate an option of [a] so-called preemptive strike on [an] enemy’s missile systems. And we know who the main enemy for the US and NATO is. It is Russia….”Remember that Mississippi’s Roger Wicker stated on December 7, 2021, that for the United States, “Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea and that we rain destruction on Russian military capabilities…. We don’t rule out first-use nuclear action. We don’t think it’ll happen. But there are certain things in negotiations if you’re gonna be tough that you don’t take off the table.” Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, on the Tucker Carlson program, responded the next day to Wicker, “This is why it is such a dangerous situation that we are facing, as we are being pushed closer and closer very quickly … to a hot war, a nuclear war that would destroy the world as we know it,” she said. The article “If Russia Invades Ukraine, Sanction China,” subtitled “Putin has found an economic lifeline in Beijing that only Washington can destroy,” (see slug) shows what the real target here is. There is now a motion for human progress, for world economic and technological development, and against depopulation, involving well over 100 nations. It is especially represented by the recent alliance between Russia and China, the “China-Russia joint statement on International Relations Entering a New Era,” properly identified by Patrick Lawrence as “a global order most of humanity has awaited throughout the postwar decades—all seven of them. This is immensely positive.” The “magnet for development” known as the Belt and Road Initiative, the more advanced version of the 1996 New Silk Road deliberations involving Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute, was first announced, it should be remembered, in Kazakhstan in September, 2013, by President Xi Jinping. This was just before the Ukrainian government rejected the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement on November 21, deciding in favor of the Eurasian Economic Union. The elected Ukrainian government of Yanukovich was then overthrown by the “economic hit men,” including Victoria Nuland and others. Today, the Doomsday politicians can and must be defeated by a new security architecture, based on peace through development and the LaRouche Four Laws. The Schiller Institute’s social media presence and its interventions into religious, academic, intelligence, and national institutions, using the speeches of our recent conference, cannot only save lives, but make that new architecture a reality. Thousands of citizens standing up, not for personal freedoms, but for “the benefit of the other,” for peace through development as the means to end world war, is the only path forward for humanity. In this year of LaRouche, if the name for peace is development, the name for development is LaRouche’s Four Laws. The International Schiller Institute is therefore launching a mobilization which will release a statement in the next 24 hours, proposing multiple actions that all can take to help. The idea is that all our forces, and those that join us, speak with one clear voice, what Lyndon LaRouche would have called “the proper voice placement,” to achieve a precision in our desired effect — one idea across many continents. |
Feb. 14—The Biden Administration, with a very bad misjudgment of the real condition of Afghanistan after 20 years of NATO’s war there, made a rushed pull-out and then moved to seize all the country’s cash and punish its people with no food, medical care or shelter in the dead of winter. It never even told America’s NATO “allies” what it was doing. It’s leaving a country destroyed.Can the Biden White House now be allowed to make an even worse disaster in Europe—even a nuclear disaster—in a crisis, the “Ukraine crisis,” which could set off a war to destroy humanity itself? The more and more angry and aggressive bluffing of Russia by the Biden Administration over Ukraine has brought us closer to nuclear war than we have ever been since October 1962, when the whole world was terrified by the Cuban Missiles Crisis. One possibility is that Biden and his dubious national security team is looking for a victory to sell at home, by telling us Russia will invade Ukraine next week, tomorrow, any minute … and then when Russia does not invade, telling us Biden’s threat of crushing economic punishment stopped Putin. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said this was the “elaborate charade” yesterday on Twitter. Former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock put out the idea in a column today, writing for the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her own way, hinted at it Sunday on “ABC This Week”: “If we were not threatening the sanctions and the rest, it would guarantee that Putin would invade…. So, if Russia doesn’t invade, it’s not that he never intended to. It’s just that the sanctions worked.” But we cannot rest on hope that this is political fakery. The Biden White House is punishing Afghanistan incompetently, but with a vengeance. It wants to punish Russia and destroy its economy. Senior White House officials said it in a background press briefing Jan. 25: The goal is “hit Putin’s strategic ambitions to industrialize his economy quite hard…. Undercut Putin’s aspirations to exert influence on the world stage.” The officials vowed, “we’re talking about denying to Russia downstream products that are critical to its own ambitions to develop high-tech capabilities in aerospace and defense, lasers and sensors, maritime, AI, robotics, quantum, etc. … And so, as we build this effort with our allies and partners, we’re willing to work with any country in order to deny Russia an input that it needs to diversify its economy.” With that goal, Biden’s team—which had “everything under control” in Afghanistan—is daring Russian President Putin to go to war. It is squeezing Ukraine’s President Zelensky so hard that he feels compelled to contradict every Russian invasion forecast that London and Washington make. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in her widely read analysis Feb. 6, said “We Are 100 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock: We Need a New Security Architecture.” Two European bankers put out a call for France to block Ukraine’s entry to NATO and leave the NATO strategic command, now, anything to stop the march toward war. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Ukraine today to say, “The issue of [Ukraine’s] membership in the alliance [NATO] is not on the agenda,” so Russia should stop worrying about it. But the NATO weaponry America is pouring into Ukraine and around it is unprecedented: Ukraine’s Defense Minister admits it now has far more anti-tank missiles than Russian tank targets. We all need to mobilize ourselves, not to “watch and wait,” as most were scared into doing in October 1962. There is no John F. Kennedy here to solve this. The solution is to compel more breaks toward negotiation, and to attack the cause, the threat of hyperinflationary collapse which the Biden Administration and Federal Reserve have done so much to bring on themselves and us. Our next D-Day is Saturday, Feb. 19, the Schiller Institute’s all-day conference with the message of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Feb. 6 article: We need a new security architecture, one based on economic recovery and development. Register for the conference and organize others.
|
Feb. 13—The question of what will happen next, and when, in the contrived confrontation by the NATO bloc against Russia in Europe, remains hanging in the air and very dangerous. More counter forces of sanity are speaking out, but a decisive break is urgent.Over the weekend, U.S. spokesmen continued their drumroll of assertions against Russian aggression, and their bogus charge that Russia will attack Ukraine, in statements by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking from Hawaii, by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and by Pentagon spokesman John Kirby. They were militantly vague on when and how. Sullivan on CNN this morning said, on the time frame of a Russian attack, that we are “in the window,” and it could be “any day now,” or otherwise “after the Olympics” which end on Feb. 20. Sullivan said that Russia can be expected to stage a false-flag incident, because, for among other reasons, it is just “consistent with the Russian playbook” to do that kind of thing. No evidence is needed. Assessing the situation, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche said today that the “ambiguity of potential false flags will remain, until someone cuts through this…. We need a decisive break.” Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) spoke out strongly over the weekend, exposing those behind the insane war drive against Russia. She tweeted out a 4-minute clip from her appearance on Fox News Saturday evening, with a tweet explaining how “Biden can very easily prevent a war with Russia by guaranteeing that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.” On TV, she charged that “Biden and military leaders actually want Russia to invade Ukraine. Why would they do so? It gives Biden the excuse to levy draconian sanctions … and it cements the Cold War in place…. The military-industrial complex is the one that benefits from this; they clearly control the Biden Administration; warmongers on both sides in Washington who have been drumming up these tensions.” There is also an increasing activation and prominence of anti-war groups in the U.S. Besides the NATO focus on confrontation over Ukraine, the global NATO mobilization in the Indo-Pacific is in full swing. After the ministerial QUAD meeting in Australia this past week, the White House issued a 19-page document, “Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States.” Blinken plugged its world supremacy point of view yesterday, speaking from Honolulu, where he met with foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea. Blinken said that, “In the meeting that the three of us had, we discussed the threat that Russia’s aggression poses—not only to Ukraine, but to the entire international rules-based order, which has provided a foundation for decades of shared security and prosperity, for our people here in this region and, again, around the globe.” He said of his fellow ministers that, “we agreed to stick together in our response to Russia.” It is against his triumphalism that certain opposition viewpoints stand out, which are coming from establishment figures in Europe. On Feb. 11, the French weekly Marianne carried an article headlined, “NATO Exit: Urgency Absolute,” which urges that France leave NATO. That “will signal Europe’s independence from American exceptionalism, the renewal of multilateralism, the emergence of a multipolar world….” It is by German economist Peter Dittus, former Secretary General of the Bank for International Settlements, and former Deputy Governor of the Banque de France Hervé Hannoun, former BIS Deputy Managing Director. Today, a warning is sounded by Russian policy expert Fyodor Lukyanov, “How the World Sleepwalked into Another Cuban Missile Crisis.” In his article in RT, after stressing the current danger over the Ukraine confrontation, he advises that, “The best-case scenario would be the same as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At some point, both sides would recognize the grave danger posed by further escalation and start direct substantive negotiations in order to work out the fundamentals of mutual guarantees.” The Saturday Feb. 19 Schiller Institute online international conference is a critical contribution toward the “decisive break” we need, to stop the mad mobilization toward collapse and war. Register and spread the word. It is on Feb. 19, 10 a.m. (EST): “100 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock: We Need a New Security Architecture!”
