Article Search

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.”

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.”

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.”

Both President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin made public comments today about the actual content of their summit discussion yesterday. Biden announced that he is working on a further meeting to address Russia’s red-line concerns regarding Ukraine and NATO. “The positive news is that, thus far, our teams have been in constant contact,” Biden said, adding that he hoped to announce by Dec. 10 that there would be a meeting in short order involving Russia, the U.S., and at least four major NATO allies, to address “Russia’s concerns relative to NATO,” and to try to “bring down the temperature along the Eastern Front.”President Putin today again explained what those red-line concerns are: “It would be criminal inaction on our side to spinelessly watch all that’s taking place” in Ukraine, he said, and continuing: “We have a right to provide for our own safety. U.S./NATO weapons are the issue.” As Putin has repeatedly explained, the encroachment of NATO up to Russia’s very borders over the last 20 years, and now the explicit threat of having Ukraine join NATO or otherwise have American and NATO troops on its territory, makes Moscow indefensible—other than by the use of hypersonic nuclear weapons. Each side would then have nuclear weapons within 5-minutes flight time from the other, Putin pointed out. Or would it be four minutes? Right after yesterday’s summit, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told the press that Biden said to Putin at their summit that he would discuss NATO’s eastward expansion with his Alliance colleagues. That appears to have been born out by Biden’s own comments today. But on Washington’s side, the lies are coming fast and thick—signaling the enormous danger of war that not only still exists, but is growing by the hour. The war party has moved to entirely take control of strategic policy out of Biden’s hands, and to immediately escalate the provocations against both Russia and China to the snapping point. Secretary of State Tony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan participated in the summit with Putin, acting like Biden’s chaperones the whole time, while Putin sat alone. Blinken and Sullivan then emerged from that meeting to immediately run to the press to issue statements about what had supposedly happened at the summit—making zero mention of the planned meeting to address Russia’s concerns. Instead, Sullivan said that Biden read Putin the Riot Act. Blinken was chillingly clear in delivering threats and warnings to both Russia and China, blaming them for the Ukraine and Taiwan crises, respectively, and threatening a blistering U.S. response to any military moves those countries might make. Blinken was particularly brazen about the Establishment’s gambit in pulling out of Afghanistan, actually arguing that the American people do still have “an appetite … to re-engage overseas if necessary”—i.e., launch more perennial wars, only this time directly against Russia and China, exactly as Lyndon LaRouche had warned all along was the true strategic intention behind the Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. provocations. If there is no significant opposition in the U.S. to such a war between the superpowers, then it will happen, Helga Zepp-LaRouche warned today. The Ukraine crisis is far from over, and the London-led war party is on a rampage, as can be seen in Blinken’s threats against both Russia and China and his explicit intent to starve Afghanistan into submission—a Nuremberg crime if ever there was one. Will Americans just look the other way while a sitting Senator, Robert Wicker of Mississippi, states on national TV that “I would not rule out American troops on the ground” in Ukraine, and that the U.S. also shouldn’t “rule out first-use nuclear action” to deter Russia? Zepp-LaRouche further warned that, if this goes any further, the countries in Europe where nuclear weapons are stationed will shortly cease to exist. On both sides of the Atlantic, it should begin to dawn on people what the existence of hypersonic weapons actually means. In her weekly webcast today, Zepp-LaRouche summarized the situation and issued a call to action: “My assessment [of the summit] is that we are still sitting on a powder keg of potential nuclear war…. I think this is all extremely dangerous and we urgently need a new security architecture in Europe and in Eurasia which rules out the possible danger of a nuclear war…. Hopefully reason will prevail and this incredibly dangerous situation can be turned into something else.” She reminded listeners of her proposed Operation Ibn Sina, in which the world’s major powers would join efforts to stop the looming mass deaths in Afghanistan, and provide that country with a modern health system, adequate food, and the infrastructure needed to make that possible. “Under conditions of a pandemic—which not only has health implications, but is a complete threat to the economy, as we see in many countries—the only way you can address the most urgent issues facing humanity is to say: We have to concentrate on the common aims of mankind, namely to defeat this pandemic, and we have to work together internationally. This would be a step in the direction of overcoming this insane, extremely dangerous geopolitical confrontation.” Zepp-LaRouche urged listeners to mobilize with the Schiller Institute to stop the danger of nuclear war. “And cooperate with us on Operation Ibn Sina, because it is a step towards defusing an otherwise extremely dangerous situation.”

