Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Helga statement, article, transcript

Category Archives

Zepp-LaRouche on CGTN: “Fostering Cooperation in a Fragmented World”

Jan. 18, 2023 (EIRNS)–CGTN today published on its English-language YouTube channel (which has about 3 million subscribers) a 14-minute video commentary by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on the occasion of the Davos World Economic Forum. CGTN’s introductory blurb asked the question: “How should world leaders work together in a volatile situation? Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to explore these talking points.” The video can be found here.

 Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

          The world economic forum has given its annual meeting the title “Cooperation in a Fragmented World,” and shortly before the Forum published their Global Risk Report, in which they present the results of the latest Global Risk Perception Survey.  In that, they consider the current crisis, then the expectation of what many experts think will come out in the short term (two years), the most severe in the long term (ten years), in terms of the economy, the environment, society, and those geopolitical and technological risks that could become tomorrow’s crises.  Then they consider how these different crises could evolve into a “poly-crisis” by 2030. 

          Concerning the methodology used to come to their evaluations, they report that they interviewed over 1200 experts from academia, business, government, the international community, and civil society between September 7th and October 5th, 2022.  In other words, this Global Risk Report is not based on scientific methods, but rather on an Aristotelian method to arrive at the common denominator of the opinions of selected experts. 

          While there will also be attendance from countries of the Global South, who may try to set different accents, the World Economic Forum represents a good portion of the top global corporate establishment; and they clearly try to continue to push their agenda, which is an acceleration of the Great Reset, that they have been pushing before.  It completely leaves out the optimistic perspective, for example, of the circa 150 countries working with the Belt and Road Initiative and their optimism that through investments in infrastructure, agriculture, industry, and international scientific cooperation, etc., most of the problems they insist will dominate the next years can be overcome.

          Instead, there is a lot of talk about “progressive tipping points” and “catastrophic outcomes,” which are all designed to motivate the assembled business leaders and beyond, to adopt the program fitting the financial interests of the main financial players of the neo-liberal system.  For example, in the section called “Natural Ecosystems; past the point of no return” they write:

          “Human interventions have negatively impacted a complex and delicately balanced global natural ecosystem, triggering a chain of reactions.  Over the next ten years, the interplay between biodiversity loss, pollution, natural resource consumption, climate change, and socioeconomic drivers will make for a dangerous mix. 

          “Given that over half of the world’s economic output is moderately to highly dependent on nature, the collapse of ecosystems will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences.  These include increased occurrences of zoonotic diseases, a fall in crop yields and nutritional value, growing water stress exacerbating potentially violent conflict,” etc., etc.

          The deep Malthusian pessimism reflected in such a statement makes clear that this report is more a program of their intent than a scientific prognosis.  Because of human interventions, the world population has increased from a few millions after the last Ice Age to 8 billion.  If there will be a fall in crop yields, then [it will be] only because of the Green demonization of modern agriculture.  And if there will be a violent conflict, then only because the necessary development of new fresh water resources will be blocked by the Malthusian environmentalist agenda.

          Economic Risks in 2023

          Unfortunately, I think that 2023 will see an escalation of the financial and economic crises.  The central banks have tried to curb inflation by raising the interest rates rather rapidly.  Then, as we could see for example in Great Britain, they had to suddenly go from quantitative tightening to quantitative easing again, because of the danger of a chain reaction of over-indebted firms; thus going back to the inflationary money pumping.  Since the tendency towards hyperinflation is the result of ever more monetarist policies going for profit maximization at the expense of physical economy and the reckless liquidity injections following the systemic crisis of 2008 by the trillions of dollars, euros, and pounds, only an end to the casino economy could solve the problem.

          What should be put on the international agenda is the reintroduction of a Glass-Steagall banking separation, which puts the commercial banks under state protection, but forces the investment banks to straighten out their balance sheets on their own without taxpayer money.  Then, each country must create their own national bank, because credit creation must be under the sovereign control of the governments.  These national banks must then cooperate to create a new credit system, which is only devoted to investments in projects serving the common good of the people.  There are already efforts going on in this direction among many countries of the Global South — also, to create a new international currency.

          While it is very difficult to predict the exact time when the systemic crisis of the neo-liberal system will come to a head, it cannot be excluded that the decision to have a complete reorganization of the international financial system could force itself on the agenda in this year of 2023.

          Geopolitical Conflict Triggering a Chain of Reactions

          Right now, unfortunately, the crisis over Ukraine — which is not a crisis between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and Russia — is accelerating in a dangerous way.  I think it is extremely urgent that a diplomatic solution is found quickly to end the war.  There are various efforts, like Pope Francis has offered the Vatican as a venue for negotiations, and I and a group of Latin American legislators have written an open letter to the Pope to mobilize people around the world to support this idea.  We are also asking people to sign that letter.  Also, President Lula from Brazil has been asked to mediate by several countries from the Global South; and also President Erdogan from Turkiye has made some efforts.

          I think all of these proposals should be merged, because too much is at stake.  But, I think because the crisis around Ukraine is so dangerous, the initiatives made by President Xi Jinping with the Global Security Initiative, together with the Global Development Initiative are probably the most important angle to solve the crisis.  The Global Security Initiative is really a proposal for a new international security architecture, and obviously that must take into account the security interests of every single country on the planet for it to work. 

          I am aware that right now it does not look very likely that the countries of the so-called West would be willing to discuss such a new international security architecture, given the fact that NATO is trying to become Global NATO, and Japan and Great Britain have just signed the so-called “Reciprocal Access Agreement,” and the US, the UK, and Australia have signed the AUKUS pact.  But the BRICS countries already have a higher GDP than the G-7; and 17 countries of the Global South are applying for membership in the BRICS.  So, they are in the process of representing the vast majority of the human species.  And the countries of the Global South have made it quite clear that they don’t want to be drawn into a geopolitical conflict between the West on the one side, and the China and Russia on the other side.

          I think it is therefore quite possible that in the course of 2023, the financial crisis erupts even more dramatically, and that that will be the right moment to put the combination of the Global Security Initiative and the Global Development Initiative on the international agenda.  I think President Xi is very right that security can only exist if there is development.  So, I am sure that the vast majority of the countries who are striving to overcome the relics of colonialism, and who really want to develop into become modern and prosperous countries, would support such an intervention.

          And then hopefully, the countries of the West can see that it would be in their best interest to cooperate with the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Belt and Road Initiative.

          Global Risks in the Next Two Years

          There are policy initiatives which can overcome the inflation by reorganizing the financial system, by addressing the root causes for the crisis.  The excessive profit orientation at the expense of the physical economy clearly did not work.  And what the World Economic Forum calls the geo-economic confrontation can be stopped the moment these CEOs recognize that win-win cooperation with the majority of the countries in the world would also be in their best interest; since to cooperate with growing markets with billions of people with growing buying power is for sure better than to go bankrupt in a crash.  And the best way to cope with natural disasters and extreme weather events is to invest in basic infrastructure, water management, and scientific and technological progress in order to develop the technologies to have early warning systems, secure housing construction, and other means of adaptation.

          Disagreements on Cybersecurity in Major Countries

          There have been various attempts to have agreement between major countries on cybersecurity.   There was an agreement for example in 2013 between Russia and the United States to establish a secure phone connection, and a working group to mitigate cybersecurity threats.  In 2017, in light of the allegation of election interference made against Russia, Trump and Putin agreed to create a cybersecurity unit to prevent election interference and other cyber threats.  Trump praised it as a big step forward, but was forced to backtrack only 12 hours later, due to massive pressure from Congress and the mainstream media.  Then, in preparation work for the 2018 meeting in Helsinki between Trump and Putin, Russia offered the United States cooperation in the field of preventing cyberattacks on critical infrastructure — power plants, water supply and transport management systems, hospitals, banks, and so on.  The corresponding provision was included in the joint statement of the Presidents of the two countries prepared by the Russian side for adoption at the summit in Helsinki.  While the summit between the two Presidents worked well, all hell was unleashed against Trump afterwards by the same forces, and the agreement was not signed. 