|
In an op-ed published on Feb. 11, 2022, by the French “souverainist” weekly Marianne, Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun, argue in favor of a French exit from the integrated command of NATO. The German economist Peter Dittus is the former secretary general of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), while Frenchman Hannoun is its deputy director general. We reprint it here in full:“Faced with the Ukrainian Crisis, France’s NATO-EXIT Is an Absolute Emergency” Breaking with the policy of non-alignment followed by de Gaulle, Giscard and Mitterrand for 43 years, France once again became a member of the integrated military command of NATO in 2009, without the French people having been consulted by referendum. The current Ukrainian crisis reveals the serious perils to which France is exposed by being attached to a defensive collective security organization under the command of the United States that has become expansionist. Since November 2021, the French, like other peoples of the West, have been subjected to an unprecedented mental conditioning conducted by the United States and NATO on the theme of the “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine,” which may go down in history as an episode of disinformation along the lines of the fabricated intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003. What is the reality? Millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the two self-proclaimed Donbas people’s republics live under sporadic firing and shelling by the Ukrainian army against separatist forces. The concentration of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders is obviously aimed at dissuading Kiev from attempting to regain direct control of the enclaves of Donetsk and Luhansk by force. NATO’s successful disinformation on Ukraine has consisted in presenting Putin’s moral obligation to defend these Russian-speaking populations—which Ukraine wants to progressively deprive of the right to speak their language—as a prelude to the total annexation of Ukraine by Russia. The Myth of an ‘Imminent Russian Invasion’ NATO manages to pass off a concentration of Russian troops ready to come to the rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas as an “imminent Russian invasion” of the whole of Ukraine, including Odessa, Kharkiv and Kiev. An insane invasion that in reality Russia completely rules out … unless it is pushed into it by a possible prior Ukrainian attack on the Donbas. The only war that NATO seems to be winning is the one of information. We show in our book [OTANexit: Urgence Absolue, Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun, Jan. 16, 2022] the striking German propaganda map in the weekly Bild of December 4, 2021, giving an imaginary detailed plan of the “imminent Russian invasion.” The role of propaganda is terrifying, because of the charge of hatred generated by the lies on both sides. On the NATO side, the aggressive and bellicose discourse of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is irresistibly reminiscent of the famous Orwellian inversion: “Peace Is War.” And If France Had the Solution? Paris must avoid the military spiral into which the United States and NATO want to drag it. In the coming weeks, it must not allow itself to be involved in a war in Eastern Europe that is not its own. France has already agreed to deploy hundreds of men in a NATO battle group in Estonia. On January 1, it took the lead in the NATO Rapid Response Force, which includes at least 7,700 French soldiers. President Macron has just announced the possible dispatch of 1,000 French troops to Romania under the NATO banner on the “Eastern flank,” in the Black Sea region. The military escalation is dangerous. For the security of the French people, it is necessary to exclude committing the French army under the banner of NATO in a war in Ukraine or Belarus. On the other hand, France has a diplomatic weapon to resolve the serious crisis between NATO and Russia. The detonator of this crisis was the stubbornness of Jens Stoltenberg and the Americans to pursue since 2018 a creeping process of accession of Ukraine to NATO, called “open door policy,” seen by Russia as a threat to its security. To put an end to the current confrontation, President Macron should simply declare solemnly in the name of France that his country will oppose any request from Ukraine to join NATO. As decisions on membership of the Alliance require unanimity, France can exercise a veto. In doing so, the President would be in line with the commitments he made during his 2017 presidential campaign not to support NATO’s expansion to Ukraine. It would be an elegant way out of the crisis. Alas, the French President, during his visit to Moscow and then to Kiev on February 7 and 8, 2022, did not consider this simple solution because French diplomacy did not oppose in the NATO bodies the mad “open door policy” to the membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. On the other hand, France supports NATO and the G7 in their demand for the return of Crimea to Ukraine, knowing full well that it cannot be done without a war, possibly nuclear. American Subordination At the time of the (Maastricht) 1992 referendum on the EU treaty, no one could have imagined that this great project of Mitterrand and Kohl for peace would be deviated from, from 1998 onward, by the American geopolitical project to take de facto control of the European common defense and security policy. This was due to the simultaneous enlargement of the EU and NATO to ten Eastern European countries between 1991 and 2007, and also to President Sarkozy’s decision, with far-reaching consequences, to abandon in 2008 the Gaullist strategic position of refusing to participate in NATO’s integrated military command. From the moment that 21 of the 27 EU countries, including France, became full members of NATO, the initial spirit of Maastricht was betrayed, because “Europe for peace” was inevitably going to be thwarted by the interference of the United States, with its own geopolitical objectives, in the common European defense and security policy. In reality, there can be no independent French or European defense within the current framework of participation in the integrated military command of NATO by France and 21 other European Union states. The concept of “European strategic autonomy” within NATO is an illusion, given the control of the United States over this Alliance. The EU seeks to hide this fundamental flaw behind a vague concept: the “strategic compass.” The fundamental incompatibility between the U.S.-controlled NATO and an independent French or European defense does not prevent our leaders from defending the thesis of complementarity between the EU and NATO in terms of defense, as summarized on December 11, 2021 by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs: “We are keen for the EU and NATO to complement and reinforce each other in order to contribute to strengthening security and defense in Europe. This is the meaning of the strategic compass that will be adopted during the French Presidency of the EU Council.” Defense: The Impasse of ‘At the Same Time’ The EU’s “strategic compass” is above all an effort to provide a conceptual framework for the false idea that “European strategic autonomy” in relation to the United States is compatible with the NATO membership of the vast majority of EU member states. This complementarity between NATO and the EU, the “at the same time” applied to defense, is an illusion. The fussy logic of national independence has given way to the vague and misleading concept of strategic autonomy and the search for interdependence and interoperability with our “allies.” Beyond the immediate crisis surrounding Ukraine, the [French] presidential elections of April 10 and 24 must allow for a decision on the question of NATO. All those who reject NATO’s march towards the war that is brewing on the Eastern borders of the EU have a unique opportunity, with the presidential election of 2022, to send a simple and clear message of peace to the leaders of our country, in one word: NATO-EXIT (Otanexit). It is a question of ensuring that a candidate for peace is elected President, who is committed to putting an end to France’s alignment with NATO. One can think that the outgoing President will want to avoid a debate in the presidential campaign on the question of our military alliances in NATO: alliance with the adventurism of the Anglo-Saxons, whose arrogance was revealed by the Australian submarine affair, unnatural alliance with Islamist Turkey, alliance with Polish nationalism, and tomorrow perhaps, alliance with a Germany that could use NATO as a springboard for its remilitarization, or even alliance with Kosovo against Serbia. This list alone allows us to measure the risks of a collective security system comprising 30 heterogeneous nations, and dominated by one of them. An Unconstitutional ‘Defense Union’ On January 7, 2022, in a joint press conference with President Macron in Paris, the President of the European Commission allowed herself a federalist statement that exceeded her prerogatives: “We agree that we need a real defense union.” In the presence of President Macron, she spoke of adding a “Defense Union” to the Economic and Monetary Union in the future, without taking into account the fact that this statement is contrary to the French Constitution, which is based on national independence, national sovereignty and national defense. It is necessary to oppose the stealthy European federalism that is currently being practiced, which cannot replace a federalism that is democratically accepted—or rejected—by referendum, according to the procedure followed in 1992 by François Mitterrand for the transfer of monetary sovereignty provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. The French people must reject the concept of defense union under the banner of NATO that Ursula von der Leyen wants to impose on them. France’s current alignment with NATO, through its participation in the integrated military command under American leadership, is a strategic dead end for a country with a universal vocation like France. Today, this country has a historic role to play in stopping the march towards war in Europe initiated by the NATO sleepwalkers. France’s exit from NATO, which will mark the end of the alignment of France’s foreign security policy with the United States, will have an immense impact on the world. It will signal Europe’s independence from American exceptionalism, the renewal of multilateralism, the emergence of a multipolar world and the rapid demise of the obsolete NATO framework. France will then rediscover its universal vocation, contributing to the global balance for peace, and playing, thanks to its rediscovered impartiality, a role of synthesis within the P5, the concert of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and France), a P5 whose composition must be maintained and whose role as regulator of world peace must be enhanced.
|
Feb.12—The Chickenhawks running the Biden Administration—Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan—have declared that their psychotic plan to unleash the well-armed and well-trained Nazi militia in Ukraine against the Donbas is set to be implemented in the coming week. While Blinken and Sullivan say that a “Russian invasion of Ukraine can come at any moment,” unnamed sources in the White House and in NATO have informed the media that this will take place precisely on Wednesday, Feb. 16. The plan, they failed to report, is to provoke a response from the Russian military to defend their compatriots among the Ukrainian citizens in the Donbas from this Nazi assault, which will then be declared the much-anticipated “Russian invasion.” This, they imagine, will detonate either the West’s “nuclear sanctions” option, which they believe will destroy Russia (but which will do far greater damage to the Anglo-American allies in Europe), or they will go straight to military warfare. Given that the U.S. has just completed a nuclear war-fighting exercise “Global Lightning,” based on the insane, utopian fantasy that a prolonged nuclear war could be fought and won, the human race is facing an existential question—do we have the moral fitness to survive?Two former directors of the Bank for International Settlements, one French and one German, released an extraordinary document on Feb. 11 (see below) calling for France to leave NATO, asserting that NATO is now led by American “expansionists” who are prepared to sacrifice Europe, and perhaps the world, to maintain their past glory as the world’s unipolar controller of all things economic and strategic. (While they blame this entirely on American control of NATO, they do at least acknowledge the British hand: that it is the “alliance with adventurism of the Anglo-Saxons.”) These are not “anti-war activists”—these are rather French and German leaders of the establishment. They assert that the clearly “unprecedented brainwashing conducted by the United States and NATO on the theme of the ‘imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine’” may well “go down in history as an episode of disinformation along the lines of the fabricated intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003.” The antics of NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, they add, is reminiscent of the “famous Orwellian inversion: ‘Peace Is War.’” The full document is being circulated in several languages by EIR and the Schiller Institute. What could drive supposedly educated people like Blinken and Sullivan to such madness? The truth of the matter is increasingly clear, both to governments and to a growing plurality of the citizens of the trans-Atlantic nations: The Western world is entering a Dark Age, while most of the rest of the world is being motivated by a new force, represented by the extraordinary Feb. 4 declaration by Russia and China: “On the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development.” The document declares the end of the toleration by the world’s nations of unipolar control over the economy and security of the world. The “rules-based order” manufactured by the “only superpower,” which was invented to replace the principles of peaceful coexistence in the UN Charter, will no longer be acknowledged. As the Feb. 4 document states: “The world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order; there is increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States; a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world; and the international community is showing a growing demand for the leadership aiming at peaceful and gradual development.” The human race has today been called upon by history and by the Creator to respond to this moment of truth, to answer the question posed above: Do we have the moral fitness to survive? Will we call upon all nations, and all the diverse cultures of humanity, to join together in this “New Era” of peace through development, or will the remnants of the failed era of empire and geopolitics bring the world to a fiery end? The Schiller Institute, following the conference on the humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan, co-sponsored by the Russian International Affairs Council on Thursday Feb. 10, will hold a full day conference on Saturday, Feb. 19th, on the theme that “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The invitation to the conference is here: Please register, and circulate the invitation widely.