A two-day summit meeting of the heads of state and government of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization begins on Sept. 16 in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, which will focus on how to stabilize and economically reconstruct Afghanistan. The nations of Asia are generally committed to working with China’s Belt and Road Initiative to bring infrastructure and related development to Afghanistan, and to make sure that international terrorism and the drug trade don’t carry the day.Not so the United States and Europe, whose governments are applying the British imperial policy of starving the nation into submission—or into mass death. The Western nations have frozen Afghanistan’s assets abroad, making it impossible for the economy to function and workers to be paid by their employers; sanctions are ensuring that elementary health care cannot be provided to the population, sanctions that now threaten to explode already widespread poverty into the outright starvation of millions. This is the actual strategic backdrop to the revelations contained in Woodward and Costa’s new book, Peril, which are receiving ample coverage in the mass media. The central fact—which is known to this news service totally independently of the contents of that book—is that there was a British-steered attempted coup d’état against President Donald Trump and the U.S. Constitution in and around the period of the Nov. 3, 2020 presidential election. That operation included efforts by leading figures of the military-industrial complex, reportedly including Gen. Mark Milley, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to unconstitutionally substitute themselves for the President in the role of Commander in Chief. It also included setting the trap of planned Jan. 6 violence orchestrated by agents provocateurs employed by the FBI and other intelligence agencies, and then ensnaring President Trump in that trap with the assistance of the likes of the seedy Steve Bannon. The underlying strategic issue, as the British and their minions such as Milley repeatedly made clear, was Trump’s active decision to pull American military forces out of Afghanistan, end the entire British imperial policy of perennial warfare under the phony flag of “fighting terrorism,” and work cooperatively with Russia and China. That is why that same British apparatus, including General Milley, reacted with shock and dismay when President Biden announced that he would carry out the Trump-initiated policy of a total pullout from Afghanistan and ending the decades of perpetual genocidal wars. Milley, who today is still head of the JCS under Biden, took to national television on Sept. 4 to openly contradict Biden’s stated policy, predicting that the American pullout would mean that Afghanistan would collapse into civil war, that widespread terrorism would erupt there—and, of course, that American troops would have to return to continue the war. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has presented a totally opposite policy for Afghanistan, and for the world. She issued a call for the United States and Europe to join with China, Russia and Central Asian nations in the economic reconstruction of Afghanistan. This approach can stop the perennial war policy, defeat the ongoing British attempted coup d’état in the U.S., and otherwise establish a new strategic alignment capable of replacing the bankrupt London-centered Western financial system. The current attempted coup is actually a continuation of what was unleashed 20 years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. American statesman Lyndon LaRouche explained the matter in an interview he gave to the daily Al-Bayan, from the United Arab Emirates, on Nov. 16, 2001—scarcely two months after the infamous 9/11 attack. In it, LaRouche began by locating the recently-occurred events in their proper strategic context: “The currently ongoing monetary-financial collapse is far worse than a mere depression, such as that of 1929-1933; it is a systemic collapse of the world system set into motion by President Nixon’s actions of August 1971. That system could never be resuscitated from the present collapse. Our goal should be to eliminate the present system, so that we may resuscitate the world’s economy.” He then took up the question of fighting terrorism. "The reply to this question must be situated within a corrected view of what actually happened in the U.S.A. on Sept. 11. Those attacks could have been organized by nothing less than an intended coup d’état deployed from within very high levels of the U.S. internal military-security apparatus…. “Somewhere, during the evening of Sept. 11, there was a new decision made, to respond to the effect of the morning’s attacks by declaring a war on ‘terrorism,’ and, as I warned against this on a radio interview earlier that day, picking long-standing Anglo-American asset Osama bin Laden as the scapegoat for the case…. “Someone, at very high levels, within the U.S. command structure, unleashed an attempted coup d’état against the Bush government on Sept. 11. Had that crisis led to a nuclear alert escalation between the U.S.A. and Russia, the coup plotters would have succeeded, almost without doubt. President Putin’s Sept. 11 telephone conversations with President Bush, changed the situation in a radical, beneficial way. “Otherwise, nothing else has been solved. The coup d’état has been defeated, at least temporarily, but the nightmare rolls on….” LaRouche then pointed to the way to end that nightmare: “Without putting the present international monetary-financial system through a most drastic form of bankruptcy reorganization, the attempt to continue that system with most reforms, will plunge the entire planet into an early new dark age which will last for perhaps two or more generations…. Were the U.S.A. to become partner of such a Eurasian-cooperation system, the needed basis in economic interest for a peacefully developing world, is established.”