          At this point, the trust between the West and Russia and China is at an historic low point.  Under these circumstances, an isolated agreement on cybersecurity seems very unlikely.  Therefore, a great vision is required on how a solution can be put on the table which addresses all the major problems together, such as a new, just world economic order based on such concepts as the Global Security Initiative in combination with the Global Development Initiative.

          I think that we have reached a point in the history of mankind where we really must get serious about the international order of relations among nations, and how we can organize them in such a way that we can self-govern as a species which is gifted with creative reason.  In an existential crisis, [such] as the one we are experiencing right now, and which is very likely going to get much worse, it is not the amount of money one owns that counts; but it is the quality of political leadership of exceptionally wise and moral men and women who have the ability to shape the future for the benefit of all humanity.

          In Davos, there will be a great number of billionaires, millionaires, and hangers-on to power.  It will be very interesting to watch if they are also up for the larger job required.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Briefs EIR on Urgency To Implement New Paradigm in Face of World War and Economic Crash Threat

Pre-release of EIR interview:

PAUL GALLAGHER: Today is Saturday, October 22, 2022, and this is the 60th anniversary of the day that President John F. Kennedy of the United States made a speech which told the world that it was in a nuclear warfare crisis, a countdown to nuclear war which could conceivably destroy civilization. Kennedy announced that the United States had determined evidence of Soviet provision of nuclear missiles to Cuba, and said that the United States would not tolerate this, absolutely, under any circumstances, and a crisis was on, which gripped the attention of the world and held people in fear of it for more than two weeks. [JFK speech is here.]

So now, this is Paul Gallagher of EIR. I’m speaking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, and a frequent lead candidate of the BüSo political party in Germany, about the extraordinary situation which is developing there, and internationally.

So Helga, good afternoon to you.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hello.

GALLAGHER: Let me start by saying, just in terms of setting our situation here, the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline is a submarine pipeline project of Russia and Germany under the Baltic Sea, that they worked on jointly for more than 15 years. It was suspended in 2022 under U.S. pressure, and on Sept. 26, it was sabotaged, by powerful explosions which were aimed to destroy it completely. It appears that this has had an impact on German political life, despite the fact that it’s being covered up.

Helga, can you analyze for EIR what has happened here, and what does it mean for Germany and the threat of war between NATO and Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the first thing to say is that the official media and channels are obviously trying to say as little as possible about it, which is already extremely ominous, given the fact that this worsens the energy situation of Germany for some time to come. Military experts have stated that the sabotage was of such a kind that it could only have been done by a state; it could not have been done by private divers, and that naturally limits the number of states which had access. Now the questions to ask is the cui bono, who had the capacity, who had the opportunity, and who had the motive? And then, as some military experts are saying, well, if it would have been Russia, it would have meant that Russia would have to go with submarines and other devices for 300 km through the Baltic Sea under the total surveillance and control of NATO, and therefore, if it would have been Russia, it would prove that they had a huge superiority in undersea warfare, in order to do that, practically under the nose of total surveillance of NATO. If that would be the case, it would have completely other implications about military balances.

But there are also now many people saying, if there would be any proof that it was Russia, you would have seen a barrage of press conferences by NATO, by the EU, by the governments; all the tabloids would have been full of it. But since nothing of this sort has happened, it doesn’t look like it was Russia.

Instead, in an answer to a question from a parliamentarian, the German government put out an official answer, which is also extremely odd: They said that they know it was sabotage—now how did they know that if there was no official investigation? Sweden, by the way, pulled out, and so there was some strange investigation involving only Germany and Denmark, but the German divers didn’t have the diving equipment to go to the depth of 70 and 80 meters, so the whole thing is very ominous. And the statement by the German government says that, for the sake of the wellbeing of the state, they will not reveal any other information.

Now, that is extremely strange: For a sabotage of such enormous economic, and therefore social and political implications, to leave it at that, naturally raises the suspicion which is being said by many people, that this was done by another state which is not friendly to the German government. Now, given the fact that the only states which could have done it would have been the U.S., the British, Poland, maybe Lithuania, but everybody says—also and knows—that nothing in this highly surveilled area of the Baltic Sea could have been done without the control and OK of the United States.

So why is the German government not saying anything? People more and more have the feeling, this present German government is not defending the interests of the German people, and that despite the fact that the German economy is going to crash against the wall this fall and winter, in a dramatic way, to which the sabotage of these pipelines will have played a crucial part.

GALLAGHER: Is anyone in Germany, given the tremendous escalation of prices and the sabotage of the German economy as the result of the loss of natural gas supplies, and oil supplies—but particularly natural gas—is anyone arguing there that Russia and Germany should fix this pipeline? Or are there actions at all against this NATO policy of full warfare against Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would say so! Just today, there are many demonstrations, and there have been many demonstrations in the last days and weeks, not only in East Germany, but especially there, but also, today, in many West German cities. And what people were saying in these demonstrations is that it is exactly like it was in 1989: This was the demonstrations in which the Berlin Wall came down as a result. And the demands are, stop the sanctions against Russia, stop the weapons sales to Ukraine; this is not our war, we demand a diplomatic solution. And most interesting is, the action of the city of Stralsund, where the parliamentary groups of the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Free Democrats (FPD), and the Linke (the Left Party) and the Social Democrats (SPD), and a citizens alliance called “Citizens for Stralsund,” all signed up for an initiative, offering the city of Stralsund to be the site for Ukraine peace talks. And they say that there’s nothing more important than peace on our Earth, and they refer to the great history of creating the Peace of Stralsund, which is a reference to the conflict resolution from 1370, when a war between Denmark and the Hanseatic League (including Stralsund) ended in the so-called Peace of Stralsund. So, more than 650 years later, they want to have a new Stralsund Peace, and that is just a most spectacular intervention, and I think the spirit of 1989 is clearly revived in these demonstrations. And they’re also demanding the resignation of the present German government.

GALLAGHER: Ah, so there is the spirit of 1989 for sure! There’s one well-known blogger and strategic expert, Alexander Mercouris, who argued in a video that this coverup of the situation with the pipelines, despite some very clear indications of what happened, that it means that the German government is under the control of a foreign power, which is unfriendly to Germany—that was the way that he put it. What’s your view of this argument? Does it bear on these demonstrations that are coming up and the behavior of the government?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. There are many calls for this government to resign, which many people think is the worst government Germany has had in the entire post-war period. That applies for sure, for the Green Party—this is a so-called “streetlight coalition” involving the Greens, the Liberals [FDP], and the Social Democrats, of which the Greens are really the war party, the NATO party, with the most hawkish, belligerent policy, and you cannot differentiate what they say from Stoltenberg or Blinken. And the so-called Economic Minister Robert Habeck, who used to be very popular in the polls, has now plunged and has become an object of public contempt, because he is clearly pushing a policy which means the deindustrialization of Germany. And we are therefore facing a huge social explosion, not “facing,” we are in the middle of a huge social explosion in Germany.

GALLAGHER: Interesting. We’ve seen this recently in the United Kingdom, where Liz Truss, who was ready to push the nuclear button and a real warrior, she came in like hell on wheels into the prime ministership, and then very quickly her wheels fell off, and now she’s resigned, and they’re in a government crisis as well as a financial crisis. So, we see these things across Europe.

Let me ask you: You’re frequently featured and interviewed in the media in China, again yesterday, on CGTN’s “Dialogue” broadcast. In one interview, they focussed on your assessment of the situation in France and Germany, what can you convey to the Chinese people about the situation in Europe? What do you think is most important that they understand?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, they are looking at Germany, in particular, with complete disbelief: A once-proud people of poets and thinkers, and admired for its scientific and technological excellence in the whole world, is committing economic suicide in front of the world’s eyes. And it’s very difficult for people in Asia in general to understand why Europe is on such a self-destructive course.

