Secretary of State Blinken used the occasion of the release of the U.S. response to Putin’s proposed treaties to repeat the accusations of Russian aggression, and reiterate that Russia will face a harsh response if Russia invades Ukraine. Putin insists upon written security guarantees because the U.S. has broken numerous promises, financed and organized Color Revolutions and regime change coups, and launched aggressive wars, all supposedly to defend “human rights” and “democracy.” In reality, the hypocritical and bloody foreign policy of the U.S. since the end of the Cold War has not been to secure peace or benefit the American people, but to defend the geopolitical interests of the City of London and its allies on Wall Street. What is needed is not further militarization in Europe, but diplomacy aimed at achieving mutually beneficial economic cooperation.
To protect a bankrupt financial system, the City of London and its allies in the Military-Industrial-Complex in the U.S. and NATO are demanding an end to sovereign governments, insisting that nations submit to their Great Reset — which is a global central banker’s dictatorship. Russia and China will not submit, putting us on a pathway to war in Ukraine and Taiwan. But such wars cannot be won, and could trigger nuclear war. The alternative was developed by Lyndon LaRouche: put the predatory financial institutions into bankruptcy, establish a New Bretton Woods financial system, and apply his Four Economic Laws to revive the American System of Physical Economy.
Jan. 24 (EIRNS) – On the occasion of the celebration of the 66th anniversary of the founding and relaunching of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC) of Peru, a national assembly of the party was held in Lima on Saturday, Jan. 22, at which the Schiller Institute was the guest of honor. The occasion included the PDC’s announcement that it was officially adhering to the international Schiller Institute (see full text above).
The opening speech at the Saturday session was delivered by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche to an audience of some 160 participants, including the PDC’s full Executive Committee, 20 delegated representatives of their 40 District Committees, other leading members, and some 30 youth. Many of those present had traveled to Lima from the interior of the country, notwithstanding the pandemic. Zepp-LaRouche’s in-depth strategic evaluation was crowned with a very hopeful and optimistic view of the future, if this Year of Lyndon LaRouche becomes the year in which LaRouche’s Four Laws are implemented as the pillars of an economic recovery which would bring about the universal common good. Zepp-LaRouche’s speech, delivered as a pre-recorded video, received lengthy applause.
On Sunday Jan. 23, an internal party meeting was held with the delegates who had come to Lima from around the country. There, Carlos Gallardo, the President of the PDC, addressed Helga Zepp-LaRouche – who was invited to join the meeting by videoconference hook-up – to officially announce the PDC’s adherence to the Schiller Institute, in light of their profound epistemological and programmatic coincidence. Gallardo also announced that the PDC would shortly hold a series of classes, with the aid of Schiller Institute teachers, on the Science of Christian economy of Lyndon LaRouche, using that book as a guide to develop the party’s platform for the development of its economic program.
Zepp-LaRouche warmly welcomed the PDC’s collaboration with the Schiller Institute and held a 45 minute Q&A session with those present.
As war preparations hit a feverish pace, driven by the usual false narratives from the Military-Industrial Complex war hawks, there are other warnings being stated quietly, hoping you are not paying attention. These have to do with the Fed’s decision to “fight inflation” by raising interest rates, a strategy that risks triggering a wave of defaults of 54 mostly poor, heavily-indebted countries — including Ukraine — but also of debt-ridden zombie corporations, banks, insurance companies, etc. If you suspect there might be a connection between the war drive and the systemic financial collapse of the economy, you are right.
The following is an edited transcript of the speech delivered by Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, to the January 22, 2022 Schiller Institute Conference, “A Difference in Leadership—Can a War with Russia Still Be Averted?” Ambassador Polyanskiy recorded his video presentation January 21. Other speakers to the conference included Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute; Harley Schlanger, Schiller Institute Board Member and long-time spokesman for Lyndon LaRouche; Paul Gallagher, EIR Economics Editor; and Richard A. Black, Schiller Institute Representative at the UN.
Dear Colleagues, my name is Dmitry Polyanskiy. I am the First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN. I would like to thank the Schiller Institute and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche for inviting me to speak at today’s conference.
The news about our proposal for security guarantees and the negotiations with the West are hitting the headlines, so, you can hardly imagine a more timely topic these days. I appreciate this opportunity to share my views from our perspective.
I would like to start on a cautiously optimistic note. Our dialogue with the U.S., NATO, and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] is ongoing. As I speak now, our Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] is meeting with U.S. Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken in Geneva as a follow-up to earlier contacts in January. So, we meet, and we talk. I don’t have any doubt that this is a kind of positive development compared to the stalemates we used to be in for the past few years. The value of these contacts should not be underestimated. Some time ago, that could even be viewed as the result itself. However, the reality is that those times have passed. Talking clearly is not enough now, with all “gentlemen’s agreements” repeatedly violated by our Western counterparts. Our national security interests are faced with a direct threat, as the NATO countries [carry out a] military build-up around our borders.
Therefore, this time we do not expect lengthy discussions, but rather, a very concrete response from our Western colleagues with regard to the proposals on security guarantees we put on the table. As you know, last December, we passed to the U.S. side two drafts: a Russia-U.S. treaty on security guarantees, and an agreement on measures to ensure the security of Russia and members of NATO.
The ideas in these drafts do not come out of thin air. They are based on previous agreements, including those of the OSCE summits in Istanbul in 1999 and in Astana in 2010, stating that the OSCE members will not strengthen their own security at the expense of the others. No state, no group of countries or organizations can be vested with primary responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in Europe. This is an integral part of the compromises and decisions made at the highest level in the OSCE, and our Western counterparts must fulfill their part of these obligations.
