Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • Russian

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Category Archives

Schiller Institute Petition Quoted on DataBase Italia TV

MILAN, March 22, 2022 (EIRNS)—Three VIP signers, from Italy, of the Schiller Institute petition for a new security architecture, Alessia Ruggeri and journalists Luca La Bella and Gianmarco Landi, were on a program of DataBase Italia TV last night, entitled “The End of Globalization.” After describing the present situation in Ukraine as very different from how the mainstream media portray it, including the use of hypersonic missiles by Russia, which can put a quick end to the war and destroy the military potential of the neo-Nazi militias, host Landi quoted Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute petition for a new security architecture as the only alternative to the danger of a general war, and asked Alessia Ruggeri to talk about it, as she had already in a recent interview on the Schiller Institute petition published by DataBase Italia.

Alessia Ruggeri explained that it is a very important petition, which was signed by thousands of citizens and many VIP signers from all over the world, and which calls for the principle of the Peace of Westphalia to put an end to the geopolitical confrontation policy and the failed economic policies which led to this war. She emphasized that what is being shown on TV is not the real situation, and that people are not aware of the severe consequences of the boomerang sanctions which are hitting Italy, and other countries, much worse than the Russian economy. For example, she quoted the shutting down of all McDonalds restaurants in Russia, which was quickly converted into a Russian brand to save jobs.

She also reported many mail messages she receives about hoarding of pasta and oil in Italian supermarkets, noting that people believe that wheat is produced in Italy but is not—it comes from Russia and Ukraine. She reminded viewers (around 3,000 last night) that as a result of the failed economic policies of the West, many businesses are shutting down, but as a mother of two children and a trade unionist she called on small entrepreneurs, like the ones in Southern Italy, “not to give up hope, there is a possibility for a change.” The full program is available here.


‘Youth Development in an Uncertain World’: Interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

May 18 (EIRNS)–CGTN conducted an interview on May 17 with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on the centenary of the Communist Youth League. The video with a short description by He Yuhan is available here. {Here is the transcript:}

Q: What is the youth’s role in the Chinese dream of national rejuvenation?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, yes, I was for the first time in China in 1971, and this was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. The situation was so different. People were poor, they were not happy, they lived in a tremendous tension all the time. But even then, people were telling me how much improved the situation was compared to before the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.

Now when I was there, it was just announced that Henry Kissinger had arrived. This was a big, big news, and as we now know, this led then to the historic visit of President Nixon one year later. The situation was, there was not much development. Thousands of bicycles for one car; people were still travelling over dirt roads. I went to Beijing; I saw the Summer Garden painted all in red color by the Revolutionary Guards. Because I saw China as it was then, and I was able to speak to a lot of people also in the countryside. Around Shanghai and Xintao, there were a lot of people who either spoke German or English. But since I had this experience, I think I can say with my own experience, I can testify to the enormous development China has made, which in one sense is unparalleled in the whole world. I think this is very important, because what counts for the identity of a person, especially also a young person, is not so much the condition as you have it at that moment, but it is the vector of development. If the vector of development is upward, then people become optimistic. I can say that also because I see certain parallels to the situation with the German economic miracle which was the reconstruction of Germany after the Second World War, which is why the generation which grew up then was and is still much more optimistic than many of the young people in Germany today.

But in China, because there was this extremely successful development, I have found that young people have been incredibly optimistic, and therefore, when I ask people, “What do you want to become?” They say, “I want to become an astronaut,” or “I want to go and help to build up Africa.” So, I think this is really a very good condition, and I think that therefore the young people in China have a very important historic mission.

I mean at that time, naturally China was very closed, and when I as a young journalist had the opportunity to make this visit, I was all enthusiastic, and I think that curiosity is something I would wish that every young person should have. Because if you want to explore the world when you are young, that’s really the best time to do it. I’m so grateful I did that, because it did shape the rest of my life in so many ways, because one of the experiences of this trip was also that I saw in other countries the under-development of Africa, of certain Asian countries. That motivated me greatly to do as much as I can to get to a new more just world economic order.

Q: What are the unique characteristics and attributes of China’s contemporary youth?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s the environment which is very favorable to the development of young people in China, because when the society gives you the idea that every newborn child is welcomed, and is welcomed because it has a unique creative potential which enriches the common good of society as a whole, this has a very important impact on the formation of the personality. I’m contrasting that, for example, with the Green ideology in Germany, which is not the same like being careful for the environment in China, but in Germany it’s a complete negative ideology. You have the idea that every child and every person is a burden on nature, and therefore, the fewer people there are, the better. There are even books in Germany which say it’s better for the environment not to have any children at all. Now that’s naturally leading to the end of society pretty quickly. But fortunately, in China it is not like that, and I have seen that both in 1971 when I visited, I went to a lot of these children’s palaces, which were devoted to the education of younger children. They were learning how to dance, ballet, sports, gardening, agriculture. I think that that idea, that the aim of education is excellence, I have seen on the many visits I have made to China ever since. I think the result is that China has become an enormously productive society, and I think that speaks for itself.