What they are doing as a consequence is to speed up the construction of a new economic system, which consists of the countries of the BRICS, the SCO, the CICA [Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia], and other organizations of the Global South, where they building an economic system which is focussed on the alleviation of poverty in the entire developing sector; and cooperation in mutual benefit; and it has to be said, to the grace of China, or to (there’s a word I’m missing), that they continuously offer to the United States and the European countries that they should cooperate rather than try to fight. But right now, it doesn’t look like people in the West have the wisdom to respond to this offer.

GALLAGHER: Well, if German business and households’ access to natural gas coming from Russia has been destroyed, as a result of this economic warfare on Russia, are the Biden administration’s economic measures against China reaching that same scale of the all-out economic warfare on Russia? And what do you think China’s reaction will be?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: You know, if you look at the policy of the Biden administration and such people as German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who have said many times that they want to (quote) “ruin Russia,” or (quote) “prevent Russia from diversifying from oil and gas”—this was said already on Jan. 25 by some unnamed White House official—it did not work out so well.

The effect of this was that Russia turned to Asia and did relatively better than Germany, where you now have a complete blowback, and the country is under the immediate danger of deindustrialization, and given the size of the German economy, this will have a devastating effect for all of Europe.

Now, therefore, the threat to now do the same with China, what was done with Russia, I think it would only occur at the complete price of deindustrialization of the West, at least the European part of it. And China is working with about 150 countries in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative; and just at the present ongoing party conference of the 20th party congress of Communist Party of China (CPC), the report that was delivered there proudly states that Chinese economic policy is focussed on continuous innovation, scientific and technological progress, and furthering the creativity of their citizens. And the result has been a continuously prosperous economy. So, if the West wants to decouple from China, they will do so at their cost, leading to their own self-destruction: So, hopefully, they will wake up before it is too late.

GALLAGHER: Well, that was the last thing I wanted to ask you about: That the Schiller Institute is obviously mobilizing a large number of leading people around the world, and also young people around the world, to stop this nuclear war threat. And you’re the one that has launched these mobilizations: What do you think can make it possible to reach a situation of peace, and perhaps even development, before we are in an unsurvivable nuclear war?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, if you look around the world and ask normal people, like normal parliamentarians, elected officials, trade unionists, industrialists, farmers, fishermen, and so forth, nobody wants World War III! It’s a very small apparatus which is pushing this geopolitical confrontation which threatens the annihilation of the human species. So, this initiative you’re referring to comes out of meeting with Latin American parliamentarians and ex-parliamentarians, and we recognized that a similar desire for world peace and against this confrontation is prevalent all over the world. [Live event: Stope the War Before It is Too Late, Eliminate the Causes of the War Danger.] So the fact that what is at stake is the possible destruction of mankind, that makes, automatically, every citizen on the planet, to be a world citizen who has the right to speak out for the interest of humanity as a whole. And given the fact that the Schiller Institute is named after the poet Friedrich Schiller, who argued that there is no contradiction between a patriot and a world citizen—or that there doesn’t have to be—basically, we are now appealing to world citizens from all over the world to stand up against this war, and make sure that people understand that we have to make a jump in the thinking, to think in terms of a new paradigm, where everybody learns to think as a world citizen; which doesn’t mean you’re not a patriot, it just means you have to make one more step, you have to take the interest of humanity as a whole into account, and make sure that your understanding of your national interest is not in contradiction to that larger interest of humanity as a whole.

Because only if we all start thinking about the fact that we are sitting in one boat, and that if there is a nuclear war, nobody will live, and that we have, and that we have to find a new model of international relations as the precondition to get out of this crisis, that we will actually make it. And the response so far has been tremendous, because I think everybody who is concerned about world peace and the danger of war, is responding very well about this initiative, once they know about it. So help to spread the knowledge about it. [Second Seminar of Current and Former Elected Officials of the World: For World Peace, Stop the Danger of Nuclear War.]

GALLAGHER: OK, so five days from now, on Oct. 27, there is a second conference of those present and former elected officials whose deliberations you’ve been describing, and of course, at the same time, there are other meetings and discussions of potentially a new money system, a new credit system internationally, which are going on within the BRICS and elsewhere. Do you think that this can lead to an actual formation of development, an actual economic architecture, which can make development possible in the developing sector?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the need to implement that could arrive very suddenly: Because if you look at the panicky reactions in Great Britain, the desperate action to go for quantitative easing, jump to quantitative tightening, go back to quantitative easing—there’s a rapidity like that of Liz Truss going into 10 Downing Street, out of 10 Downing Street, and now they’re talking about Boris Johnson—“BoJo”—to come back, which is the farce of the century: I think the system of the City of London, and by implication the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, is teetering on the verge of dissolution. So the need to put a New Bretton Woods system, a new credit system on the international agenda may erupt more quickly than people think.

GALLAGHER: Great! OK, for EIR, I’ve been talking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, head of the Schiller Institute, about those prospects and about this extremely complicated and dangerous situation around Europe, and Germany in particular. With that, I think we’ll wrap up our interview. Helga, thank you very much for your answers, and for taking the time with us for today.


Sanctions Crippling the Syria that Was Once Proudly and Steadily Growing

Aug. 9, 2022 (EIRNS)—The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a study, “Syrian Arab Republic: Access to Electricity and Humanitarian Needs,” in March 2022, documenting meticulously, respecting Syria, what Helga Zepp-LaRouche contends in her July 12, 2022 statement, “Lift Sanctions Against Russia Immediately!”: that sanctions are a “brutal form of warfare” that kill, and must be lifted everywhere they are currently enforced.

In 2011, the European Union enforced sanctions against Syria with the intent to overthrow the country’s President, Bashar al-Assad, following the Bernard Lewis Plan overthrow and eventual killing of the leaders of Iraq and Libya. Britain, the U.S., and other nations joined the sanctions regime, and the range of sectors of the Syrian economy against which they were applied was expanded. The U.S. and other nations carried out military intervention in Syria in 2011, first using proxy terrorist groups, then directly.

Syria’s electricity sector was brutally targeted. The OCHA study reports, “Two of the country’s 13 major power plants were fully destroyed: the Zeyzoun Power Plant in Idlib governate (487 MW installed capacity) and the Aleppo Thermal Power Station (1,065 MW installed capacity).” The World Bank reported that six other power plants were partially destroyed.

“As a result of this damage, the country’s electricity generation capacity fell from 5,800 MW in 2010… to 4,000 MW in 2018.”  The further tightening of sanctions caused Syria’s installed electricity generation capacity to fall to 2,000 MW in 2021, a collapse of 63%! Obtaining replacement parts and maintaining the surviving plants, due to sanctions, has become even more acute. Whereas, in 2010, “93% of the country had access to electricity,” that is sharply down today. Compared to 2010 standards, today’s Syrian population consumes 85% less electricity per capita, twelve years later. Thirty percent of Syria’s population has access to electricity for only 2 hours per day. That slashes electricity to industry, and households, and all the equipment that goes with that.

But electricity is the source for powering all other features of society. Around 2010, “access to safe drinking water in Syria was estimated at 92% in rural communities and 98% in urban centers. Seven major water systems serve the country’s eight largest cities…. However,” the study emphasizes, “by 2019 annual public water production in Syria had fallen by 40% relative to pre-crisis levels (from 1,700 Mn cubic meters in 2010 to 1,020 Mn cubic meters in 2019.” But to use water from groundwater and springs, or most rivers, requires continuous electricity to pump water and distribute it, a commodity Syria now lacks as the study highlights.

The lack of electricity (and water) also means there is sometimes insufficient power to run medical facilities and health clinics. Because of damage to infrastructure, Syria runs its schools on two shifts. In the second shift, in particular, often there is no clean water in the bathrooms, and not enough electricity to heat the schools. Some students study at home by candlelight.