|
Feb 5—At 4:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon (Feb. 4), the following headline appeared on the Bloomberg News website: “Russia Invades Ukraine.” Note that it was then midnight in Moscow, and that President Vladimir Putin was not in the country, but in Beijing. For a full 30 minutes, this headline remained on the website, before it was finally removed, with Bloomberg News posting an attempted apology: “We prepare headlines for many scenarios and one of those headlines was inadvertently published at around 4 p.m. ET today on our website. We deeply regret the error.”Error? For months the Western media, with Bloomberg News right up front, have peddled the lie that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was “imminent.” The U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines briefed NATO leaders in October that the invasion would come in the last weeks of January or the early weeks of February. Day after day the lie was peddled that over 100,000 Russian troops were poised for the invasion on the Ukraine border, despite denials by not only Moscow, but even by Kiev! Error? Keep in mind that Sir Michael Bloomberg made his billions with a software which provided information on every trade taking place in the world in microseconds. “The chance that this was an accident is essentially zero,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche exclaimed today. “There must be a Congressional investigation immediately.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he could not say whether or not it was an accident, but in any case, “This is a perfect demonstration of how dangerous the situation is when provoked by the endless aggressive statements that come from Washington, London and from other European governments. This is probably also a great demonstration of how such messages can lead to irreparable consequences.” Who is Sir Michael Bloomberg? Not only is he “Mr. Wall Street,” with his computer software used in virtually every financial institution, but he is also “Mr. Green New Deal,” taking great pleasure in the fact that he personally financed the campaign that shut down half of the U.S. coal mines, and also served as the United Nations’ Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions. At the Glasgow COP26 climate conference in November he announced a new effort aimed at closing a quarter of the world’s 2,445 coal plants, as well as stopping efforts underway to build 519 new coal plants by 2025. As any African leader will tell you, this means poverty and death for Africa. The fact that it is Michael Bloomberg, who is the operative in this war-mongering ploy, further proves the point emphasized for the past 50 years by Lyndon LaRouche and EIR: It is the collapse of the Western financial system (now apparent to all but the morally blind) which is the driving force for war, not the fake geopolitical accusations about “aggression” or “human rights abuse.” Not coincidentally, this incident comes on the same day that Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met in Beijing, releasing a communiqué, titled “Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development.” To understand the profound importance of this historic document, it is instructive to read what a leading mouthpiece for the British Empire and the City of London, the Daily Telegraph, has to say about it. Under the headline, “Russia and China Rise from Their Knees To Challenge U.S. Dominance,” The Telegraph writes: “The message here is anything but routine. At a moment of immense international tension, Russia and China are asserting the arrival of a new geopolitical era. From now on, the dominance of the U.S.-led global West will no longer be taken for granted—or tolerated.” It is quite interesting that they dropped the usual phrase, “U.S.-led international order,” effectively acknowledging that the U.S. is no longer the “world’s only superpower,” but at best the leader of the “West.” The Telegraph continues: “After decades of humiliation, the world’s autocratic superpowers have risen from their knees and will now up-end the inequitable post-Cold War world order.” But they add, we are now entering “a long and frosty Cold War Two.” They also effectively acknowledge that the multiple efforts to turn Russia and China against each other have failed: “The hope that Mr. Xi might be persuaded to restrain his ally or remain aloof—or conversely that Mr. Putin could be enlisted to help contain China—has been dashed.” Unstated, but implied, is that all that is left for the dying British Empire is war, both military and economic warfare, in order to return Russia and China to their knees. Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed this utopian insanity in an article to be released soon, “100 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock—We Need a New Security Architecture!” This is a reference to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has kept its annual Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight for the third year in a row. Zepp-LaRouche insists that the new security architecture, demanded by both Russia and China, must include all nations; must include the right to development for all nations; and must end forever the Empire’s Malthusian paradigm. On February 19 the Schiller Institute will sponsor a virtual conference on this existential strategic crisis. It is essential, Zepp-LaRouche declared, that people everywhere recognize the incredible potential of this moment. Arriving at the brink of extinction is waking people up, causing them to look to see who has been lying and who has been telling the truth—and most important, who knows the necessary solution. This is the LaRouche Moment in history.
|
What if the U.S. and the U.K. declared war, but nobody came? Day after day the U.S. and U.K. media post screaming headlines about the imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Today’s edition includes the Daily Mail reporting that the U.K. government will announce moves to “target Russia’s strategic and financial interests tomorrow,” while Foreign Secretary Liz Truss ranted to Sky News: “Currently, the economic sanctions are fairly narrowly drawn, so we could only target companies with a direct involvement in destabilizing Ukraine. What we are looking to do is widen that so any company of interest to the Kremlin and the regime in Russia would be able to be targeted, so there will be nowhere to hide for Putin’s oligarchs, for Russian companies involved in propping up the Russian state. That’s what we are looking at doing this week.”This follows the open admission by the White House in a published rant on Jan. 25 by a “senior administration official” that U.S sanctions are intended to “hit Putin’s strategic ambitions to industrialize his economy.” There it is—bring down the Russian state, and stop Russia’s industrialization. Hitler had a similar ambition, and it is hard not to recognize the comparison to today. That insanity resulted in the death of 73 million souls. There are major differences, of course—for one, the U.S., U.K., and Russia have nuclear weapons, and 73 million or more would likely be killed on the first day. Nor is the U.S. hiding its intention to use nuclear weapons. Recall that U.S. Strategic Command chief Adm. Charles Richard said in February 2021 that nuclear war is no longer considered “unlikely,” but is now “a very real possibility” due to the rise of China and Russia. On Jan. 25, 2022 U.S. Strategic Command announced the kickoff this week of “Global Lightning 22,” “an annual command post exercise designed to train Department of Defense forces and assess joint operational readiness across USSTRATCOM mission areas,” that this year is being conducted “in coordination with U.S. Indo Pacific Command.” Newsweek yesterday quoted Hans M. Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project for the Federation of American Scientists, that the exercise “includes practicing operations during a trans-/post-attack nuclear environment, including reconstitution, redirection and targeting of STRATCOM forces.” In other words, it not only contemplates nuclear first use by one side or the other, but also continued nuclear warfighting after the initial exchange. Then there is the “cheering on” of today’s Nazis. A Fox News report (with help from AP) today runs the headline with kicker: Ukrainian Volunteer Forces Prepare To Fight Off Russian Invasion as U.S. Troops Deploy to Eastern Europe—More than 130,000 Ukrainian volunteers are on reserve to defend against a potential Russian invasion." Such heroic coverage leaves out the fact that the “volunteers” they interview are members of the neo-Nazi militia, condemned even by the Israeli government as fascists. So what about the Ukraine government itself, and the Ukraine military? Today’s “egg on your face” story comes from Reuters on Jan. 28, claiming that three “unnamed U.S. officials” had informed them that the Russian military buildup along the Ukraine border had “expanded” to include “blood products” and other medical supplies, which certainly shows (they say) that Putin is prepared for an “imminent” invasion, as CNN says White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki has insisted. Not so, said the Ukraine Defense Ministry in a Jan. 29 statement: “The Center for Operational Information commented on information spread in some media about the alleged accumulation of blood supplies by the Russian Federation in the troops near the Ukrainian borders. First of all, it should be noted that this information, with reference to anonymous officials, was not confirmed by any official source from the relevant agencies of the partner countries. Monitoring and analysis of the current situation around the Ukrainian borders does not record such activities. This is evidenced by the exchange of information between intelligence services and foreign partners. Such information ‘interventions’ are an element of information and psychological warfare, the purpose of which is to provoke fear and panic in our society. The Operational Information Center urges not to disseminate unverified information from anonymous sources and to use official data.” Is this the nation we are to “defend” by going to war with Russia, and possibly also China? We must assure the maximum possible viewership for the Jan. 22 Schiller Institute forum: “A Difference In Leadership: Can War with Russia Still Be Averted?” featuring Helga Zepp-LaRouche and First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy, along with host Dennis Speed, LaRouche Organization expert Harley Schlanger, EIR Economics Editor Paul Gallagher, and Schiller Institute Representative at the United Nations Richard A. Black.