Zepp-LaRouche on CGTN TV–CPC Youth League Centenary: ‘Youth Development in an Uncertain World’

May 17, 2022 (EIRNS)–CGTN on March 17 ran an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whose write-up on CGTN is titled, “Communist Youth League of China Centenary: Youth Development in an Uncertain World,” and the video link is prominently included.

Author He Yuhan, opens his coverage of Zepp-LaRouche with a quotation from President Xi Jinping, from his May 10 remarks at the 100th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Communist Youth League of China. He then reports, “Schiller Institute founder echoed Zi’s words, and fully endorsed the essential value of youth in a modern country’s development and tackling global challenges.”

Yuhan stated about Zepp-LaRouche’s key points, “She identified two elements as crucial to the vigor of Chinese youth today: a thriving and developing economy and a favorable environment in which the younger generation grew up.”

Yuhan reports, “The vector of development is important in people’s personality building, Zepp-LaRouche told the audience.” She said, “If the vector of development is upward, people become optimistic.”

The Schiller Institute founder also made a comparison for the audience of a difference between German and Chinese attitudes towards children. “Germany’s Green Ideology regards children as a burden to the Earth, but the Chinese see children as full of potential and possibilities,” she said.

Zepp-LaRouche asserted that youth faced with an escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict, the lingering COVID-19 pandemic, and rising global inflation, have the potential to put aside ideological differences and meet the challenges to make a better world. She told the audience, “If young people unite together, I think it’s a peaceful force we absolutely cannot ignore.” {The full article and interview are found here.}


Pakistan’s PTV Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on OIC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Islamabad

March 23 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche was part of a panel interviewed yesterday by Pakistan’s PTV host Faisal Rehman about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) foreign ministers’ meeting in Islamabad on March 22. Here are the exchanges in the interview with Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, who is the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. The entire program is posted to YouTube.

FAISAL REHMAN: Let’s see what the lady has to share regarding this. Helga, let me put a straight question to you: Tell us, being a woman living in Europe what exactly do you think about the religion Islam, your perception? How do you perceive it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s one of three great monotheistic religions. It’s building on Judaism and Christianity, and I think that the ecumenical dialogue among these three religions is very important as a potential peace factor in the world. I think Prime Minister Imran Khan said something very important: He said that the OIC should unite, and together with China and put maximum influence and pressure on both Ukraine and Russia in order to have a ceasefire and come to an agreement. I think that’s a perfect example how Islam can play a very positive role as an instrument peace.

On the negative side, I think one problem, and this was also mentioned that the Islamic world did not correct the narrative which started to build after 9/11. I think that is still a task, because 9/11 was not as it was presented in the official narrative and the war against Afghanistan—if you think about the people in Afghanistan who were involved in this war, it’s very little if any at all. In any case, I think the origin of 9/11 is a big question which would really need to be analyzed much more in depth.

Then naturally, one cannot forget that Samuel Huntington in his book Clash of Civilizations, he said when the East-West conflict was finished after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that basically one needed to replace the East-West conflict with a North-South conflict, and then he started to talk about the so-called “unsurmountable” conflict between Christianity, Islamic, Hinduism, Confucianism. I read this terrible book and I came to the conclusion that Huntington knows very little about all of these religions and cultures. But nevertheless, this was instigated as a tool of the British Empire and in the case of Afghanistan, you can see very clearly … actual terrorist organizations in Afghanistan is all part of the Great Game.

I think it’s important to look behind what is being said. I think Islam as a religion is a very positive thing, and as you may know, and I mentioned this on an earlier show, the reason why I called for Operation Ibn Sina, reviving the image of this great physician who is one of the absolutely great minds of universal history, that would not only help to solve the medical problem in Afghanistan and reconstruct Afghanistan, but I think if Islamic countries would start to discuss the great contributions which were part of the history of Islam, like Ibn Sina, I think you should not just be defensive about saying that the Islamophobia is wrong and unjust, but I think it would be important to reconnect to the proudest periods of Islamic tradition, like the Abbasid dynasty which was in Baghdad at that time, which was the most developed city in the world! There were more libraries, more books, all the great inventions from the previous time were revived; the caliphs would pay everybody in gold who would bring an invention from Egypt or from Spain or from other places, and without the contact between Haroun al Rashid, for example, and Charlemagne—Carl der Grosse—the Europeans would not have rediscovered their own great heritage.