The OCHA’s ReliefWeb website reported March 12, 2022, “this year, 90 percent of Syrians live below the poverty line, and more than 80 percent are food insecure. Families say they are eating less, cutting meals, and going into debt to meet their basic needs.” {Emphasis added.}

As Zepp-LaRouche says in her July 12 statement, sanctions “are a brutal form of warfare against the respective populations of the sanctioned states with the aim of making their living conditions so intolerable that they rise up against their respective leaderships, and overthrow them. But the victims are always the people.” It is past time to lift them in Russia, Syria, and everywhere.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Responds to German Heavy Weapons to Ukraine

Faced with a Looming Nuclear War with Russia: Has the Bundestag Lost Its Mind?

An Appeal to Citizens: Don’t Let Germany Get Drawn Into Nuclear War with Russia —

April 30, 2022 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche wrote the following as the lead article in the German weekly newspaper Neue Solidarität for the May 5, 2022 issue, which has been translated from the German original. (https://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2022/18/hzl.htm)

The irresponsible and highly dangerous decision of the German government and Bundestag to give into the pressure from the U.S. government, NATO, and the warmongers in their own ranks, and agree to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine, must immediately be reversed! It represents an acute danger for the existence of Germany, as it makes us—together with the United States, Great Britain and other NATO member states that are also providing a vast arsenal of weapons to Ukraine and training Ukrainian troops in their own countries or, according to Figaro journalist Malbrunot even inside Ukraine—a party to the war. It is also a big step in a spiraling escalation toward a nuclear Third World War! Instead, Germany and France must push, with great force, for an immediate cease-fire and a diplomatic solution.

The Biden Administration is trying to mask its participation in the proxy war against Russia, with repeated statements by President Joe Biden that the military option in Ukraine is not on the table, because no one wants to trigger World War III. But given the massive arms shipments, the various aid amounting to $14 billion in the past two months, and now another $33 billion on top of that, and given the sharing of intelligence with the Ukrainian armed forces, as is openly admitted by the White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the United States is already de facto a participant in the war.

Bruce Fein, an American constitutional law expert and former associate Attorney General in the Reagan administration, argues that the U.S. and NATO member countries are already co-belligerents in the war. John B. Henry, the Chairman of the Committee for the Republic, which includes well-known former diplomats and members of government, is of the view that, under international law, this gives Vladimir Putin the right to take military action against the U.S. and those countries.

After Chancellor Scholz had refused on April 22 to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine, because he wanted to do everything possible to avoid an escalation that could lead to World War III, just three days later, his intention had evaporated. German Defense Minister Lambrecht announced just in time for the major meeting at the U.S. air base in Ramstein on April 26, to which U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had invited military leaders from 40 countries, that the government coalition had decided the day before to supply Gepard anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine. So much for statements by the Chancellor or for Germany’s sovereignty—they are obviously meaningless.

Secretary Austin announced that from now on, such meetings would be held once a month at the Ramstein air base, which houses the headquarters of the “United States Air Forces Europe” and “Air Forces Africa,” the NATO “Allied Air Command Ramstein,” as well as the “U.S. Air and Space Operations Center,” which controls drone strikes in the Middle East and Africa. The purpose of such meetings will be to optimize and coordinate the weapons production by arms industries in the various countries. Interestingly, the largest and most modern American military hospital outside the U.S., which is largely financed by Germany, is also located there. Obviously, decisions of greater import are taken in Ramstein than in Berlin, including as to whether or not Germany will be a party to the war in Ukraine.

So far, NATO and Western governments have turned a deaf ear to Putin’s warnings about crossing red lines, although he has repeatedly shown that his words are followed by deeds. This time, we should heed the warnings. In a meeting with lawmakers in St. Petersburg on April 27, one day after Lambrecht’s announcement, Putin said that in the event of outside intervention and the creation of an unacceptable threat to Russia, retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast. Russia, he added, has the tools for that purpose that no one else has at this point, and they will be used. All the decisions, he said, have already been made.

On the same day, April 27, the Wall Street Journal carried an article titled “The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War,” in which former Undersecretary of the Navy Seth Cropsey maintained that the U.S. should prepare to win a nuclear war if it did not want to lose it. U.S. warships should be armed with nuclear weapons, he wrote, and destroy Russian nuclear-missile submarines that are the main base of Russian second-strike capability. A similarly insane fantasy underlay the U.S. “Global Lightning” exercise, held in late January, which practiced an extended maneuver involving a hybrid of conventional and nuclear methods of warfare.

The idea that a limited nuclear war is possible and that it could be “won,” and that small nuclear weapons that are “usable” should be deployed, is madness. Nuclear arms expert Ted Postol has made an absolutely compelling case, most recently in a dialogue, on why the use of even a single nuclear weapon will inevitably lead to a general nuclear war, leading to the use of all existing nuclear weapons. And all the political morons who lightly talk about the need to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine, even if it means the risk of nuclear war cannot be ruled out, belong in a locked hospital ward, not in positions of political responsibility.  (The Postol remarks were made in a recent interview with Robert Scheer.)

Postol describes the effect of nuclear weapons: “We’re talking about a wall of fire that encompasses everything around us at the temperature of the center of the Sun. That will literally turn us to less than ash, if this thing gets going. I can’t emphasize how powerful these weapons are. When they detonate, they’re actually four or five times hotter than the center of the Sun, which is 20 million degrees Kelvin. They’re 100 million degrees Kelvin at the center of these weapons.”

Human beings can’t imagine the scale of such heat, he explains. He himself has written articles repeatedly about the consequences of nuclear weapons on cities, for example. Postol said, “This is something beyond anything that human beings have been able to imagine. And I don’t know how to emphasize how dangerous this is.”

He further describes that a single nuclear weapon would wipe out an urban area with a radius of 5 miles, or an area of about 75 square miles, that it would take only 20% of the American ICBMs available “to destroy all of Russia’s ICBM, land-based ICBMs—maybe a thousand,” and thus 80% of the warheads could be used for other purposes (for example against targets in Russia, China or Germany). Russia, he goes on, because of its less capable early warning system, had to set up an automated response in the event the Russian leadership were killed in a surprise U.S. nuclear first strike. Russia’s unfortunate inability to improve its early warning system, according to Postol, has resulted in a “doomsday weapon” that makes the situation much more dangerous because a fatal error could trigger a nuclear war.

It should be clear to every thinking person—and the 586 members of the Bundestag who voted for the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine are obviously not among them—that the Federal Republic of Germany becomes a co-belligerent because of that, and thus becomes a target in the event of war. Ramstein, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden, Büchel, Pirmasens, Baumholder, to name just a few targets, would burn up.

Rather than pursuing a course of suicide and the end of humanity in a misconceived loyalty to the Alliance, Germany must work for an immediate ceasefire and diplomatic negotiations. Rather than letting ourselves be whipped up into a hatred of Russia (and China) by commissioned war-mongering journalists and gun-toting women, we need to start doing our own thinking again. It is not the policy of détente that has led to the current crisis—it allowed for the peaceful reunification of Germany after all, it is the expansion of NATO five times to the East and the obstinate refusal of the political and military establishment to respond to Putin’s demand for legally binding security guarantees.

We are indeed living through a turning point, but not in the way the “narratives” of mainstream politicians and media would have us believe, rather the attempt to maintain a unipolar world in which only the U.S. and U.K. are in charge, has failed. The majority of nations in the world are in the process of building a world order based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and enabling the economic development of all.

Germany will remain non-sovereign and an occupied country for only as long as we allow it to be so in our minds. We must work now for real peace, for a diplomatic solution, and beyond that for a new international security and development architecture that guarantees the survival of humanity. Become active with us to make that happen!

—zepp-larouche@eir.de

Add your name to the petition To Convoke an International Conference to Establish A New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations ; and watch, and circulate the April 9, four-panel international conference which was a crucial initiating step in bringing that new architecture into being.


100 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock: We Need a New Security Architecture!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche · February 6, 2022

PDF of this statement

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” the five nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council affirmed in a joint statement on Jan. 3 of this year. Since the use of nuclear weapons always involves the risk of using the entire nuclear arsenal, a percentage of which is enough to cause the extinction of the human species, the confirmation of this fundamental insight should actually have practical implications for the military strategy of all nuclear powers.  