|
The Russian Federation continues to insist that the United States and NATO commit to satisfying Russia’s need for assurances that its national security requirements will be respected. But the responses this week — delivered officially by the U.S. and NATO — fall far short of the mark. While offering room for negotiation on secondary matters, the U.S. and NATO have given no positive response on Russia’s core security demands.Russia, which is moving forward with military exercises in Belarus and the Arctic, and organizing training drills using its nuclear forces, has repeatedly made clear that failure to respond will force the use of “military or military-technical measures.” Will those measures include the forward deployment of hypersonic nuclear missiles? Placing short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad? The U.S. maintains some 200 nuclear gravity bombs in Europe, through joint nuclear missions. If Russia moves to bring similar pressure to bear on the United States, how small will become the window of decision for responding to a real (or perceived) nuclear attack? You and I can’t count on U.S. politicians, British imperialists, or NATO commanders to get this right — to avoid a situation which, whether through calculation or accident, could rapidly escalate to an unsurvivable nuclear exchange that would kill hundreds of millions of human beings within an hour and devastate civilization globally, perhaps permanently. Neither can the NATO/Anglo-American maniacs attempting to force Russia and China into submission count on the acquiescence of their supposed partners and instruments. Secretary Blinken claims that NATO is unified, that there “is no light between” the views of the U.S. and other NATO countries. But he is wrong. Those intent on crushing Russia fret that a single NATO country could destroy the consensus on which its decisions must be made. Will Croatia stand firm? Will Bulgaria? Will Hungary dutifully play its suicidal role? Will Germany, after its 1941-1945 attack on the Soviet Union, truly set up another war against Russia? Will diplomats, politicians, generals, and thinkers break ranks? This is the unanswered question of the moment. As Russian diplomats are kicked out of Washington, D.C., as American diplomats reportedly plan to leave Beijing, as the media drumbeat for war intensifies and as supporters of peace are cast as traitors — as weapons fly into Ukraine, as new sanctions are mulled — as calls for censorship grow — will you stand up for the dignity of the human species, and for your own life as well? Will you overthrow the hideous Malthusian dogma that says we are too numerous, and the false culture that says we are animals? Will we be here to marvel at the shocking observations the James Webb Space Telescope will soon be transmitting back to Earth? A crisis of this magnitude — an absolute branching point in history — demands great things of us. The LaRouche movement, headed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has warned of the magnitude of the crisis, to which increasing numbers are awakening, and has committed itself to catalyzing the needed new paradigm on this planet. In his poem The Artists, Friedrich Schiller — the namesake of the Schiller Institute — expressed the awesome responsibility that forces itself upon each of us today. “The dignity of man into your hands is given, “Protector be! “It sinks with you! With you it is arisen!” Can the future count on you?
|
Today Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a State Department press conference, and closed-door sessions with members of Congress, announcing that the U.S. has provided written responses to Russia’s December texts of proposed security agreements. He also stated, “Additionally, NATO developed and will deliver to Moscow its own paper with ideas and concerns about collective security in Europe—and that paper fully reinforces ours, and vice versa. There is no daylight among the United States and our allies and partners on these matters.”In reality, while Blinken’s remarks repeated his usual dark litany of accusations and threats against Russia, daylight is showing through from many directions, on how dangerous and how “British” this whole confrontationism is. Blinken may blow clouds of smoke about “unity,” input from “allies,” and the like, but reality is otherwise. Even a reporter asked Blinken, you talk about “a unified approach with Europe. What do you make of Germany’s stance?” She said, “Would you say that you’re happy or satisfied with Germany sending helmets to Ukraine instead of arms shipments?” Blinken could only huff and puff about how each country has “different capabilities.” In brief, what Blinken did say in his press briefing, was that Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, and warned, “We’ve lined up steep consequences, should Russia choose further aggression.” Blinken reiterated his “two path” sophistic approach to Russia: that Western militarization in Eastern Europe is the path of deterrence, but otherwise, the U.S. and the West are open to diplomacy, “should Russia choose it.” On the so-called deterrence path, Blinken gave a full report. He said, “Three deliveries of U.S. defensive military assistance arrived in Kiev this week, carrying additional javelin missiles and other anti-armor systems, 283 tons of ammunition and non-lethal equipment…. More deliveries are expected in the days to come. We have provided more defensive security assistance to Ukraine in the past year than in any previous year…. Last week, I authorized U.S. allies—including Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—to provide U.S.-origin military equipment…. Also last week, we notified Congress of our intent to deliver to Ukraine the Mi-17 helicopters….” And 8,500 U.S. servicemen are on “heightened readiness to deploy” in case needed to “to harden the Allies’ eastern flank.” Among the expanding opposition to this dangerous showdown are several political leaders and formations in Europe. In Croatia, President Zoran Milanovic said this week that his country will in no way get involved in the Ukraine crisis, nor send soldiers. He states that Ukraine does not belong in NATO, and that it was the European Union (N.B., including the U.K.) that triggered a coup in Kiev in 2014. Moreover, Milanovic said, as reported by Euractiv, that the crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia, but is connected with the dynamics of the United States internal situation, and that international security problems reflect “inconsistencies and dangerous behavior” by the U.S.A. In Spain, the Unidos Podemos party and eight smaller parties, all nine leftwing members of the Socialist Party’s governing coalition, have publicly opposed Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s decision to send military forces to participate in NATO’s buildup of forces against Russia, and are calling for an anti-war mobilization like that of 2003 which drove out the Aznar government that had deployed Spain’s military forces for George Bush’s war on Iraq. The existence of NATO itself is being questioned. On Friday, Jan. 28, French President Emmanuel Macron will be speaking by phone to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Today in Paris, officials of the Normandy group of four nations—France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, met for eight hours, and issued a statement. They plan to meet again in Berlin next month. Today, Sputnik news ran an article reviewing the opposition in France and elsewhere in Europe to the U.S./U.K. showdown with Russia. Headlined, “French Politician: Puzzled by U.S. Warmongering, France & Germany Trying to Avoid EU Militarisation,” the article is based on an interview with Karel Vereycken, Vice-President of Solidarité & Progrès in France, who said that “France and Germany aren’t interested in dancing to the U.S., the U.K. and NATO’s tune—for good reason….” The Schiller Institute is providing the critical platform internationally to wake up the world to the war danger and to what has to be done in foreign relations and economically, including emergency humanitarian action, to stop the conditions and perpetrators who created this terrible emergency. The website offers ammunition, and another international conference to rally action is in the works for early February.
|
From the moment last Friday that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken announced that they had met and agreed that the U.S. would provide a written response to Russia’s urgent security concerns, the British have been working overtime to make sure that nothing of the sort ever happens—or at least that whatever written response Blinken provides will be a further anti-Russian provocation.First, there are the stepped-up direct military deployments: another American planeload of sophisticated weapons for the pro-Nazi Kiev government; the transfer of Ukrainian rocket launchers and other heavy weapons to the conflict zone with Donbas; and the Pentagon confirming that President Biden had instructed them to put 8,500 U.S.-based troops on heightened alert for potential deployment to Europe, based on a briefing on “military options” presented to him by Defense Secretary Austin and Joint Chiefs of Staff head Gen. Milley. Those options included sending up to 50,000 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe—steps which the Russians will read as a direct military threat. Then there are the British psy-ops: British intelligence reached a fact-less finding that Russia intended to topple the Kiev government and put in their own puppet (denied by the Russian government); an anonymous diplomat in Beijing reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping had asked Putin to hold off on invading Ukraine until after the Winter Olympics (denied by the Chinese and Russian governments); and yet another round of anti-Russian bravado by Blinken (there will be “massive consequences” for Russia if a “single additional Russian force” enters Ukraine) and by Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to the United States (“you’ll always find the U.K. at the forward end of the spectrum” in going after Russia). “What is clear,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche reported today, “is that we are in an extremely dangerous situation and, given the number of lunatics in leading positions and also the absolute certainty of miscalculation based on wrong epistemological approaches, I think the only conclusion we can have out of this present situation is that we have to go into an all-out anti-war mobilization, waking up especially the American public, because that is the main force which is uninformed about what the danger of the situation is.” Russia expects an answer this week, she continued, and that answer cannot fail to address their existential security concerns by putting in writing guarantees that NATO will cease its eastward expansion up to Russia’s borders. But at this point, everything indicates that the U.S. will do nothing of the kind. If that is the case, Zepp-LaRouche warned, then we are in a showdown for a countdown to Russia’s activation of “military technical measures” of their own—which could include the deployment of hypersonic Zircon missiles on submarines within five-minutes flight time of both American coasts. For an anti-war mobilization to be successful, however, it must not simply issue pronouncements against war, but it must address two key policy points: 1) identify who is behind the war drive, and why (the collapsing trans-Atlantic financial empire); and 2) present a program to build a durable peace—based on the policies of global economic reconstruction encapsulated in LaRouche’s Four Laws. As then-presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche summarized the matter nearly 40 years ago, in the opening sentence of a March 30, 1984 “Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.”: “Article 1: General conditions for peace. The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b) Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.”
