Executive Intelligence Review, the Daily Alert Service, and other LaRouche publications, including our video, must be vectored, especially in the next days, to asserting the reality of the present danger of total war, including thermonuclear war, and what to do to avert it—even as mistaken distortions in the calm strategic evaluation required in this situation abound in the printed and electronic media, whether through incompetence or design. This begins with accurately reporting, particularly to the largely clueless American people, what the Russian government is actually saying. On Monday, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitri Peskov said during his briefing: “The head of our state, as the commander-in-chief and the man who defines the foreign policy of our country,.. takes necessary measures to ensure our common security and to protect our interests… It were us who initiated the negotiations, the consultation [on guarantees of security for Russia], and we expect to receive written responses to our proposals, which aim to help us avoid such tense situations in the future.”Peskov refused to speculate on any potential military action that might be initiated, either by Ukraine, or by Russia. He indicated that there was no plan at this point for Biden and Putin to speak again. Those written responses by the United States and by NATO are the clear precondition for anything else. We also insist, emphatically, and as only these publications will, that despite the obvious culpability of the knuckle-dragger factions of American intelligence agencies, including their criminal manipulation of, and deployment into, the United States Congress, the war design that is presently unfolding is British in origin, as it was in Iraq I (Margaret Thatcher,) and Iraq II (Tony Blair.) Today, the hapless Boris Johnson represents the tattered imperial “Remains of the Day” that is the silly “Global Britain” scheme. A vigorous, polemical attack on “the sexual impotence of British liberal imperialism,” on lurid display yesterday in a “senior U.S. administration officials’ special background briefing” on the “incredibly potent” sanctions about to be imposed on Russia, or in Britain’s depraved indifference to defending the General Welfare of British subjects as expressed in the “herd” approach to the coronavirus pandemic, is certainly in order, and would uncomfortably echo through the halls of Buckingham Palace right now. (The now-demoted Andrew was, in fact, the ideal representative of the latter-day British “Great Game.”) The imposition of new sanctions against Russia, now being discussed in the U.S. Congress by Senators Menendez (D-New Jersey) and Risch (R-Idaho,) is also being simultaneously contemplated against China, ostensibly because of the “imperial threat” China may pose to Taiwan. Notably, manic Republican legislators have proposed that these new Russian sanctions should happen now, before any incident even occurs involving military forces at the Ukrainian/Russian border. Sophistries aside, are not sanctions, in fact, an implicit act of war? The present drive towards war was not, in fact, provoked by any recent Russian actions whatsoever. Ukraine’s Natalia Vitrenko documents in her " Open Letter to World Leaders: Stop supplying weapons and using political blackmail to incite Ukraine to war with Russia!" that, “The split in society and deceiving of our population have been intensified by the policy forced upon our country of seeking to join the EU and NATO. In 1991 Ukraine’s sovereignty was recognized by the world community on the basis of the norms and principles set forth in the Declaration on the State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which was twice affirmed by our people in nationwide referendums (17 March and 1 December 1991). The legal force of this Declaration still has precedence…. That means that the world community not only recognized, but is obliged to defend the sovereignty of Ukraine as a neutral, non-bloc state, committed to a foreign policy of creating a union state with the former republics of the USSR….” The reality is that the same Anglo-American intelligence establishment that manufactured the “Russia-gate” hoax, and instigated the overthrow of the duly elected government of Ukraine in February 2014, has partnered with a pro-Nazi grouping to provoke a war on the border of Russia. We should note in this context, recent reference by Chinese spokesmen to a “zero tolerance” policy toward attempts at “color revolutions” in nations such as Kazakhstan, which borders both Russia and China. Various American commentators now warning about the war threat opine that “there is nothing that the United States actually can do to stop a Russian action,” and that “there is no basis to believe that NATO can expect to win a war in this area.” They, however, miss the point. British imperial interests, which dominate the thinking of the United States State Department, realize that their system is doomed unless China and Russia are subjugated—which, however, will bring about planetary doom, not merely monetary doom for an already-dead system. Trans-Atlantic policy no longer follows logic, let alone reason. In an article entitled, “NATO As Religion,” author Alfred de Zayas, professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and a U.N. official, states: “I dare postulate the hypothesis that the best way to understand the NATO phenomenon is to see it as a secular religion. Then we are allowed to believe its implausible narratives, because we can take them on faith…. As [with] every religion, the NATO religion has its own dogma and lexicon. In NATO’s Lexicon a”color revolution" is [the same as] a coup d’état, democracy is co-terminous with capitalism, humanitarian intervention entails “regime change,” “rule of law” means OUR rules, “Satan Nr. 1” is Putin, and Satan Nr. 2 is Xi Jinping. Can we believe in the NATO religion? Sure. As the Roman/Carthaginian philosopher Tertullian wrote in the Third Century AD—credo quia absurdum. I believe it because it is absurd “….I dare consider myself a US patriot—and an apostate from the NATO religion—because I reject the idea ‘my country right or wrong.’ I want my country to be right and to do justice—and when the country is on the wrong track, I want it to return to the ideals of the Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence, of the Gettysburg address—something I can still believe in. “NATO has emerged as the perfect religion for bullies and war-mongers.” It is not enough, however, to aspire to “return to” the American Republic. Policies must be formulated now, to deal with the shock of what British monetarist-economist Jeremy Grantholm characterized on January 20 as “the end of the Fed U.S. bubble extravaganza: housing, equities, bonds, and commodities,” the “three-and-a-half super-bubbles collapse.” For the Anglo-Dutch imperial impulse for total war, including thermonuclear war, to be defanged, the American Presidency must publicly reject war with Russia and China. It should consider, and respond positively, to the perspective presented to an apoplectic Davos audience last week by Xi Jinping: " Countries need to strengthen international cooperation against COVID-19, carry out active cooperation on research and development of medicines, jointly build multiple lines of defense against the coronavirus, and speed up efforts to build a global community of health for all….In the context of ongoing COVID-19 response, we need to explore new drivers of economic growth, new modes of social life and new pathways for people-to-people exchange, in a bid to facilitate cross-border trade, keep industrial and supply chains secure and smooth, and promote steady and solid progress in global economic recovery…." Operation Ibn Sina, the World Health Platform policy of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, and the “Four Economic Laws” of Lyndon LaRouche, the most concise statement, and advancement of Hamilton and the American Revolution’s rejection and replacement of British liberal imperialism, are the readily available solution for a rapid move forward by the United States Presidency into the Twenty-first Century, free of the “eighteenth-century methods” of the British Empire that Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected.