Notwithstanding this joint statement, in the last week of January, the U.S. Strategic Command launched the Global Lightning exercise, designed to test the readiness of U.S. nuclear forces.

Although this was a so-called “routine” maneuver integrated this year with the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and thus aimed at a possible confrontation with China, in the context of heightened tensions between Russia and the United States and NATO, it can be seen as just another—but perhaps the most dangerous—element in the way that the West is playing with fire with respect to Russia and China.

The timing of the maneuver coincided with hitherto unproven allegations by the United States and UK that Russia was planning a military attack on Ukraine between late January and mid-February, which the Russian government has repeatedly denied. The nuclear command-and-control exercise is based on the U.S. Strategic Command’s current nuclear war plan. Hans M. Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, was able, under the Freedom of Information Act, to obtain the cover page of this plan, entitled Stratcom Conplan 0810-12, Strategic Deterrence and Force Deployment, Change 1. Kristensen, one of the most competent specialists in the field of nuclear strategy and weapons, explained to Newsweek that the Global Lightning exercise does not simply assume a nuclear first strike by one side or the other, but an extended nuclear war that will continue after the first exchange of strikes.

Even though the individual components of this new war plan, which has been operational since April 30, 2019, are subject to the highest levels of secrecy, the outlines of this conception emerge. The assumption is that the United States and NATO would be able to survive a nuclear first strike by Russia or China, then retaliate, absorb further attacks, retaliate again, etc., in an ongoing military confrontation. This nuclear war plan includes not only nuclear weapons but various other lethal systems such as missile defense systems, directed energy weapons such as electromagnetic pulse weapons and lasers, cyberattacks, and Space Force attacks from space. Who would be able to survive such a prolonged nuclear war? The few people who can nest in deep underground bunkers? It makes the morbid fantasies of Dr. Strangelove look like a child’s birthday party.

Last year’s Global Lightning maneuvers in April 2021 focused on a potential conflict with Russia; this year it was devoted to a possible confrontation with China. The Pentagon’s various strategy papers since 2017 had increasingly defined Russia and China as geopolitical rivals and adversaries, replacing the fight against global terrorism with great-power competition as a strategic priority. At the same time, the modernization of the nuclear triad begun by the Obama Administration continued and the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons was increasingly lowered by the stationing of low-yield warheads on Trident submarines, among other things.

The Strategic Conflict

Although there was little official comment, President Putin’s March 1, 2018 announcement was about Russia’s new nuclear systems. These included the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle (launched from an ICBM, it travels at 20 times the speed of sound and boasts excellent maneuverability that renders the American missile defense system essentially obsolete;” the hypersonic aeroballistic missile Kinzhal; as well as nuclear-powered cruise missiles, fast underwater drones and laser weapons—a shock to the western military establishment. Meanwhile, China has also developed its own hypersonic missiles with infrared homing technology, a capability that the American military may not have for two to three years. American satellite imagery has also located about 300 missile silos under construction in scattered locations across China, some of which may remain empty, but others would have nuclear missiles in a state of “launch on warning” to forestall a disarming surprise attack.

This is broadly the strategic background against which Putin presented two treaties to the United States and NATO on Dec. 17, demanding that they be legally binding: no further eastward expansion of NATO, and no offensive weapon systems stationed on Russia’s borders; plus guarantees that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO.

Unlike many trans-Atlantic politicians and media outlets, Gen. Harald Kujat, the former Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, believes that the gathering of some 120,000 Russian troops near the Ukrainian border—some of them, however, hundreds of kilometers away—is not indicative of an impending attack on Ukraine, but that Russia wants to demonstrate strength with this threatening backdrop in order to force negotiations with the U.S.A. and NATO on an equal footing.

So far, the United States and NATO have refused to make any commitments on Putin’s key demands, and appear only willing to make what Russia considers secondary commitments on new disarmament talks. Putin has announced “military-technical measures” in the event of a definitive refusal. In view of the fact that the stationing of potentially offensive weapon systems in the vicinity of the Russian borders in connection with NATO’s eastward enlargement—this includes, for example, the Aegis missile defense system stationed in Poland and Romania—created a situation for Russia comparable to the stationing of Soviet missiles in Cuba, the question arises as to what these “measures” might look like. 

The American Russia expert Gilbert Doctorow suspects that they could include the stationing of nuclear-armed SS-26 Iskander-M short-range missiles in Belarus and Kaliningrad in order to threaten the NATO front-line states and eastern Germany in return. He further suspects Russia may plant sea-launched hypersonic Zircon nuclear-armed cruise missiles off the coast of Washington, D.C., which Russian experts have previously said could destroy the American capital so quickly the President would not have time to board Air Force One to escape. Theoretically, the Zirkon hypersonic missiles could, of course, also be used anywhere on the seven seas and are very difficult for conventional air defense to detect and intercept in view of their velocity—nine times the speed of sound—and maneuverability in flight.

So it is only logical that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock on Jan. 20, 2022 showed only 100 seconds to midnight. That’s only about a minute and a half until the nuclear apocalypse. Even though, since the escalation of the Ukraine crisis, after a deep sleep of almost 40 years, the anti-war movement has issued a whole series of appeals, public calls and open letters—most recently from 100 organizations in the U.S.A. demanding that President Biden de-escalate the tensions with Russia—the enormous extent of the threat has by no means penetrated the public consciousness.

Uncertainty about the Causes

But even among most Westerners who recognize the imminent danger, there is a lack of clarity about the underlying causes of the existential danger to human existence. They are to be found, on the one hand, in the systemic character of the crisis of the neoliberal financial system, which has now entered its hyperinflationary final phase; and on the other hand, in the claim of the financial establishment in the City of London, Wall Street and Silicon Valley to a unipolar world in which only the power interests of this establishment determine what shall happen in the “rules-based order.”

The dilemma now arises from an opposing dynamic. Since the paradigm shift of August 1971, prophetically recognized by Lyndon LaRouche—when Nixon effectively ended the Bretton Woods system by abolishing fixed exchange rates and thus paving the way for speculative profit maximization—there has been an increasing shift in the trans-Atlantic world away from investments in the productive physical economy and towards speculation in increasingly exotic derivative-based financial products, of which the most recent folly is “shifting the trillions” into the Green New Deal.

From the standpoint of the physical economy this policy—of making investments in industries with the lowest possible energy-flux density—ultimately represents an extensive destruction of capital, just like investments in the military production of weapon systems and the army. The fact that this effect is usually not recognized has to do with the confusion about monetary values, money vs. real wealth, and the illusion that the share values ​​of listed companies say something about the productivity of the economy. Of course, it is in the interest of the yacht-owning billionaires, some of whom have long since acquired condominiums in deep-seated bunkers in Australia and elsewhere, that the bubble economy be sustained for as long as possible, even as the proportion of the population that is impoverished continues to increase, and the middle class shrinks.

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and the trans-Atlantic establishment, despite all warnings—for example from Pope John Paul II—succumbed to the fantasy of having “won” the Cold War, and interpreted the “end of history” to mean that the whole world must now subject itself to the neoliberal rules-based order, there was no longer any need to keep any promises made to Russia not to expand NATO eastward. The whole spectrum of instruments for cementing the unipolar world was used: regime change, either through color revolutions or “humanitarian” wars against all governments that held other values. Victoria Nuland publicly boasted that the State Department had spent $5 billion on NGOs in Ukraine alone, which initially led to the 2004 “Orange Revolution.” When President Yanukovych refused to join the EU Association Agreement in late 2013, not least because the EU is fully linked to NATO in terms of treaties and security, the not-so-democratic side of the rules-based order came to the fore in the form of the Nazi Maidan coup of February 2014. This did not result in any annexation of Crimea by Putin, but rather a referendum by the people of Crimea, who wanted to withdraw from Kiev’s fascist policies. Even then, Putin stated that the West was actually concerned with containing Russia and that, if not in Ukraine, they would have found another excuse for doing so.