U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin emerged from their four-hour summit discussion today in Geneva, Switzerland, to present to the world a “U.S-Russia Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability,” whose brief text includes the following central commitment: “Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” That exact phrase was used by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev in their famous November 1985 summit at the height of the Cold War, in the very same location.Presidents Biden and Putin further agreed to establish a bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue for teams of experts on both sides to begin work on the myriad security-related problems facing the two countries, and the world. The summit meeting, both leaders agreed, was constructive, and a first step towards improving U.S.-Russian relations, which have sunk to their lowest level in decades, perhaps ever. Strategically, this is a step back from the brink, and an urgently needed one. But it is a small first step, which is not yet secure and which the enemies of peaceful cooperation between the U.S., Russia and China will deploy heavily to stop. In fact, the very fact that President Biden met with Putin at all, let alone reached a modest agreement to begin talks, has already provoked wild hysteria among the press hyenas, who tore into Biden at his post-summit press conference in a way they had previously reserved for President Trump. Those media are the paid hit-men for the bankrupt Wall Street and City of London interests, and their Establishment operators in the military-industrial complex, the intelligence agencies, and elsewhere, whose survival depends on stopping U.S. cooperation with Russia and China at all costs. The LaRouche Organization and the Schiller Institute have been insistently warning of the danger of nuclear war, precisely because of the unsalvageable bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system. We have sounded the alarm against the British-led drive to impose Malthusian depopulation across the planet, in the guise of the Great Green Reset. And, most importantly, we have restated and elaborated on the policies presented by Lyndon LaRouche as the only viable long-term strategy for winning a durable peace. Today’s small step, to succeed, must now be followed by the implementation of those policies: cooperation to build a world-class health system in every nation on the planet in order to defeat the pandemic; joint work in space sciences and exploration; and the bankruptcy reorganization of the existing financial system to stop the looming hyperinflationary explosion from destroying all physical economies. Back in March 1984, Lyndon LaRouche addressed exactly these issues, in a document titled “The LaRouche Doctrine: Draft Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.” LaRouche prepared the document a year after his discussions with the Reagan administration had led to Ronald Reagan’s famous announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative in March 1983, and a little more than a year before Reagan took this approach to the 1985 summit with Gorbachev in Geneva. In it LaRouche stated: “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. “The most crucial feature of present implementation of such a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary, economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and those relatively subordinated nations often classed as ‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the aftermath of modem colonialism are progressively remedied, there can be no durable peace on this planet. “Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both, the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable peace between those two powers…. “The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years; 2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in common of the two powers and other cooperating nations, constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the potential political and economic causes of warfare between the powers.”