So, I think, rather than being just defense and saying, this is an unjust vilification of one of the great religions, I think it would make a lot of sense to take a more positive, and in one sense, more offensive attitude by reviving the great Islamic contributions to world history. And given the fact that you had the Abbasid dynasty, you had Ibn Sina who was a great metaphysical philosopher, if I would be a Muslim woman, that’s what I would propose.

REHMAN: Helga, if I might put an interesting question—it was just popping in my mind—I can see you wearing a scarf around your neck, right? So if you put that scarf over your head, do you think your government, or your neighbors or anybody else is going to have an issue? Because, I’m not going to do India-bashing, but they’re not allowing the females Muslim to wear a scarf—but the problem is what happened in France, when the girls were not allowed to cover their head. I’m not saying cover your face, but even during the pandemic, everybody was covering their face, except wearing your glasses—I mean nothing was visible, and that is acceptable. But when you use that scarf to cover your head, that becomes a problem for the Western world, and especially for the non-Muslims. Do you think that’s an issue, or a non-issue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it’s definitely something which should be left to the respective religions to figure out. I’m a strong believer in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the UN Charter; I believe in sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of other countries; I believe in acceptance of a different social system. I think the Afghanistan disaster has shown, among many, many others, that you cannot impose your values on another culture without causing havoc and terrible conditions.

On the other side, I’m a modern woman, obviously, and I think that the reason why the Europeans, or some Europeans make an issue out of it, is because they see this as a sign of the suppression of the women. And there is something to be done for the liberation of women—there is no question about it—but I think in all of these questions once you understand the reasons why the representative of the other culture is doing something and you explain your own position, I’m sure that you always can come to an understanding and a solution. But for me, this issue is really not one of the pressing issues. It’s important for some people, but….

REHMAN: Do you think that right direction has been followed now as far as the OIC is concerned, or the Muslim countries are related to it? And maybe in another couple of decades things would really change for the betterment of the Muslims? We’re not terrorists, we’re not extremists, I mean in general—yes, there are radicals in every society, in every religion. Let’s keep them apart. But in general, do you think that if we focus, for example, this year they’re talking about unity, justice and development—I mean, there are so many themes every year, but focus, dedication, hard work and commitment, that is what is required: Helga, your take?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to answer that question in the context of the time change which is occurring. You know, in Europe right now, you have a militarization of the EU going on, which I think is very scary, because, with the war in Ukraine, the sanctions against Russia, the effort to try to imply that China is helping Russia, what we are heading towards is the danger of a real bloc building, you know where you have a NATO bloc with the United States and Europe, and maybe Australia and Japan; but then you have a Russia-China bloc. And given the fact that we have right now these sanctions, they’re forcing practically a different financial system. You can already see that trade is occurring in renminbi and rubles; other countries are starting to not trade in dollars anymore.

If this thing goes wrong, you will have two complete blocs which will be hostile to each other. There will be a summit of NATO in June in Spain, where on the agenda is a globalized NATO. If that would go through, and right now, unfortunately it looks like it, the danger that you would have a war between these two blocs is, in my view, a question of time. And that would be a catastrophe for all of humanity. So I was very encouraged when Imran Khan said that the OIC should work with China to try to mediate.

Because we need a new paradigm in international relations: I think that if we go into a geopolitical confrontation in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we could look at the annihilation of civilization. And on the other side, one of the speakers, I think it was [Pakistan’s] Foreign Minister Qureshi also mentioned the need for a new security architecture in the region of the Islamic world; but I’m proposing to have an international security architecture for everybody: Every single country must be taken care of, because security pacts, or security alliances, only function if the interest of everyone is taken into account.

The Schiller Institute will have a very important conference on April 9—and I want to invite all of your viewers to come and look at that: We will try to revive something like the Non-Aligned Movement. We will have an effort to put new principles, overcoming geopolitics on the international agenda. And I think the OIC, if they would really form a bloc and be unified, they are really strong, they could be one of the major forces in the world trying to not have this bloc-building but to move toward a higher principle of coincidence of opposites, of peaceful coexistence, reviving the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. Many of the OIC members used to be very strong members in the Non-Aligned Movement, and I think you need that kind of an intervention. Because right now, what is happening in Europe is really scary: The EU wants to become a military force; Germany turned into a war cabinet. I think this is a very dangerous development.

And I know it’s very difficult for somebody living in one culture to completely understand the importance of what is going on in other parts of the world, but right now, I think this dangerous moving toward a clash has to be avoided by all means.

REHMAN: Thank you very much, Helga, for your comments and your participation in our program. … That’s all we have for this hour.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Pakistani TV: We Must Find a Way To Get Peace, Immediately!