|
With the sounding of a “Russian coup coming in Ukraine” siren by British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss on Jan. 22—to push the British demand to hit Russia now with the financial super-sanctions that were supposed to be threatened to deter war—it has become clear that there is no “unity of the NATO allies and partners” on dealing with Russia in the Ukraine missiles crisis.Rather, there is a British drive to force Russia to invade Ukraine or capitulate; a beleaguered but definite German opposition to the British war drive; a French President who wants to negotiate but is trying to look good and get re-elected; and a weak American President who would like to avoid war. If war, even world war, comes, it will be war imposed on the weakened American Presidency by the City of London and Britain. Not a second Crimean War, but a war for revenge against Russia and China for resisting and ruining the grand Glasgow global climate summit in November, leaving the British ministers who ran that summit in angry tears as it ended in failure. That included Prime Minister Boris Johnson, “BoJo” the nasty clown, who is discredited and inches from a no-confidence vote by his own Conservative Party MPs. “His resolve has hardened” against Russia, his spokesman announced on Jan. 22. The New York Times coverage of the new fake was headlined, “Britain Pursues More Muscular Role in Standoff with Russia on Ukraine,” although it’s always U.S. muscle Britain uses. Even the nervously hyper-aggressive U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken did not respond to the newest British war fable, beyond “We’re taking that seriously,” when it was thrown at him today by “Face the Nation’s” anchor Margaret Brennan, who raved as if she had taken some British meth with her coffee before the program. Against the London-Kiev demand that the supposed financial super-sanctions be imposed on Russia tomorrow, Blinken noted the obvious, “We’re using them as a deterrent. You would lose their deterrent effect.” He did not include the equally obvious, “and push Russia toward war”—the British intent. Blinken repeatedly stressed two points: “We have rallied allies and partners across Europe in a very intense way in recent days”; and “We are also responding to some of Russia’s concerns in further talks, and we expect them to respond to our concerns.” The Russian Embassy in London stressed today that the British were outside the process of negotiation with Russia: “The U.K. Foreign Office continues with a series of provocative statements on the situation around Ukraine…. These rallying cries come against the background of an obvious deterioration of British expertise on Russia and Ukraine. …The words by Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss about Ukraine having suffered from various invaders, ‘from the Mongols to the Tatars,’ is one example. Then came the ‘news’ of Russia intending to establish a puppet regime in Kiev led by a former Ukrainian MP—one that happens to be under Russian sanctions for being a threat to national security,” referring to Yevheniy Murayev. Germany does not want to allow the British war drive to succeed. Its Navy Chief Vice Adm. Kay-Achim Schönbach was forced to resign by media attacks, when he stated that what Putin “wants is respect. And my God, giving someone respect is low cost…. It is easy to give him the respect he really demands—and probably also deserves.” It is now widely reported that Chancellor Olaf Scholz was asked to Washington for consultations with President Biden and declined to go until some later time. Germany will not permit Baltic nations to which it has sold German weapons to pass them on to Ukraine, and the breakneck British shipments of lethal weaponry are having to be flown over Danish airspace because the U.K. does not dare ask Germany for flyover permission. The Biden Administration is about to respond in writing to Russian President Putin’s proposed agreements to keep NATO missiles and warfighting arrangements out of Ukraine and off Russia’s border—“and stating our concerns” about Russia, Blinken said today. The United States has decided it wants Russia to agree not to publish these responses, most likely because such publication will either infuriate the warmongers around BoJo’s government and inside the City of London, or cause more doubts in Germany, France, and perhaps other “allies and partners.” The most important question now is, what will American citizens do to direct their flailing government toward solving the most important problems facing humanity? That requires cooperation with at least Russia and China as a means to reverse the American industrial economy’s decline toward “green” suicide, and involve the United States in building new public health systems and infrastructure development programs around the world. London’s Malthusian policy of deindustrialization by war can’t be tolerated.
|
This is translated for publication in EIR from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s lead article in the January 27, 2022 issue of Neue Solidarität Jan. 23 (EIRNS)—After the hectic diplomacy of this week—Annalena Baerbock in Kiev and Moscow, Antony Blinken in Kiev, then in Berlin to meet with the foreign ministers of the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany, Blinken’s meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz and finally the meeting of foreign ministers Sergey Lavrov and Blinken in Geneva—the danger of a world war which could annihilate mankind has not been averted. After the last meeting, Lavrov stated that he expected to receive a written answer from the U.S. and NATO next week concerning the legally binding treaties demanded by Russia, which provide that NATO will not expand further east to Russia’s borders, that Ukraine will not be admitted to NATO, and that no offensive weapons systems will be placed on the Russian border. Blinken referred to further talks with “allies and partners in the coming days,” after which Western concerns and ideas could then be shared with Russia.However, if the U.S. position remains what Blinken, according to RT, told journalists after his meeting with Lavrov—namely that there is no room for compromise on Moscow’s main demand, and that a non-negotiable principle of America and its allies is that the Ukrainian people have the right “to write their own future”—then the very short fuse threatens to burn very quickly. Indeed, the formulation used by Blinken is just a sophistical way of referring to Ukraine’s entry into NATO, which is part of the Anglo-American narrative on “Russia’s aggressions.” But for any honest historian, as well as for everyone who looks at a map, the facts are clear: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was not Russia that moved its borders some 1,000 km westward from the border of the then-Warsaw Pact to reach somewhere in France around Lille, but it was NATO that advanced to the east by 1000 km. Thus, it clearly broke the verbal commitments given to Gorbachev by the George H.W. Bush administration, and especially by then-Secretary of State James Baker III, that NATO would not move “one inch to the east.” A closer look shows that the methods used by NATO to add 14 new member states in Eastern and Central Europe and in the Balkans were not always the most subtle. According to the Western narrative, it was the desire for freedom that pushed these countries into NATO. But the reality is different. After the shock therapy of Jeffrey Sachs and the brutal policy of privatization, with no concern for the social consequences, had drastically impoverished the populations of the former Comecon, a massive network of NGOs was set up with thick checkbooks, with the aim of effecting a paradigm change in favor of the West. In 1990, at the time prior to German reunification and during the upheavals in Eastern Europe, this author personally experienced how the first democratic attempts of self-organization by the people in the East were cold-bloodedly smothered and replaced by compliant opportunists, often enough in positions of government. “Corruption is good” became the motto in many places—then at least we know whom we can trust. So much for the principle of “letting peoples choose their own future.” The latest example just came from the—failed—attempt to carry off a color revolution in Kazakhstan, with the use of “Maidan techniques” as Vladimir Putin correctly pointed out. If Putin is now demanding—in the context of what German Gen. Harald Kujat (ret.) told DLF radio/TV was not in preparation for a military attack, but rather as a threatening backdrop (i.e., the redeployment of about 100,000 Russian troops closer to the Ukrainian border although some of them are still hundreds of kilometers away)—legally binding written assurances that NATO will neither be extended further eastward to the borders of Russia, nor will ever accept Ukraine as a member, then this is simply a way of expressing that for Russia a red line has been reached. Given the fact that there are already 10,000 NATO troops in Ukraine, including some 4,000 U.S. troops, that private mercenary outfits are training Ukrainian military units in eastern Ukraine for false-flag operations, that the U.K. is supplying offensive lethal weapons to Ukraine, that U.S. and British warships and fighter jets are provoking incidents in the Black Sea aimed at providing the reconnaissance aircraft with information about Russian military capabilities—what conclusions is Russia supposed to draw from all these and many other policies? In reality, NATO is already operating practically in Ukraine, but formal NATO membership would definitively confirm that it was no longer possible to defend Russia’s fundamental security interests. Even as the abovementioned diplomatic talks were ongoing, the British broadcaster Sky News reported that the U.K. had deployed 30 members of its “Special Operations Brigade” to Ukraine to train Ukrainian troops on anti-tank weapons that were also supplied by the British. According to the military spokesman for the Donetsk People’s Republic, more than 460 tons of various lethal weapons, including 2,000 NLAWs (anti-tank missiles), have recently been delivered by nine C17 aircraft to Ukrainian forces stationed on the line of contact with the Donbas, which include a considerable number of radical nationalists. Whether these weapons are defensive or offensive in nature depends, as always, on the specific combat situation. Shortly after Moscow presented the two treaties to the United States and NATO on Dec. 15, Putin announced that Russia would respond to their rejection with “appropriate military-technical retaliatory measures.” In a Jan. 15 article in National Interest magazine, David T. Pyne, currently working for the Task Force on National and Homeland Security (a Congressional Advisory Board), cited Brussels-based U.S. analyst Gilbert Doctorow’s interpretation of what these “military-technical retaliatory measures” might entail. Doctorow assumes that it means the additional deployment of Russian nuclear-capable SS-26 Iskander-M short-range missiles to Belarus and Kaliningrad, which would threaten NATO front-line states and eastern Germany. Moreover, the new nuclear-armed Tsirkon sea-launched hypersonic cruise missiles could be stationed off the American coast near Washington. Earlier statements from Russian officials noted that such missiles could destroy the American capital faster than the President could escape on Air Force One. Therefore, if the U.S. and NATO reject Russia’s demands for security guarantees, there is a real probability that we may have to deal very soon with a double Cuba crisis, but without a John F. Kennedy as U.S. President. Rather, we have a President Biden whom the war hawks in his entourage openly refuse to respect and who “correct” him if he says he does not seek war with Russia. It should be clear to all thinking persons that in the event of a war waged with nuclear weapons—be it “limited” or not—no one in Germany would survive. For our new Foreign Minister Baerbock, it is obviously not clear, otherwise she would not fall into NATO jargon in such a synchronized manner with “dear Tony” as she just did at the Berlin press conference. The Greens have completely morphed into a war party. And if someone begins pondering, like former Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, what nuclear options there might be against Russia, then they should seek therapy against suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Under such circumstances, Germany’s membership in NATO can no longer be defended. We immediately need a new international security architecture that takes into account the interests of all countries, explicitly including those of Russia and China. If we have learned anything from history, it is that only those treaties that include the interests of all the states involved, such as the Treaty of Westphalia, can be the basis for lasting peace. Peace treaties that do not do so, such as the Treaty of Versailles, contain the opening salvo for the next war, as we in Germany should have painfully learned. NATO, which unnecessarily excluded Russia from the European house after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and has since increasingly become an offensive alliance, not only no longer corresponds to Germany’s security interests, but has become the primary threat to Germany’s existence. We need a new security architecture that overcomes the geopolitics responsible for two world wars in the 20th century, one that defines the common goals of mankind as its fundamental principle. And this includes, first and foremost, the elimination of the primary cause of war—which is the imminent collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system—and the creation of a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system, that vanquishes poverty and underdevelopment everywhere in the world. All peace-loving people in the world are called upon to enter into an open dialogue on this issue.