The decisive hardening towards Russia and China became visible, in 2017 at the latest, in the changed language in the security doctrines of the Pentagon and the characterization of these two countries as “enemies” and “autocracies.” While the Western institutions initially reacted to the announcement of the New Silk Road by Xi Jinping in September 2013 with an extensive blackout for an amazing four years, these institutions have now reacted to this largest infrastructure project in human history as if it were an existential threat—namely to the unipolar world!

Virtually all sanctions that have been imposed anywhere in the world unilaterally, i.e., without UN Security Council resolutions, ultimately had the chief purpose of preventing China’s economic rise and Russia’s regaining the status of world player. 

The transcript of the Jan. 25 background press briefing by two unnamed White House officials shockingly reveals this intention. They present a whole spectrum of “serious economic measures”—starting at the highest level of escalation—to thwart Putin’s strategic ambitions to industrialize his economy, by denying him access to all modern, advanced technologies, such as AI, quantum-computers, and any technology related to defense or aerospace, to prevent him from “diversifying” the economy beyond exporting oil and gas. The objective is the atrophy of the Russian economy.

This policy, formulated in incredibly brutal language, is nothing more than a continuation of Jeffrey Sachs’ so-called “shock therapy” of the 1990s, which had the explicit aim of reducing Russia from the status of a superpower at the time of the Soviet Union to that of a commodity-exporting Third World country. That policy was then, as it is now, a declaration of war—the only difference being that Putin is not a pathetic figure like Boris Yeltsin, pampered by the West for geopolitical motives, but a brilliant strategist who knows how to defend Russia’s interests.

The no less hateful tirades against China, which can be heard today from court scribblers of the Empire, as well as from former Maoists of the SDS era who have now risen to top positions in the Green Party, cannot change the outstanding success of the Chinese economy, which recorded a growth rate of over 8% in 2021 despite coronavirus. China has done more for human rights than any country of the so-called Western community of values, lifting 850 million people out of poverty domestically— including the Uyghurs, who now enjoy vastly better living standards and faster-than-average population growth—and offering many developing countries for the first time the chance to overcome poverty.

The silence of the same circles on the largest of all humanitarian catastrophes, triggered by Western sanctions in Afghanistan, in which one million children are starving and a total of 24 million people are at risk of dying this Winter, seals their complete discrediting.

Joint Statement by Putin and Xi

If various authors have warned that the campaigns against Russia and China could lead to even closer ties between these two countries, then rest assured that this is exactly what has now happened during Putin’s visit to the Olympic Games in China. However, there is an urgent need to remove the ideological spectacles and recognize the extraordinary opportunity presented for the whole world by the joint declaration of Presidents Putin and Xi in this extremely dangerous world situation.

The 16-page document entitled, “Joint Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on International Relations Entering a New Era and Global Sustainable Development,” calls for replacing geopolitical confrontation with economic cooperation as the basis for a common security policy. Both nations are calling on NATO to refrain from further expansion plans, to move beyond Cold War thinking, and to enshrine the long-term security guarantees that Russia is demanding. The role of international organizations such as the G20, BRICS, APEC and ASEAN should be strengthened, they say. Russia will cooperate in realizing China’s proposed “Global Development Initiative” and emphasizes the importance of the concept of the “community of a common destiny for mankind.”

Let’s think back to the hundred seconds before midnight on the doomsday clock: Who can deny that we are an indivisible community of destiny? In recent weeks, more level-headed voices have spoken out in favor of a new pan-European security architecture including Russia and Ukraine, which could be enshrined in a new Helsinki agreement. However, in view of the complexity of the world situation, the threat to world peace affecting all states, and the inseparability of the security of all, it is necessary to go beyond Helsinki and create an international security architecture that encompasses the security interests of all states on Earth.

This architecture must be based on the principles of the Peace of Westphalia; i.e., it must guarantee the interests of all states and, above all, their right to economic and cultural development. The maintenance of world peace presupposes a total and definitive renunciation of Malthusian politics, and requires undivided access to the achievements of scientific and technological advance for all nations. This new order— the prerequisite for the survival of the human species—requires a new paradigm of thought that must draw upon the best traditions of all cultures at the highest humanistic level.

We have a choice: Either we keep the clock ticking until the last of the hundred seconds has struck, and then there will be no one left to comment on the result; or, we can remember that we are the only known creative species in the universe, and shape our common future together.

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Further reading:

Franco-German call on France to Leave NATO and Bolster P5

Invitation – Schiller Institute International Online Conference


Russian Amb. Chumakov and Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche Delivered Remarks at Memorial Wreath Laying in Honor of Alexandrov Ensemble

Press Release:

Ambassador Dmitry Chumakov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder of the International Schiller Institute, Delivered Statements at the Memorial Wreath Laying Ceremony in Honor of the Alexandrov Ensemble and Other Victims of TU-154 Plane Crash 

Ambassador Dmitry Chumakov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the international Schiller Institute gave keynote remarks on December 29, 2021, at a memorial event in honor of the Alexandrov Ensemble members who were killed in a plane crash on Christmas Day, 2016.  The members of the renowned Alexandrov Ensemble – previously the Red Army Chorus — were on their way to perform in Syria during the Syrian war.    The commemoration took place at the Teardrop Memorial in Bayonne, NJ – a monument donated and built by the Russian people and government in condolence to Americans for the tragedy of 9/11.  The monument is named, “To the Struggle Against World Terrorism.” Ambassador Chumakov’s are found here.

Ambassador Chumakov’s remarks, available now on the website of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, noted that the cultural collaboration of the Russian and American people in events such as this yearly commemoration of the loss of the Alexandrov Ensemble,  shows “that human relations and friendly ties between Russians and Americans are indissoluble.”  He concluded that “Amidst a very complicated international situation, it is the humanitarian ties that strongly bring us together,” and noted particularly to the Schiller Institute and the Fire Department of the City of Bayonne that “Your contribution to the friendship and solidarity of the people of Russia and the United States cannot be overestimated.”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks, read by Diane Sare, founder of the Schiller Institute NY Community Chorus, referenced President Putin’s recent interventions, and bluntly described the danger of a “reverse Cuban Missile Crisis to which the President of your country has reacted in an unmistakable fashion: he insists, rightfully, that the promises given to Russia around the time of the German Unification, that NATO would not move eastward, closer to the borders of Russia” …  “were [promises which were] broken repeatedly”, and that they be “now belatedly” “restated in a written and legally binding form — at least as it concerns Ukraine and Georgia.” She closed: “The Schiller Institute fully endorses the demand by Russia that these treaties must be signed, and that the world must be pulled back from the brink of the abyss. …  Let us revive the spirit of the cultural contribution of the Alexandrov Ensemble to mobilize the strength in ourselves to create a more human civilization!” Mrs. LaRouche’s full remarks are available at this link.

The event was moderated by Capt. Randy Geis of the City of Bayonne Fire Department, and the invocation and benediction prayers were presented by Reverend Dorothy Patterson of Bayonne, NJ.  The laying of the wreath at the Teardrop Memorial was led by the Bayonne Fire Department, followed by a public laying of flowers to the Alexandrov and to all victims of world terrorism, added at the base of the Teardrop Memorial.  Musical selections included Russian songs sung by soloists Everett Suttle, Michelle Erin, and Lisa Bryce; the Christmas Spiritual “Sister Mary had-a but One Child,” arranged by Roland Hayes; and Grechaninov’s “Praise Ye the Name of the Lord.”

The video of the event is available on the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus website.


Zepp-LaRouche: Psychopaths Are Threatening Our Existence! Germany Must Leave NATO!

The following is a pre-publication version of a Dec. 11 article by Helga Zepp-LaRouche which will appear in the forthcoming issue of EIR magazine.