May 10, 2022 (EIRNS)—Two diametrically opposed views on what could happen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict were presented on yesterday’s “Views on News” program on Pakistan’s PTV public television channel. One, presented by a guest Pakistani columnist, was the dominant “narrative” of Russia, the sole aggressor, the sole party responsible for a war which will last for a long time, devastating Ukraine in the process, but that’s the way it is, because Putin won’t give in.

Schiller Institute founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche countered forcefully, when given the floor:

“Most important, is to find a way to get peace, immediately, to not accept the idea that this will be a war which will go on for very long, because if that would happen— There are some people who think this war should go on until the last Ukrainian. This is a very cynical approach, because the main suffering people will be the Ukrainians.

“There is right now in Germany a huge debate which erupted because there were several open letters directed to Chancellor Scholtz, one coming from a group of intellectuals who warned that Germany should not send heavy weapons to Ukraine, because that implies the danger of the conflict going out of control and leading to World War III, and there is generally a recognition that if this comes to WW III, nobody will be left—nobody in Germany, nobody in Pakistan, nobody in the United States! So there is a growing momentum of people who say, ‘We must have a negotiated, diplomatic solution, immediately’.”

Geopolitical thinking, the idea of exhausting, of crushing Russia, of finishing off Putin, or that you keep fighting until your enemy is completely destroyed—this will lead to World War III! People should really think about that, Zepp-LaRouche insisted.

Nor is how the war came about as simple as the last speaker made it look, she noted. For 30 years, the Schiller Institute has been trying to shape events so as to bring about a new peace order, not commenting on what happens, but presenting such ideas as the Eurasian Land-bridge as the basis of peace. That potential for peace was destroyed by the drive for a unipolar world, with its color revolutions and regime changes against any government which would not accept that unipolar order. The West does have a share of responsibility for this crisis, in which, if Sweden and Finland join NATO, we could face again a reverse Cuban missile crisis.

Asked later by the host about such consequences from the war as growing malnourishment worldwide, Zepp-LaRouche urged governments to get together to set about doubling food production, to end the threat that 20% of the world’s people—1.7 billion souls— may fall into food insecurity and famine.

She counterposed the two systems developing in the world: the trans-Atlantic sector and those governments with neoliberal economic systems, which is blowing out, as Germany did in 1923; and Russia and China, which are responding to the West’s confrontational policy by trading in national currencies, setting up new banks and credit mechanisms. Much of the rest of the world —India, Indonesia, South Africa, even Brazil under Bolsonaro, Nigeria, among them—also refuse to go along with the West’s confrontation.

The danger, Zepp-LaRouche warned, is that if the West continues its confrontation, it may come to a break between the Western world and the countries gathered around Russia and China, which would be very dangerous, and an economic catastrophe, for Europe, for example. A different approach is needed! Governments must get together and agree to double food production. The U.S. could compensate for the loss of all Ukraine’s grain simply by cutting the amount of grain it burns in ethanol in half, and it should do that. Governments simply have to make available to farmers the credits, fertilizers, machinery they require to produce, and food production can be doubled.

The “Views on News” host, who had listened carefully, responded wholeheartedly: “absolutely.” The interview can be found here.


“Form a Partnership of Young People From All Over the World to Fight for A Better Future”

May 4 (EIRNS) – In the course of a wide-ranging interview with author and publicist Daniel Estulin , Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche today responded to a question about the subject of the Schiller Institute’s upcoming May 7 international dialogue on “The Role of Youth in Creating a New International Economic Architecture.” 

“Essentially it will be a continuation of the last one [on April 9, “For a Conference to Establish a New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations”], because what we have initiated is the idea that you have to have an international security architecture which includes the interest of every single nation. Which is why in the last conference we had speakers from Russia, the United States, Europe, India, South Africa, Latin America. It’s the idea that if we, as humanity, cannot come together and decide on principles which guarantee the survival of all of us, then we are no better than some wild animals – although even wild animals are not as mean as the way some people sometimes behave. So, this was a very productive conference.

“I have this idea that you have to put the international security architecture on the basis of common development, so it’s an international security and development architecture. Because once you have an agreement for the development of all nations – Africa, Latin America, Asia, the poorer parts of Europe and the United States — then that common interest can be the basis for a common security architecture.

“So, what the next conference is addressing, mainly, is young people. Because if you put yourself in the shoes of a young person, let’s say in Germany, France, Italy, the United States, etc., the future is not looking very bright. You’re looking at World War III, you’re looking at a collapsing economy, a collapsing financial system, world starvation, a pandemic which is not yet under control.

“This conference intends to form a partnership of young people from all over the world to fight for a better future, because the future belongs to the young people. They are not being asked right now: Is it really their interest that the world should go up in a thermonuclear mushroom cloud, followed by a nuclear winter? Young people should have a say in what their future is.