|
This question, “Can War with Russia Still Be Averted?” is the title of the Schiller Institute’s International Dialogue Saturday, January 22 at 2 pm (ET) for the purpose of strengthening the forces to stop the dangerous brinkmanship of the U.S., the British Empire and NATO against Russia and China, and make way for a complete shift toward a world security system based on the principle of the mutual benefit of all, most assuredly, the economic benefit of all.The results of today’s important meeting in Geneva between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, do not change this focus, only heighten it. The meeting ran for 90 minutes, with remarks before and after by the officials. There is expected follow-on to the talks—with a rough time frame of the next week to 10 days; but at any time, expect sabotage from enemies of this process of engagement. In brief, Blinken, who said that President Biden had asked him to meet with Lavrov, said that after today’s talks, he will go back and consult with NATO, and allies, plus Congress, and “we will be able to share with Russia our concerns and ideas in more detail and in writing next week, and we agreed to further discussions after that.” TASS reported that Blinken said that the U.S. and Russia will meet again, after Moscow scrutinizes Washington’s security proposals next week. However the Foreign Ministry threw cold water on that report, saying there are no plans for a meeting, until Russia receives an “article-by-article” reply to its demand for security guarantees. Otherwise, Blinken stuck to the assertions in his litany of accusations and demands, admonishing Russia to de-escalate its force placement, not invade Ukraine, etc. Lavrov said of Blinken’s remark that the U.S. will respond in writing to Russia’s “concerns,” that, “I believe it would be right to make this reply public and I will ask Antony Blinken, so that they do not object.” He said there was no arrangement for another meeting between himself and Blinken. Among many other points, Lavrov said that the U.S. repeats its charges against Russia “like a mantra” and pointed to Western “hysterics” when it came to Ukraine. Especially noteworthy was the inclusion of China in what is at stake. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement at the time of the talks which said, “It is high time that our American colleagues understand that Washington’s dual containment policy towards Moscow and Beijing is completely outdated and offers no good prospects for the U.S. The Americans would do more good for themselves and the entire world if they abandoned their arrogant claim for global dominance and engaged in an equal and honest dialogue with Russia, China and other major players in order to search for balanced solutions to pressing global security and development issues.” Ominously, hostile initiatives have been conducted against Russia all during the period of today’s Geneva talks. Yesterday, Blinken’s State Department and the U.S. Treasury issued sanctions against four individuals in Ukraine, on charges that they are instruments of the Russian FSB. Two of them are members of Parliament, and of the opposition party to the Zelenskyy government, and one of them a media company operator. Thus, once again, the U.S. warhawks—while singing of democracy, are interfering blatantly in another nation’s internal politics. More military personnel and armament are flowing into Ukraine from individual NATO countries. In the U.S., the hype over Russian “aggression” is at fever pitch, and even more shrill because it is bipartisan. A call for “pre-emptive sanctions” on Russia by the U.S.—before Russia has a chance to aggress!—was made this week by Republican Sen. Joni Ernst (IA), appearing as a CNN guest of rabidly Democrat Anderson Cooper. On the eve of today’s Geneva meeting, the State Department posted three fact-sheet type write-ups to defame Russia, that qualify the agency as akin to the Ministry of Truth, in George Orwell’s 1984, which was noted by Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. Just consider the names of one of the documents, “Russia’s Top Five Persistent Disinformation Narratives.” One of the narratives that the U.S. finds Russia guilty of, is to say Western culture is decaying. The State Department reports that Foreign Minister Lavrov has even accused U.S. schools of teaching that Jesus Christ was bisexual. This is madness gone wild, and very dangerous. Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in her weekly strategic webcast on Jan. 20 that, “I think the danger of war is what people should be concerned with.” But she further stated that the concern should be “from the standpoint of the dynamic [whose] directionality goes very clearly in the direction of the Belt and Road cooperation, because many nations see it much more to their advantage to economically cooperate, rather than have geopolitical games.” In this way, the BRI alliances and projects are anti-war policies. Look at the urgency of action to support Afghanistan in that way, as part of a greater development zone from Central and South Asia, westward across the war-torn Southwest Asia, into the Horn of Africa. Just this week, on Jan. 19, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi was in Moscow for discussions. China and Iran are implementing their 25-year cooperation agreement. In Pakistan, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is proceeding. In the war-devastated Horn of Africa, China has recently committed to the “Initiative of Peaceful Development,” involving rail, port, power and other infrastructure programs. Add to this the thrust of “Operation Ibn Sina” in this region, and elsewhere internationally—the drive for a health care platform with full economic support, called for by Zepp-LaRouche—and the end of war is a given. However, in complete opposition to all of this, came the mass-murder bombing today in Yemen—the heart of this extended region, by Saudi Arabian-led forces. The wave of bombings has killed at least 200 people, and injured many more, including a strike on a prison in Sadaa, north of Sana’a, where the death toll is 150 so far. This amounts to a “shock and awe” crime, timed exactly with today’s Geneva U.S.-Russia meeting. The Yemen mission director for Doctors Without Borders Ahmed Mahat called the prison strike a “horrific act of violence.” Moreover, the main communications tower in Sana’a was deliberately bombed, knocking out all internet service, whose import could mean that, without communications, the Saudis will perpetrate more heinous crimes. Fouad Al Ghaffari, the leader of the ALBRICS Youth Parliament in Sana’a, sent a message by text to the Schiller Institute this morning, “We condemn the terrific aggressive murder attack on Sada’a Prison, and destroying the internet connection in Yemen that violates the right to information and may hide a massive attack at any moment!” Attend the Jan. 22 International Dialogue conference, “Can War with Russia Still Be Averted?” and activate with the Schiller Institute.
|
Between Monday and Wednesday of this week, the world has moved dramatically closer to the brink of thermonuclear war.The United States and NATO dug in their heels in their respective Jan. 10 and Jan. 12 high-level security talks with Russia, and proclaimed their intent to continue expanding NATO eastward up to Russia’s very border, and to deploy threatening nuclear attack systems also on that border, five minutes flight-time from Moscow. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko emerged from today’s Russia-NATO Council meeting to report that not only was there no unifying positive agenda between Russia and NATO, but that the U.S. and NATO have reverted to the full Cold War strategy of “containment” towards Russia, including “full spectrum dominance.” Russia is being left with no option but to respond in kind to the policy of containment, deterrence and intimidation, he stated. The Monday U.S.-Russia discussions ended on a similar note. These results are not surprising, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche commented today. Other than any possible back-channel or private communications between Presidents Biden and Putin that may be underway and which offer a more rational approach, there could well be a quick counter-action on the part of Russia. As Putin and many top Russian leaders have warned repeatedly over recent weeks, Russia cannot back down to the threats being posed to its very sovereignty and existence. Russia is faced with a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time with a far shorter hair-trigger to war. Recall the words of JFK sixty years ago: “Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island (Cuba).” To do this, he reminded the world, “in an area well-known to have a special and historical relationship to the U.S., is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country.” Zepp-LaRouche warned that, if the bellicose statements and confrontation continue, then the world is most likely in for a sudden showdown—which could escalate to the thermonuclear threshold nearly instantly. A broad mobilization of forces worldwide is urgently required to stop this descent into hell, and quickly develop new options that will guarantee security and wellbeing for all parties. • A new, global security architecture is needed to immediately replace the NATO organization and policy, which has brought the world to the brink of war. The driving force that is impelling the world towards thermonuclear war is the breakdown crisis of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system. For their system to survive, the predatory speculators of the City of London and Wall Street must impose fascist levels of economic looting, and bring Russia and China to heel to ensure that there is no real opposition to that policy. • The trans-Atlantic system must be put through bankruptcy reorganization along the lines specified by Lyndon LaRouche in his 2014 Four Laws. Put that system out of its misery, and you remove the danger of World War III. Throughout his life, Lyndon LaRouche repeatedly explained this intimate connection between the collapsing financial system and the drive to war. One of his clearest expositions was in a Dec. 23, 2011 statement, “To Stop Thermonuclear War, Bring on the World Economic Recovery,” which we have previously quoted in this space, and excerpts of which are the editorial appearing in the January 7, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. As that editorial notes, LaRouche’s remarks from 2011 “confirm the prescience of this genius, and demonstrates why Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for the year 2022—the 100th anniversary of his birth—to be known as ‘The Year of Lyndon LaRouche.’” LaRouche warned in his 2011 presentation: "We are now on the verge of what must be called World War III: This will be thermonuclear World War III—not pre-nuclear war, not nuclear war, but thermonuclear war. The targets, principally, are Russia and China. These are the two principal targets…. “The issue is as follows: The present world system, the economic system, is in the process of disintegrating. Exactly how that will occur is uncertain, but it is happening. The intention is to eliminate two nations—Russia and China—and this means nuclear weapons; it means thermonuclear weapons. That part is engaged…. “Now, at this point, the United States, nations of Europe, Russia, China, and other countries, are poised for exactly this war. “The background of the war is the fact that the entire world is going bankrupt, especially the trans-Atlantic region, especially Europe, and also the United States, and the nations of South America and elsewhere, as well… “The bankruptcy from the United States’ standpoint, was set into motion back in 2007, when the beginning of the bailout process was set into motion. Since that time, the entirety of the trans-Atlantic region, particularly the United States and Europe, have been trapped into a bailout crisis, a hyperinflationary bailout crisis. At this point, the debt which has been accumulated since 2007, under this program, is such that every part of Europe at this time, under the present rules and the present arrangements, is hopelessly bankrupt! They could never recover as living nations, under the present degree of indebtedness they have. The same thing is true of the United States; Europe is a little more acute. That’s what’s happened…. The author of this thing is the British…. “Now, what we have to do—there are solutions for this bankruptcy. First of all, we have to put the world through bankruptcy—that is, a legitimate bankruptcy operation. We can do that, by, first of all, in the United States, for example—and other nations can copy this measure in cooperation with the United States—we go with a Glass-Steagall law, a U.S. Glass-Steagall law. And there are nations of Europe who are thinking of adopting the same Glass-Steagall law. “Under a Glass-Steagall law, the greater part of the debt of European nations, and the United States and others, will be wiped out, in effect, because under Glass-Steagall, the gambling debts, which are the major part of the indebtedness of the United States, will be simply put into a special category where somebody’s going to try to figure out how to get these debts paid—and they will never be paid! They will simply be wiped off the books; there’s no other solution. “Wiping that debt off the books, canceling the bailout debt, will mean that the United States, and Europe if they join, will be in a position to reorganize their finances, to create a credit system, and actually going into a new kind of Hamiltonian kind of credit system, a banking system which will enable the United States, and also Europe and other nations if they join, to organize a financial recovery. “In other words, what would happen, immediately: Remember, most of this bailout debt, the Wall Street debt, the London debt, the other bailout debt, is absolutely worthless! It can never be repaid! It never could be repaid: And the only solution, of course, for this thing, was to have this war. And if the British Empire came out as the victor in such a war, with the support of the United States, then they would cancel their debts, and they would go about their business. But, the population of the world would be reduced, greatly, through hunger, starvation, and so forth, which is about to occur anyway.”