In view of the political orientation of the new government in Berlin, it seems almost hopeless to demand Germany’s immediate exit from NATO. But if Olaf Scholz is serious about the oath of office he took two days ago when he took office as Federal Chancellor, namely that he “wants to dedicate his energies to the well-being of the German people, increase their benefits and protect them from harm,” then he has to set this exit in motion immediately. Because in NATO, and especially in the U.S.A. and Great Britain, there are influential forces who, for geopolitical reasons, toy with the existence of Germany and beyond that, of all of humanity. The real reason for the global military muscle play on multiple fronts is the systemic collapse of the neoliberal system, which they are trying to cover up with a complex confetti shower of anti-Russian and anti-Chinese narratives.

Some weeks ago, a media scenario was set up about the alleged preparation for a Russian military invasion in Ukraine, on the existence of which the National Intelligence Director of the U.S.A., Avril Haines, tried to convince the NATO ambassador in Brussels, but Russia emphatically denied it. For weeks there were simultaneously a series of provocations—such as a NATO maneuver in which a nuclear attack on Russia was rehearsed and U.S. planes flew within 20 kilometers of the Russian border—as well as drone attacks in eastern Ukraine and daring “reconnaissance flights” in Black Sea.

Russia accused NATO of crossing several “red lines” in Ukraine and of failing to respond to protests about it. In the run-up to the virtual summit proposed by President Biden at the height of the tension between Biden and President Putin, Putin demanded legally binding agreements that NATO would not expand further east toward the Russian border, which Biden initially rejected with the argument that one does not accept Russia’s “red lines”; while NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg emphasized that Russia has no right to develop “spheres of influence.”

Amid the escalation of tensions, the second-highest Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, threatened a first strike with nuclear weapons: “Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea and we rain destruction on Russian military capability…. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.”

Tulsi Gabbard, former Congresswoman from Hawaii and a lieutenant colonel in the Hawaii Army National Guard, commented on Wicker’s tirade: “Anyone who would propose or even consider what he is saying as an option, must be insane, a sociopath or a sadist.” Wicker is no exception with his proposals, which would destroy not only the American people and the whole world, but also the Ukrainians, whose democracy is supposedly being protected. The same rhetoric comes from the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the administration and the media, the same neoconservatives and neoliberals who dragged the country into the regime change wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

One can only agree with Tulsi Gabbard. Anyone who has followed the escalating propaganda against Russia and China, which has come from practically the entire political spectrum in the United States in recent years, will be reminded of the saying, that whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

The Reality of Ukraine and Iran

The content of the two-hour conversation between Biden and Putin is not yet public. In any case, Biden contacted four NATO partners regarding the legally binding assurance of a limitation on NATO, and announced further consultation with all NATO partners. And of course, all European governments know the true story of the Victoria Nuland-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, the active role of neo-Nazis from the tradition of Stepan Bandera in this coup, and the lie about the alleged annexation of Crimea by Putin, which was in reality the sovereign choice (by voting) of the people in Crimea that in view of the neo-Nazi terror in Kiev, they would rather belong to Russia. Perhaps it is time for the European governments to admit the truth about the events in Ukraine, in which they were naturally involved with their charitable foundations, before World War III breaks out on a fake narrative of Putin’s alleged aggression.

But even if the acute Ukraine crisis can be temporarily defused—Biden speaks of postponing Ukraine’s NATO membership for ten years—the acute danger of a world war remains.

The second source of danger from which a war could spark and spread is the situation surrounding the nuclear program in Iran and the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—ed.] treaty, which the Trump Administration had terminated. Although CIA Director William Burns has just confirmed that the secret service is not aware of any indications that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program, Israel also sees the civilian nuclear program—to which Iran is entitled under international law—as a threat to its lifestyle, as Israel’s Defense Secretary Benny Gantz pointed out during his visit to the Pentagon, where Secretary of Defense Austin affirmed that the United States was determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But the most dangerous situation is undoubtedly the U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan. After the world got dangerously close to World War III as the situation in Ukraine worsened, a number of American political experts spoke out—and this is new—about the American habit of staging pretexts for the initiation of military operations. The retired diplomat Peter Van Buren referred to the explosion of the battleship USS Maine in the port of Havana in 1898 (the cause of the Spanish-American War was not a Spanish terrorist attack, but a boiler explosion); the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin, with which the United States entered the long-planned Vietnam War; and of course the 2003 Iraq War, in which everyone involved knew beforehand that the WMD story was a lie, as Nancy Pelosi has publicly admitted.

Endless Wars Are Not ‘Human Rights’

With regard to China, Van Buren wrote, it “appears to be the next war now searching for a reason.” Since China refuses to invade Taiwan and thus provide a pretext for war fever in the United States, he wrote that there could be a less problematic outcome, an arms race for hypersonic weapons. “But what if the U.S. has its mind set on a real war, as in Vietnam and after 9/11, and needs a palatable reason to be found?” asks Van Buren, only expressing what has long since become obvious.

Can it be assumed that these and many other “false flag” incidents are known to Western governments and parties? Apart from maybe a few inexperienced backbenchers—absolutely! That is why the participants who took part in President Biden’s “Democracy Summit,” which should more likely be called hypocrisy summit, are about as trustworthy as the organizers of the notorious “carpet bus rides,” where plush carpets are foisted upon unsuspecting pensioners as “real Persians.”

The idea that this is an alliance of the “good guys,” a community of values that campaigns for democracy, human rights and freedom, against the “bad guys,” the autocratic regimes that oppress their populations, is an advertising story with which a spoiled product is intended to be disguised with cosmetic plasters and sold.

At least since the U.S. administration and its “allies” left Afghanistan in an absolutely catastrophic state after 20 years of war (withholding money that belongs to the Afghans and thus exacerbating the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, where 24 million people are threatened with death from starvation and from winter’s cold), none of these flawless democrats should use the words “human rights” any more. We should speak of the millions of dead, injured and refugees who were created by the endless wars built on lies. And what about Julian Assange, whose only crime was exposing war crimes? He is being murdered by legal means before the eyes of the world.

The list could be much extended: The martial “pushback” policy of the EU with Frontex against refugees, who are only refugees because they are the victims of the “endless wars”; the refugee camps, which Pope Francis compared to concentration camps; the consequences of the Malthusian policy of the Klaus Schwabs of this world, which sees the attempt to overcome poverty as the greatest threat to the “climate” and thus says any development must be stalled for decades through “conditionalities.”

On the other hand, the success story of the “autocratic” governments does not look so bad: China has not only lifted 850 million people of its own population out of extreme poverty and given developing countries the chance to overcome poverty and underdevelopment for the first time. The United States has had almost 800,000 coronavirus deaths with a population of 330 million people, while China has fewer than 5,000 deaths with 1.4 billion people. Perhaps—the Eurocentric carpet sellers might want to think about this—is human life worth more to the “autocratic” regimes?

Germans should really urgently draw the conclusion that remaining in a military alliance, which in the event of a crisis will result in their annihilation, may not be such a good idea. There is, indeed, an alternative to NATO’s policy of confrontation which has been obsolete since 1991. There is an urgent need to establish an international security architecture that takes into account the security interests of all states.

zepp-larouche@eir.de


Italian Endorsements of Schiller Institute’s Operation Ibn Sina

MILAN, Nov. 23, 2021 (EIRNS)—Alessia Ruggeri, chairwoman of UPI Italia, an association of small and medium-sized enterprises, and a renowned trade unionist in Sicily, today endorsed Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s proposed “Operation Ibn Sina” for Afghanistan with a press release which was published today in Il Corriere di Sicilia, a daily read in all of Sicily and is expected to be published in the next days in other Southern Italian papers. {Read the article here.} The press release is entitled “Helga Zepp-LaRouche launches Operation Ibn Sina to save the Afghan people” and reads:

“The Committee for the Republic, through its spokeswoman Alessia Ruggeri, endorsed the Ibn Sina initiative of the Schiller Institute. ’I believe that the world is experiencing a quite sad political, economic and social moment, with the complicity of mainstream media. We have to regain the lucidity and ability to intervene in support of a right cause. The Afghan people are paying the price of international geopolitical strategies which deny their inalienable rights guaranteed by the UN Charter.