“There are such exciting developments taking place! For example, we are on the verge of getting thermonuclear fusion power. That is incredible, because once we have commercial thermonuclear fusion, we have energy security and raw material security on the planet. Also, space travel will be much enhanced, because you have a new fuel source for space travel. Then there’s the whole idea of cooperation in space: build moon villages, and eventually build a city on Mars.

“All of these are things which excite young people. That is where humanity can go, provided we get out of this present crisis. So that is what this conference will address, and I think we will have many young people there from all five continents.”


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.


Webcast: Ignoring Crossing of Red Lines is a Sign of Insanity

In a statement issued yesterday, in commenting on the turn-around by the German government on delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine, Schiller Institute chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked, “Has the Bundestag Lost Its Mind?” In discussing this and other indications that U.S.-NATO escalation against Russia is moving close to crossing the red lines which define Russian security concerns, she said that it is urgent to drop the present dangerous course, and return to diplomacy. By becoming “co-belligerents”, as defined by international law, former Reagan Assistant Attorney General Bruce Fein said Putin would have a right to strike those countries.

She used the example of German Foreign Minister Baerbock’s comments that there is “no way back” to the pre-war period as a prime example of this insanity. Can’t nations acknowledge that the present course is wrong? At a time when starvation threatens nearly one-fifth of the world’s population, why are western nations escalating their attacks on Russia and China? It’s not surprising that many former colonial nations are refusing to back the U.S. and NATO. She said that China’s emphasis on experimental projects of seed development to fight hunger resonates with the former colonial nations. Why have western nations done nothing to address this?

She concluded with a brief summary of her late husband’s commitment to creating a new financial system as the basis for peace, which underlies her call, and the Schiller Institute’s mobilization, for a new strategic and financial architecture. She urged viewers to join us, to make this happen.

Petition: Convoke an International Conference to Establish A New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations


Pakistan TV Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on ‘Economic Fallout of the Ukraine Crisis’

March 8, 2022 (EIRNS)—Pakistan’s PTV interviewed Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche and senior Pakistani economist Amer Zafar Durrani with 30 years of expertise in development for fragile and post conflict states, on the topic, “Economic Fallout of the Ukraine Crisis,” by host Faisal Rehman, who has interviewed Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche multiple times. Rehman asked Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche three questions, and at the end Mr. Durrani insisted “I think you should hear what Helga says. I think she’s right,” about why the war started in the first place and how to end it.

{We publish here only the portion of the “Views on News” show containing her remarks. For the full show, go to this link.}

FAISAL REHMAN: Coming to you, Ms. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Interestingly, since you are based in Germany, and Germany is one of those countries which is highly dependent on the Russian energy imports, looking at the current scenario where the Germans were initially pretty reluctant to be a part of this role, but now we have learned they are sending these anti-tank guided missiles to Ukraine, they’re also giving them night-vision goggles, the vests, the equipment and so on—now, that is a problem. And this is not the first time that the major issues have erupted from Europe: First World War, Second World War.

Now, this is the third time that a major power has invaded another country. We’ll keep these issues, the political and geo-economic issues, aside for the moment, but, Ma’am, looking at the current scenario it seems that, uncertainty is going to prevail. That has affected the stock markets, they’ve gone down. When you talk about the commodity prices, they have gone up, they’re surging. Oil prices, God knows where they will end. Today I was listening that the Americans have banned the import of Russian oil.

What if Russia stops exporting it to the European Union? These are the winters, and it is just not possible that they can switch on and switch off from Russia. So, the point is now, where is it leading? What are people thinking? What are you going through? What sort of experience are you people having? Let’s throw light on that.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s important to differentiate between cause and effect: This financial system of the trans-Atlantic sector has been going towards bankruptcy for a very long time, because it’s based on axioms which are favoring the speculators and the money makers, and not the common good.

So, you can maintain that for a while, but it was clear, since the latest 2008, when we had an almost systemic crisis, that this system was bankrupt. And what the central banks did since was to just keep pumping money—they call it “quantitative easing,” negative interest rates—and in that way you have an incredibly indebted system which is hopelessly bankrupt. It has been hopelessly bankrupt for at least 10, 15 years, and the more you keep it going, by pumping more money, the more it becomes unsolvable, unsalvageable.

And now, basically, they have decided to put the blame on Putin. But the reality is, it was not Putin and him declaring military action or war on Ukraine which triggered that, but people have not been listening to Putin. Putin has been saying this since 2007, when he spoke at the Munich Security Conference, where he said the expansion of NATO was not acceptable, because it threatened the security interest of Russia. He has been very patient, as a matter of fact.