|
by: Harley Schlanger Jan. 4 -- The idea proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche to make 2022 the "Year of LaRouche" is not an honorific request, shaped simply by a desire to see that an intellectual giant, the late Lyndon LaRouche (1922 to 2019), is given the recognition he richly deserves. It is, instead, a necessary intervention, to provide both world leaders and honorable citizens the profound, in-depth insight required to pull the world back from the danger of thermonuclear war -- which is what Mrs. LaRouche intends in making this proposal.Lyndon LaRouche had an absolutely unique knowledge of the dynamics that shape human history, which he presented as an integrated understanding of the inter-relationship between strategic relations, global financial and economic processes, scientific advance and culture. The solutions he developed to the civilizational crisis which has been unfolding and deepening since the end of World War II, and especially since the 1963 assassination of President John Kennedy, come from his "top-down approach," of the sort which few today can even appreciate, not to mention replicate. That is why the crisis today is an existential threat to human society, and requires a return to the quality of philosophical/scientific rigor which characterized the richness of his output over the last half-century. A short report cannot provide more than a glimpse into that work, However, a brief review of a statement he presented in a webcast on December 23, 2011, may inspire our readers to engage in a serious dialogue with the body of ideas which are the legacy of Lyndon LaRouche. The webcast was published under the headline, "To Stop Thermonuclear War, Bring on the World Economic Recovery." He begins by identifying the increased danger of war during the Obama presidency as coming from the "intention" of a global oligarchy, centered in the City of London and deploying Obama as their tool, "to eliminate two nations -- Russia and China." The urgency behind this is that the Trans-Atlantic world, since 2007, has faced an accelerating bankruptcy crisis. To protect the value of worthless paper in the hands of the financial institutions controlled by that oligarchy, they deployed central banks to pump unprecedented volumes of liquidity into the system, not to create a real, physical economic recovery, but to maintain the illusion of solvency. It was clear then, as it is today, that the sovereign nations of Russia and China would not submit to bailing out speculative predators, and that made them the ultimate targets. This process which he dissected then entered a new, even bigger phase, following the near-financial collapse in September 2019, with Russia and China again representing the major obstacles to a global financial dictatorship known as the Great Reset, to implement the Malthusian Green New Deal. Thus, the present provocations which are underway against Russia using Ukraine, and China using Taiwan. To shift the power away from the predatory looters of the City of London and Wall Street, which enforced the looting through the U,S. military, NATO and intelligence warfare, such as "regime change coups", he proposed an alliance of Four Powers -- Russia, China, India and the U.S. These nations possessed the potential economic might to enact the measures necessary to transition from the collapsed system into a New Paradigm. To accomplish this, he drafted his Four Economic Laws, which would begin by reaching an agreement to put the world economy through a "legitimate bankruptcy operation," centered around the 1933, Franklin Roosevelt policy of Glass Steagall banking separation. If this were done in a coordinated way today, it would wipe out the worthless debts sitting on the books of bankrupt financial institutions, which he called "gambling debts", opening the way for new credit issued by sovereign national banks, which would function as "Hamiltonian credit" institutions. Each nation would be able to generate credit into reviving the physical economy, with an emphasis on developing new platforms of infrastructure, and credit into areas at the frontiers of science, such as nuclear fusion, and space exploration. There is no other alternative to the "LaRouche Solution." Risking thermonuclear war to sustain a system which is hopelessly bankrupt is not an acceptable option.
|
With but a few days to go before the scheduled Jan. 10 talks between high level Russian and American diplomats on Russia’s demand for “immediate” written security guarantees from the U.S. and NATO, powerful circles in London and Washington who oppose moving back from the brink of thermonuclear war, have launched yet another provocation against Russia: the violent destabilization of Kazakhstan. Tony Blair, George Soros, and endless numbers of international NGOs are all over the operation.A “color revolution” in Kazakhstan has clear security implications for Russia. Kazakhstan has the longest border with Russia. It is the location of Russia’s principal space launch facility, the Baikonur Cosmodrome, a city that Russia today rents from Kazakhstan. It would appear that powerful circles in London and Washington are intent on provoking the Russian bear to respond with repressive violence in Kazakhstan, or to do the same in Eastern Ukraine, to then turn around and use this as a pre-packaged excuse to launch withering economic warfare against Russia. In a word, if they can get Russia to go for the “bear trap,” they will then give Russia the “Afghanistan treatment”—economic sanctions and warfare so severe as to starve the country into submission… or try to. In that sense, the impending Afghan genocide of more than 20 million people is also a precursor to World War III. Helga Zepp-LaRouche drew out the strategic significance of these developments, in her weekly webcast: “If you would have asked me a week ago, do you expect some effort to disturb the diplomatic offensive coming mainly from Russia and China to defuse what was building up, clearly, as a double ‘Cuban crisis’ with the development around Ukraine and Taiwan, I would have said, one should absolutely expect a provocation to disrupt these meetings, and here we are… “Now, let me first state the positive aspect: There was a certain breakthrough just a few days ago, on Monday, that for the first time the P5 UN nations, that is, the permanent five nuclear weapons states agreed on reaffirming the very important statement which was negotiated between Gorbachev and President Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986, that a nuclear war can never be won and therefore must never be fought.” That is positive, Zepp-LaRouche said, but now "the words must be followed by deeds. And that statement as such, while it is extremely important, does not yet defuse the crisis around Ukraine, nor the crisis around Taiwan, but, as I said, it’s a very important first step…. “But we need a hundred percent turnaround, because this confrontation against Russia and China is suicidal…I think we need a complete reversal in priorities, and the population has to wake up, that their indifference, your indifference—some of you—against Afghanistan is what allows these rotten policies to go on in our own countries. And we have to have a mobilization for a new paradigm, both within our own countries and also in relations among nations, because these are expressions of the same problem in the system.”
|
On Christmas Day, 1776, George Washington restored hope and optimism within the struggling colonies and the bedraggled Continental Army that the British yoke could be removed and a free nation could be established as a beacon of hope for all mankind. It meant that Christmas celebrations had to be replaced with a stealth surprise attack, crossing the ice-filled Delaware River, in order to win a victory and restore confidence that the colonies could defeat the British.Today, Christmas Day 2021, the Schiller Institute has released a timeline with a stern warning contained in its title: “Are We Sleepwalking into Thermonuclear World War III?” While Christmas is a time to give blessings and prayers for Peace On Earth and Goodwill Towards Men (Luke 2:14), we, like George Washington before us, must recognize that there can be no peace or goodwill if the current descent into war and a new dark age are not addressed and reversed, immediately. How can we celebrate the birth of the child Jesus as a savior of mankind while the trans-Atlantic nations are denying the means of subsistence to millions of children facing starvation in Afghanistan, in Yemen, and other nations as well? How can we honor the Prince of Peace while our political leaders are threatening economic destruction and even nuclear war on Russia and China? President Vladimir Putin reflected this same sentiment during his four hour annual year end press conference Dec. 23. “Mr. President,” he was asked, “what should we prepare for? What is a realistic outlook, and since the word ‘war’ has been said out loud, have we estimated the probability of war even as the result of a provocation?” Putin answered by reviewing the history of Ukraine, which was created as a nation as part of the Soviet Union in 1922-24, including regions which were historically Russian, and with majority populations which spoke Russian. With the collapse of the U.S.S.R., these Russian citizens were stranded outside their own country, both in Crimea and the Donbas, but Russia accepted this—until the U.S.-backed neo-Nazi coup against the elected government in 2014. Putin said he could not turn his back on the Russian people in Crimea who voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, but when the people of the Donbas formed independent republics, he negotiated with Kiev, and with the Western powers, to not use military force against them, while peace was negotiated. But now, Putin said, “we hear: war, war, war,” with preparations to use military force against the Donbas, while “under the cover of these new weapon systems [delivered by the U.S.], radicals may well decide to settle the Donbas issue, as well as the Crimea issue.” Most revealingly, Putin concluded his answer: “This is a serious matter. I have just spoken about our plans for infrastructure development, social policy, and healthcare. But what does it all mean if we end up in the conflict you are asking about? This is not our choice, and we do not want it.” There are some positive steps, however tentative, indicating that some in the West are trying to pull back from the brink. A ceasefire was negotiated in Ukraine by the OSCE, working with representatives from Kiev, the Donbas and Russia. Talks are planned for early January between Russia, the U.S. and several European states on the security demands presented by Russia, as well as strategic stability. Putin said that “the overall response we have been seeing has been quite positive. Our American partners are telling us that they are ready to launch this conversation…. Both sides have appointed representatives.” Also indicating some steps toward sanity, the UN has agreed to lift sanctions on humanitarian aid to be delivered to Afghanistan over the next year, while former Afghan President (during the occupation) Hamid Karzai, told CNN that the world must work with the reality on the ground, meaning the Taliban government, and to “bring Afghanis together.” Asked about Taliban “atrocities,” Karzai said there were atrocities on all sides—Americans bombing villages, Taliban suicide bombers. Now there must be peace: “we must plan for the future.” He added that there had been some small aid during the war—some roads, some education facilities and so fourth, “but under the name of a war against terorism, it has been a disaster for us.” He asked for a “relationship of respect and understanding” between Afghanistan and the U.S. While we mobilize to prevent war, to reverse the financial and economic collapse, to provide modern health systems to all nations, to build independent and productive nations worldwide, to restore classical culture—these are all One, and will only be achieved as a One, a new paradigm for mankind. Let us celebrate Christmas with that dedication, that commitment to truly achieve Goodwill Towards Men.