In a nutshell, we seek written, legally binding, ironclad guarantees for the following: That NATO will not expand eastward; that no assault weaponry will be deployed close to Russian territory; that the military infrastructure in Europe will be brought back to the parameters prescribed in the 1997 Foundation Acts between Russia and NATO. These are our red lines, and our colleagues in the West are well aware of that. We expect to receive, as soon as possible, written, clause-by-clause comments to our proposal for these strategic initiatives, not to get bogged down in endless and fruitless discussions.
Unfortunately, our Western colleagues are trying to scale down the whole issue to Ukraine. It seems at times that they are, in a way, self-hypnotized with an imminent threat of the Russian invasion. It is something irrational, you know—self-inflicted phobias, something to be discussed in therapy, rather than in a serious political circle.
It also seems that our Western colleagues are blinded by the so-called “victory” in the Cold War, and continue to live these memories, and try to talk from the position of superiority, and impose double standards. They blame us for the presence and movement of our troops on our own sovereign territory, while claiming that everything they do on NATO territory is nobody’s business.
This will no longer work. On the destabilizing activity: this is exactly what the West is doing in Ukraine, sending more and more weapons and troops there, spurring its militarization. Instead of encouraging Kiev to comply with the Minsk package of matters, and its other international obligations, our Western partners encourage Kiev’s bloodthirsty looks to Donbas, since it sees Western so-called “assistance” as a carte blanche. The year has only started, but according to the OSCE’s special monitoring mission, the number of ceasefire violations has already exceeded 3,000.
But the real problem is way bigger than Ukraine. The whole architecture of regional security in Europe is almost ruined. The situation is escalating, and contrary to the Western narrative, all threats come from the West, rather than Russia. They, on a daily basis, try to intimidate us by sanctions, grave consequences, you just name it. It is not something new. Russia has been resisting various threats for centuries. So, we learned how to handle this. I hope our Western colleagues will be good students of history as well.
We should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and we still have a chance to focus on what unites us rather than divides.
I wish your conference success, and fruitful continuation of your work. Thank you very much.
Once again, a fraudulent report has been produced by British intelligence to push the U.S. into war, this time with Russia over Ukraine. Using the usual tactics — anonymous sources, promoting fake intelligence, asserting devious schemes by Russia — they may be reacting to a sense of reluctance in Washington, by Biden, and some NATO countries, to plunge into World War III. That the U.S. has now announced that it will respond to Putin’s demands for “legally-binding security guarantees” may have spooked the Brits into “ramping up preparations” for war. A thorough background report was produced in a Schiller Institute video seminar on Jan. 22, “Can War with Russia Still Be Averted”, available here on the site.
During a famine of Biblical proportions – 45 million on the verge of starvation – farmers are forced to NOT produce! Join the farmers of the world and the Schiller Institute to deal with this crisis now.
The comments made in Berlin yesterday by Tony Blinken on the continuing war tensions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine show a dangerous detachment from reality. In stating before his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov today, “I don’t expect a breakthrough,” he is demonstrating the delusional attitude of much of the Trans-Atlantic leadership, which is willing to risk a nuclear war, rather than take President Putin’s demand for national security guarantees seriously. Lavrov will likely call his bluff — then how will Mr. Blinken respond?
In the last days, and in the next days ahead, decisions are being made which will determine whether mankind has the moral capacity to survive. In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented a dramatic tour d’horizon, weaving together an analysis of summit meetings, troop deployments, and positive economic developments around the Belt-and-Road Initiative, communicating both the tremendous danger of the present, and, importantly, a pathway out of that danger.
She emphasized that the bluster of Blinken in Ukraine is not completely in step with the pronouncements of Biden. She also emphasized that Putin has been clear on why Russia requires strategic guarantees, and that some in the West, such as David Pyne, Gilbert Doctorow and Gen. Kujat, are openly discussing that. You have the delegation of seven knucklehead Senators blustering after a trip to Kiev, demanding that Biden toughen up, with one — whom she referred to as Sen. Wicked — saying that Putin must be given a bloody nose. At the same time, the Iranian President was in Moscow, signing a 20-year deal, and the Chinese and Syrians finalized a Memo of Understanding for collaboration on the BRI. Finally, she spoke movingly of the Schiller Institute conference on January 15 on Afghanistan, which contrasted the present threat of millions starving, with the axiom-busting decision by India to ship wheat to Afghanistan, traveling through Pakistan.
EIR Interview with former US Ambassador and China expert Chas Freeman
Full transcript is available here.
Graham Fuller: End U.S. Addiction to Never Ending War
Full transcript is available here.
U.S. Policy Is ‘Suffocating the Afghan People’ — Interview with Dr. Shah Mehrabi
Full transcript is available here.
EIR Interview with Justin Lin: China and Hamiltonian Economics
Full transcript is available here.
Interview with Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen—How to avoid war between the U.S./NATO and Russia?
Full transcript is available here.
U.S. Confrontation With China Is Destroying the U.S. — Interview with Dr. George Koo
Full transcript is available here.
Will the U.S.-Russian Strategic Dialogue Be a Step Back from War? Interview with Andrey Kortunov
Full transcript available here.
Ray McGovern: Putin is Being Heard on U.S.-Russia Policy
Full transcript available here.