Now, naturally, you can say war is horrible, and it’s a terrible thing that it came to that, but the sanctions, in a certain sense, are trying to cover up the fact the Western system has been bankrupt for the whole time; the inflation was there before the Ukrainian crisis erupted; the Federal Reserve promised last year they would increase the interest rate to fight the inflation, but they couldn’t, because they knew that if the Federal Reserve would start to taper, to increase the interest rate, you would have an immediate wave of bankruptcies of the emerging countries, of the large, indebted firms; so they did not taper, and therefore the inflation is there.

Now, naturally, if you impose such hard sanctions, this is now putting into a chain reaction a situation which means this system is hopelessly out of control: You will have a terrible crisis. The food prices will increase. We already had a world famine before this whole thing developed, but now with the fertilizer, which comes from Russia and Ukraine, being blocked, the food prices will go through the ceiling. And we need a radical reform very quickly, because otherwise this thing can completely go out of control.

So, Germany is unfortunately headed by a government which is not standing up to the pressure from the British and United States, and this Chancellor Scholz declared last Sunday that Germany is practically a war economy. It is absolutely terrible, and if the cause is not changed quickly, we are heading toward a real catastrophe and possible World War III.

REHMAN: Now, talking about Germany, one more quick point, because Germany is one of the largest economies in Europe, and even at the global level. You’re talking about the fertilizer issue, Ma’am, around 15% of the global fertilizer manufacturing is taking place in Russia and Ukraine put together. Ma’am, and on top, when you talk about sunflower cooking oil, that is being widely used all over the world, you talk about maize, you talk about corn, you talk about barley, which is a major source of beer production, you talk about wheat, a lot of people, especially in the third world, they’re dependent on that commodity to feed themselves. Now, that is going to have a lot of effect. Though Pakistan had a great wheat production, still the Prime Minister in fact informed that we will be importing a certain amount of wheat from Russia, and they’ve signed a deal, also.

Talking about the food production, Ma’am, it is generally believed that Ukraine, alone, can produce food for about 600 million people—600 million, remember that is 60 crore in our language, whereas about 40 million or around 43 million is the total population of Ukraine, so the export factor is so important.

Now, looking at these figures, Ma’am, let’s suppose this conflict continues, which it seems it will, despite the fact the Russians are having a major fit regarding this particular war, a lot of direct and indirect support is being given to Ukraine. World Bank is preparing an aid package of $3 billion; European Union is talking about more money pouring in, and supplying them with military hardware also. At the same time, today, I was listening to one of the Democratic Senators in United States, and he was saying that he is raising a fund around $10 billion that could be used for the military hardware purchase or otherwise. So if this is the phenomenon, the whole Western world on one side, though the Americans will not get affected much, either they’ll be able to sell their oil and replace the Russian—but that is going to take time—or, they can also have a lot of oil support from Canada. That means that Europe is going to be the major sufferer, and that is something which should not happen. Your take?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the problem, as I said, is the present government in Germany, the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, these are people who unfortunately have completely taken the line of the United States, of the British, of NATO, which means that they’re in a geopolitical confrontation against Russia and China.

The real reason of all of this, is they want to get rid of Putin, they want to have regime change, they want to contain the rise of China—all of these things are potential triggers for World War III. That is why I’m saying—you cannot just discuss it in the context of “they will do this, and then they will do that.” I think we are in a breakdown crisis of the system, the trans-Atlantic forces are determined to have a war if they cannot maintain their system. They see that the Asian countries are rising, especially China is rising, the Belt and Road Initiative is gaining more and more momentum, and they say, rather than allowing these countries to rise when we are collapsing, we will have a war! And there are some very crazy people who think that you can even have a prolonged, protracted nuclear war: If you look at the recent NATO maneuver, Global Lightning, which took place at the end of January and beginning of February, which had this idea that you can have a winnable, regional, protracted nuclear war.

I think this is absolutely insane. And the more reasonable people say, if it comes to that, it will be a global war. It will be a world war. That is why I am saying, we have to have an urgent rethinking, and the Schiller Institute has been promoting the idea of a conference, to have an international security architecture, which must be global. It must include Russia; it must include China; and it must basically address the fact that the Western financial system is absolutely bankrupt, and all the tensions come from that fact. Therefore, you have to have a global Glass-Steagall banking separation, you have to put national banks in each country, and you have to have a new credit system to provide cheap, long-term credit for development.

I think these ideas must be demanding, because you see, there are more and more countries right now that do not want to be pulled into this, because they know it’s deadly! I think it’s very good that Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to take a position for one side or the other and maintains that Pakistan must be neutral. The same thing just happened with India. India abstained in the vote in the UN General Assembly and in any case, they did not want to be put into the “Quad,” which was the whole game. Argentina just decided to be part of the Belt and Road Initiative. And there are more and more countries that realize we need a new system.