|
The pace of intensifying U.S.-Russia tension over Ukraine increased over this past weekend, so that what seemed within hope of stabilization two weeks ago when Presidents Biden and Putin video-conferenced, now looks more and more like a countdown toward war in Europe involving the nuclear superpowers.A senior White House official, quite possibly National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, told CNN on Dec. 19, Sunday, that there is only a “four-week window” to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. “What we have been doing is very calculated,” the official said. “But we only have about a four-week window from now.” The official said U.S. planned sanctions “would be overwhelming, immediate and inflict significant costs on the Russian economy and their financial system.” The next day, Dec. 20, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told journalists that the Biden Administration had not responded to President Putin’s on Dec. 15 proposed treaties on arms control, according to the EurAsian Times news site. They included the assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO and that further forward deployments of U.S. and NATO forces and missile systems toward Russia’s borders would stop. "‘No, they [the Americans] have not responded yet," said Ryabkov; “we are waiting, we will see what they answer. So far, we have seen only all sorts of public statements.” Among those public statements was a NATO general’s plan for U.S. troops’ forward deployment to Bulgaria and Romania, to NATO bases at the Black Sea. And both Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko and Arms Control Negotiator Konstantin Gavrilov ominously referred to “Russia’s military-technical and military means” as the only alternative to a negotiation on Russia’s treaty proposals. Ukraine’s own government continued, in the person of Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba talking to the Washington Post Dec. 19, to demand more “military means” and troops from the United States and the U.K., and to demand that the United States spell out publicly the “overwhelming and immediate” damage that the U.S. Treasury is preparing to do to the Russian economy and financial system, and do it with London whether the continental European allies agree or not. In October 1962 it was the U.S. southern border that was being approached, closely, by Soviet soldiers and missiles in Cuba, which threatened a devastating first strike. Today, it is the relentless march of NATO closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Sixty years ago President John F. Kennedy said, “Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island.” And, he said, that this, “in an area well-known to have a special and historical relationship to the U.S., is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country.” [emphasis added] Moreover, in 1962 U.S. military chiefs were demanding an invasion of Cuba to destroy missile and other forces, and President Kennedy was holding them back, with difficulty. Had Kennedy and Khrushchev not reached a negotiated resolution to the Cuban Missiles Crisis, what was likely to have happened? Hundreds of millions of people around the world were terrified of an imminent nuclear war. How were President Kennedy’s demands—that the Soviet Union remove, and never again try to place nuclear-capable missiles and aircraft virtually on the U.S. border, and “in an area [with] a special and historical relationship to the U.S.”—different from President Putin’s agreement proposed on Dec. 7 to President Biden, that the United States ensure that Ukraine would not join NATO and thereby have U.S. and NATO forces and missiles of various types placed right on Russia’s border? And “in an area with a special and historical relationship” to Russia, in fact for centuries part of it. Here is the difference: Kennedy and Khrushchev both wanted a solution, and not one in which the other President and nation were humiliated, or crushed by “overwhelming, immediate” national damage! That is what must be negotiated between Presidents Biden and Putin now, putting to the side the war-hawks—some of whom are clinically insane, to publicly propose a nuclear first strike on Russia as Sen. Roger Wicker did on Dec. 7. But it must and can happen if citizens now stand up to demand it, and remain optimistic that these two nations can block the ominous path of escalation and superpower war. Let them spend their efforts instead in providing food, healthcare and reconstruction to Afghanistan. Listen to Kenney’s Oct. 22, 1962 address here.
|
On Sunday, the Council of Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation met in extraordinary session in Pakistan, and agreed upon resolutions for coordinated humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and measures for economic functioning. Follow-up mechanisms were specified to implement the decisions of the OIC. Attending the meeting were 70 delegates, representing member countries, guest nations, international financial and UN aid agencies. The OIC, with 57 member nations, is the largest such world body after the United Nations. But even so, what determines what will happen for the Afghanistan people and nation, the greater region, and world situation, requires a shift in approach to abandon deadly geopolitics, and launch concerted positive action among major powers.This was stressed on Friday, the opening day of the three-day OIC meetings in Islamabad, by Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, appearing in a discussion on Pakistan’s national television PTV, which covered the OIC proceedings intensively. She said, “In a certain sense, to get all the forces internationally together to help Afghanistan is, in my view, one of the absolute, important historical missions. In a certain, I think the whole destiny of mankind is in a laser, concentrated on what happens in Afghanistan. So I would really hope that all the participating and affected countries would double and multiply their efforts to make saving Afghanistan an issue of the whole world, because right now it is. And I think all channels must be used: media, United Nations, conferences. There must be a drumbeat, a drumbeat of awakening the conscience of the world, because I think this is sort of a judgment of our ability as a human species: Are we morally fit to survive or not?” What is happening this evening is that pledges are starting from OIC nations, on what donations they will commit, for purposes of urgent relief operations. From preliminary reports, the framework that is to administer ongoing aid includes several features. A resolution was adopted unanimously that the OIC will set up a Humanitarian Trust Fund and a Food Security Program. The OIC meeting requested that the existing Islamic Organization for Food Security (IOFS) work with this new Food Security Program for Afghanistan, including using IOFS reserves, when warranted. The Humanitarian Trust Fund is to come into operation during the First Quarter of 2022, under the auspices of the Islamic Development Bank. In Kabul, the existing OIC Mission is to be reinforced with more logistical, financial and staff resources to enable it to coordinate operations with global agencies and partnerships. These include the obvious UN agencies, from UNICEF, to the World Food Program, and other organizations. A priority will be working with the World Health Organization for vaccines and medical supplies. There will be support for the Afghan refugees who have fled to neighboring countries, and for the internally displaced within Afghanistan. An estimated 665,000 people have been displaced just between January and September 2021, over and above the 2.9 million already dislocated within their nation. In brief, 60% of the population of 38 million people face crisis levels of hunger, and lack of necessities for life. The conference welcomed the offer by Uzbekistan to create, with UN efforts, a regional logistics hub in Termez city, to handle the shipment of humanitarian material into Afghanistan. The OIC meeting approved the designation of Ambassador Tarig Ali Bakhit Salah, Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian, Cultural and Family Affairs at the OIC Secretariat, to be OIC Special Envoy to Afghanistan for the OIC Secretary General, to coordinate efforts, and provide reports to the OIC. The Humanitarian Trust Fund is to be up and running within the first quarter of 2022. It is reported by APP (AP Pakistan,) that there was an urgent appeal made for large-scale projects in the multi-nation region, to serve reconstruction and development. In general, this should include energy, transportation and communication projects. Two mentioned were the TAPI Pipeline, and the TAP (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) electricity transmission line. Participants in the deliberation drew attention to the importance of the 15th Summit of the Economic Cooperation Organization, which met on Nov. 28, 2021, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. The second area of OIC action, alongside the humanitarian, food-aid and anti-pandemic work, concerns creating the banking, credit and related conditions to serve a re-established functioning economy, and for reconstruction. The Council of Foreign Ministers decided, according to the report by APP, that exploratory talks “to unlock the financial and banking channels to resume liquidity and flow of financial and humanitarian assistance” should commence under the direction of the OIC General Secretariat, and the Islamic Development Bank. APP added that, participants discussed “exploring realistic pathways towards unfreezing Afghanistan’s financial assets.” Here is where the outright clash comes in with the networks in London, Washington D.C. and co-conspirators, which insist on wrongfully withholding $9.5 billion in Afghanistan state assets, sorely needed for government and economic functions. An especially ugly, duplicitous public relations campaign is going on in the United States, where two open statements were issued this past week, crying crocodile tears, asserting that some of the $9.5 billion should be unfrozen, and used to “directly help the Afghan people,” but only if allocated directly through non-Kabul government, non-Taliban, UN or other agencies. One letter was from former military figures, in connection with the infamous Atlantic Council, and the other letter was from a group of 39 Congressmen, either ignorant, gullible, corrupt, or all three. No nation exists without functioning institutions. There is no independence without economic sovereignty. Withholding the funds, or arrogating decision-making over their use means destroying a nation. This will do the job by genocide, that 20 years of military presence and non-development didn’t do in Afghanistan. This is a moral test for the West. What needs to be done with the funds, and in general in Afghanistan is presented in the newly-released EIR interview with Dr. Shah Mehrabi, for 20 years on the Board of Governors of the Da Afghanistan Bank, the central bank of Afghanistan. Our role is indispensable in getting out such policy interventions, along with getting out the truth on the scale of the emergency in Afghanistan, which is being blacked out severely in the Trans-Atlantic media. The Zepp-LaRouche call for Operation Ibn Sina to bring a modern healthcare platform to the country is a call for world action. Shining the light on Afghanistan and mobilizing for what must be done, spreads understanding of the necessity to end the grip of the imperialist foreign policy and globalist financial system everywhere, now in breakdown, and threatening nuclear war. Helga Zepp-LaRouche ended her remarks on PTV Dec. 17 by summarizing, “So in one sense, I think the fate of Afghanistan and the fate of humanity are much more closely connected than most people can imagine.”
|