“ ‘I therefore accept with great honor the invitation of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites to be a part of it and give a significant European contribution,’ Alessia Ruggeri concludes, thanking Liliana Gorini, chairwoman of Movisol, an Italian political party inspired by Lyndon LaRouche.

“Also the lawyer Roberto Zappia endorses the appeal in support of the Afghan people, first exploited for the affirmation of the territorial and political hegemony of the world powers and subsequently abandoned to the voracity of the finance and to its cynical ruthless logics.”

The press release goes on to quote Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Operation Ibn Sina from the recent Schiller Institute conference and Dr. Joycelyn Elders on the recent activities of the Committee Coincidence of Opposites, particularly in Africa. {See Dr. Elders’ call, Open Letter to Virologists and Medical Experts.}


Messages from the Schiller Institute and LaRouche Movement to Yemen’s “First BRICS Day Conference”

Nov. 23, 2021 (EIRNS)—From Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

Your Excellency Prime Minister Saleh bin Habtour; Your Excellency Mr. Hisham Sharaf, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Yemen, a good friend of the Schiller Institute; Dear Members of the Yemeni BRICS Youth Parliament and its Chairman Mr. Fouad Al-Ghaffari:

Ladies and gentlemen who are gathered in the Capital of Yemen, Sanaa, I send you the most heartfelt greetings from Germany!

We are fully aware of the tremendous strain you are under as a result of the criminal blockade, which, as long as it continues, means that all this talk in the West about a “rules-based-order” is worse than meaningless. Because if they condone, de facto, this blockade, they condone the result—which is the death and suffering of a very large number of [the] Yemeni people! You have been incredibly courageous and inspiring for all members of the Schiller Institute around the world, by not giving up your fight to have a better future for your country and the world!

In these days, the New Silk Road launched by President Xi Jinping will have its 8th anniversary and the role of the BRICS in the world has increased to become a more and more influential element in world history. I am sure that Yemen will be an important part of it in the not-so-distant future, and [that] your organization will have been the decisive element in having accomplished that, and in that way reconnecting the glorious history of Yemen with a hopeful future.

The Schiller Institute has launched “Operation Ibn Sina,” which is to bring modern health systems to Yemen, Afghanistan, and Syria and as a synonym, to have a renaissance of the period, when your region of the world carried the torch of universal progress for all of mankind.

I also like to [recall] how proud my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was of your unchanging industriousness for study of his scientific method, and I would like to encourage you to expand it, and make sure that it will have entry into the education system of your country. Yemen will be the birthplace of many geniuses, which will transform humanity into becoming truly human.

The old paradigm, a world divided by geopolitical aggression and the rule of a few over the many, is clearly coming to an end, and the new paradigm of cooperation, and a dialogue of cultures is becoming stronger and stronger. We join with you, and an increasing number of countries and forces in the effort to bring this change about, and give you the solemn promise, that we will always remain your true comrades-in-arms, until you have gained the sovereignty of Yemen, and are truly free.

With great affection, in the name of the entire international Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche


Major Breakthrough in Sanaa, Yemen: Defying New Wave of Anglo-Saudi Bombardments!

Nov. 23, 2021 (EIRNS)—Today, leaders of the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Movement joined other international figures in participating in a conference called to celebrate the “First BRICS Day” in the capital of Yemen, Sanaa, under the auspices of Yemeni Prime Minister of Yemen Abdulaziz Saleh bin Habtour. The conference, held at the Emergency Medical College, had been organized by the Yemeni BRICS Youth Parliament and its Chairman and long-time collaborator with the Schiller Institute, Mr. Fouad Al-Ghaffari, to celebrate Yemen’s commitment to securing full independence and development by working with the BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—and playing a key role as part of the New Silk Road initiated by China.

The event took place as the Saudis were continuing a new wave of bombardment targeting the capital, Sanaa. Yet the Yemeni government considered it so important that the Prime Minister, joined by the Ministers of Vocational Education, Foreign Affairs, and Culture, all participated, joined by Yemeni parliamentarians and other national figures. The Yemeni official news agency Saba News has already published a lively wire report on the event, which conveys the deep commitment of Yemen’s leadership to help end today’s dominance of the Western liberal system, freeing nations to develop. The Prime Minister expressed his thanks to the friends in Russia, China, and the other speakers who sent messages of solidarity from Germany, India, France, Iraq, and the United States of America. (The Saba News item is linked here.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, was the first of the 11 international guests whose recorded video message was presented, following the opening remarks by the Dean of the Emergency Medical College. She was introduced as the New Silk Road Lady. She was followed by Tushar Gandhi, great-grandson of Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, and Chairman of the Mahatma Gandhi Foundation. Jacques Cheminade was next, representing the Solidarité et Progress, presented as a former French presidential candidate. The Schiller Institute’s Hussein Askary followed with the video presentation on the history of collaboration with the BRICS Youth on the Yemen Reconstruction Plan “Operation Felix” and the LaRouche School of Physical Economics.

There was a high-level Russian representation, with a message from Anatoly Karpov, chess legend and member of Duma. Larisa Zelentsova, the Russian President of the International Alliance of BRICS Strategic Projects (BRICS Alliance) (iabrics.org) sent a video message. A message was also sent by Albert Zhukov, founder of the Golden Chariot Transport Award. Purnima Anand, President of the BRICS International Forum, India, also sent a message.

Two messages were sent from the United States, one by LaRouche movement organizers Marsha and Doug Mallouk, and one by independent candidate for U.S. Senate in New York, Diane Sare.

These speeches and messages were preceded with a ceremony where PM bin Habtour received the BRICS Youth Award and Transport Golden Chariot award. Minister of Foreign Affairs Hisham Sharaf signed the first copy of the new edition of the Yemeni BRICS “Sustainable Development University Curriculum,” which is a compilation by Fouad Al-Ghaffari of projects and works in economics centered around Lyndon LaRouche’s economic method. A chapter is dedicated to what the authors have characterized as “LaRouche’s Five Keys of Progress” which are a reworking of the “Metrics of Progress” from the EIR Special Report “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, 2014.” Another chapter is dedicated to the latter special report. A chapter includes a short version of “Operation Felix” for the reconstruction of Yemen from 2018, completed in 2018 as a joint project of the Schiller Institute, BRICS Yemen, and the Yemeni Investment General Authority.

Many references to Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute’s resolutions and calls regarding Yemen are also in the book. A chapter is dedicated to the Arabic LaRouche School of Physical Economics launched by Askary, with links. The 160-page book in Arabic language has a general outline of the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030. But on every page the LaRouche Five keys are superimposed on the 15 UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Following the statements by the foreign VIPs, Al-Ghaffari made a 15-minute presentation on the history and nature of the Yemen BRICS operations since they were founded in December 2014.

The Minister of Vocational Education also made remarks, and the conference was concluded by a statement by Prime Minister bin Habtour.

First reports from the event are that it was a surprise for everyone, due to the high-level of international representation from intellectual and scientific layers. This is a great victory for the people and leadership of Yemen on behalf of all humanity.

And it is a celebration of seven years of hard work and cooperation with the Schiller Institute and LaRouche Movement, which began when Fouad Al-Ghaffari attended EIR’s release of its Special Report “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-bridge,” in Washington, D.C., keynoted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. After meeting with Marsha and Doug Mallouk, he carried the copy of the report he purchased back to Yemen to start this new organization to teach Yemeni youth as well as policy-makers about the LaRouche economic method, the New Silk Road / Belt and Road Initiative, and the BRICS. A few months later, in March 2015, the war of aggression by Saudi Arabia and the UAE was launched with the aid of the U.S. and Britain. Despite this criminal war and subsequent murderous blockade, the BRICS Youth of Yemen continued their studies and mobilization of government agencies.

Join the Schiller Institute today


Page 1 of 6123...Last
Mr. Jackson
@mrjackson