And I think what is the most urgent question is that a debate occurs internationally, by as many forces as possible, to have a new paradigm, to have a world order based on the UN Charter, based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the whole Non-Aligned Movement conception that went into the Bandung Conference, these ideas have to be revived urgently. And I think it is especially the independent countries, like Pakistan, like India, and on that point I think they are very much similar right now, who take a stand that the system must be changed, because it’s like before World War I: If you continue like this, a catastrophe will happen. And do we have to repeat history? I don’t think so….

REHMAN: Peaceful coexistence, what a beautiful term, but it does not seem that it’s going to happen like this now: Divisions and divisions and then adversities, and God knows what’s happening out there….

And Helga, that is about the short-term economic impact. Now, we do see, there’s going to be a lot of problems. My own brother lives in London, and he said the energy cost has gone up significantly, and we never thought this was going to happen, and this is just multiplying. And a lot of analysts believe that this is just the beginning.

Now, 2022 could be the most interest[ing] year: Global economy was already suffering for the last two years, because of this pandemic. The moment they started recovering and we could see some positive indicators and everything, and now we see this war! And this is not only limited to Europe, this is going to have its impact on Asia, on U.S.A., Canada, even Africa, I would say!

So, let’s suppose if Russia is engaged, which I believe Russia will be, in Ukraine, some sort of [inaud], Afghanistan-like situation is created once again in Ukraine. This time, Pakistan is not the partner, but let’s suppose Poland, Hungary, and other European Union countries, or NATO countries, keep supporting them indirectly, and keep giving them these weapons through which they can attack the tanks, helicopters, even the Russian jets. Let’s suppose if this war continues for another couple of months, what do you see happening to Europe in general? And Germany in particular?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Frankly, I don’t think that that is what’s going to happen, because I think that the Russians have not even used the totality of their troops, they have not used the totality of their weapons systems, and many military men in Germany and elsewhere, but in Germany, say that there is no way how Ukraine can win this war. The people who will suffer the most are the Ukrainians. They will be chopped up and murdered and die, as a result of the West not listening to Putin! And I can only repeat: It was not Putin’s fault: He said it very clearly, he said, I have no place to retreat to. So here are the security guarantees I want from the United States, and from NATO; and then the answer from these two places were not anything, they just answered on some secondary questions, like resuming arms control negotiations, but they did not want to guarantee that NATO would not continue to expand to the East, and that Ukraine would not become a member, and that there would be no offensive weapons at the border with Russia.

So then Putin said, “I have to take care of the fact that there has been a genocide in east Ukraine, in the Donbas”; 14,000 people have been killed, they have produced many documentaries in the meantime showing that there was actually a continuous war by the Ukrainian armed forces against these two republics, and that Nazis have been used! And there is also no question: The Schiller Institute did a documentation in 2014 where we documented the existence of Nazis, the Azov Battalion, the followers of Stepan Bandera, which were kept by the secret services in the postwar period—by MI6, by the CIA, by the BND—and we documented it as the Maidan coup was happening! So the whole discussion that “there are no Nazis,” it’s just simply not true, and the big scandal is that the Western governments have backed a coup in 2014, which brought the Nazis into the government, into the Rada (the Parliament), and into the armed forces. And when Putin now says he insists on a demilitarization and a de-Nazification, because that is crucial to the security interest of Russia, the West must listen to him! And I think that while right now, the European governments are completely crazy—I mean, they’re in a brainwashed condition; if you listen to the media, Goebbels…

REHMAN: I would totally agree with you, on that. This is exactly what is happening, but I’m so sorry to cut you off, Helga. We’ll definitely be having you on other shows and we’ll talk more about it. But since I’m running out of time, I would like to say thank you very much for your contribution and your comments.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Briefs ChinaPlus Radio ‘World Today’ Broadcast on Germany Decision to Arm Ukraine

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, was interviewed on April 27 about the German government’s decision to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine.

CHINA RADIO INTERNATIONAL: You’re listening to World Today…. Germany has for the first time announced the plans to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht says the government has approved the delivery of Gepard tanks equipped with anti-aircraft guns. The decision comes as U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held talks with dozens of NATO member country counterparts over the Ukraine war at an American air base in western Germany on Tuesday.

Joining us now on the line is Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank. Hello, good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello.

CRI: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has actually for weeks been resisting calls for Germany to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. He has been suggesting that such a particular move might trigger a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. So, with that in mind, how would you look at Germany’s latest decision?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is a complete catastrophe. This government endangers the life and security of the German population. They have made an oath, the German Chancellor and others, that they would protect the interests of the German people and protect them against harm, and this is a complete violation of that oath. It is quite telling that this occurred on the very day that Austin had this meeting in Ramstein [Air Base]—I mean, this was a complete violation of German sovereignty. He’s holding court, and this decision by the German government will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people. They’re cannon fodder in a proxy war between NATO and the U.S. and Russia; and obviously, the attitude on the side of these people is to fight this to the last Ukrainian.

