World War

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.