It’s a complete catastrophe, because when Foreign Minister Lavrov said this could lead to World War III and a nuclear war, this is being ridiculed by the German media in cartoons, as if it would be just scare-mongering. I think we are in a very, very dangerous situation.

CRI: Hmm, indeed. As we heard from Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the threat of nuclear war really should not be underestimated. But we understand that for decades, Berlin has actually been maintaining a policy of not exporting weapons to any particular conflict areas. So help us understand, what’s the rationale behind that policy? And now what’s the war going on in Ukraine: Do you think it is fair to say that Germany has abandoned that particular policy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, this thing makes very obvious that Germany is an occupied country, that it’s not sovereign, and what you have seen in the last days in media and in the parties, is that in all of these institutions you have Atlanticists who have been making a drumbeat, saying, “Oh, Germany is not a reliable ally.” But in reality, this delivery of heavy weapons makes Germany a party in the war, and therefore a target if this thing continues to escalate.

Part of the problem is also the EU, because Josep Borrell, who’s the so-called “foreign minister” said this situation will be “decided on the battlefield.” He has never mentioned the idea of diplomacy or that there should be negotiations. And it’s completely insane to try to settle conflicts in the 21st century with war! It’s madness! I can only say, it’s complete madness.

CRI: So, critics, including some officials in Ukraine, have accused Berlin of dragging their heels on giving heavy weapons to Ukraine, and on some of the other possible measures, like a possible embargo of Russia energy imports. Do you think those criticisms that I mentioned are fair to Germany?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the reality is, George Friedman, who is a strategic analyst in the United States, he already said in 2015 in a speech in Chicago that the German-Russian relation is the only threat to the United States, because the combination of German technology and capital, and Russian raw materials and labor, would be the only counterweight to the United States. Now, one result of it is that this relationship between Germany and Russia, as of now, has been completely ruined, and this, in light of German history. One should not forget, Russia lost 27 million people in World War II.

The idea to have an embargo against Russian oil and gas, is more insanity, because there are many leaders of the industry who have said this would mean millions of unemployed, entire sectors of industry would collapse; so it’s really an aggression against German interests if such demands are made.

CRI: So, realistically speaking, is Germany capable of sustaining its supply of heavy weaponry to Ukraine, if we talk about a scenario where this conflict between Russia and Ukraine becomes a protracted war?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s obvious that Germany has a significant arms industry, and they would naturally be happy, like the military-industrial complex in the United States, to deliver these weapons. But the effect on the rest of the economy—you know, you already have massive inflation in food prices, energy prices; if this continues you will have social chaos. The poorer parts of the population already can’t make it to the end of the month. And it’s a complete outrage that there are billions and billions being expended for weapons, when you have a world famine of 1.7 billion people facing starvation. I’m really upset, and I hope you can hear it, because this should not happen! This is really something which needs to be reversed.

The people who are responsible for this, they can commit suicide if they want, but they have no right to completely drive Germany into a catastrophe.

CRI: By the way, do you think President Putin has a point when he said, recently, in a meeting with UN chief António Guterres, that this increasing Western delivery or Western supply of heavy weapons to the battlefields in Ukraine are making Kyiv, making Ukraine a sort of unreliable partner on the negotiation table? Do you think he has a point in saying that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the reality is that Zelenskyy is a complete puppet. He’s an actor, and he plays the script which is being written by British public relations firms who basically tell him what to do, as is the United States. The reality is, if you look at the statements by Biden, Boris Johnson, Stoltenberg, they have no mentioned once, the word “peace negotiations.” They only say, “more weapons, more weapons.” So I think it’s not Zelenskyy, it’s the U.S., NATO and the British.

CRI: Well, I guess from Washington’s perspective, they might argue, “OK, we are returning our diplomats back to Kyiv, we have nominated a new ambassador as the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv”: That is a signal that Americans pay attention, attack greater importance to diplomacy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I wish your words would be right, because I think any reasonable person in the world must agree that we have to have to have an end to this war immediately. The Ukrainian people are being slaughtered, and I think what should be discussed instead, is President Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum made a very important proposal to have a Global Security Initiative. And I think the problems of the world are so big, that you need such a global approach, and in that context, the Ukraine situation can be settled also. Because it’s much more complicated. It has very little to do with Ukraine. The Ukrainians are the cannon fodder in a geostrategic confrontation from the United States against Russia—and China, by the way.

CRI: So we understand Russia has suspended, or is suspending natural gas deliveries to Poland and Bulgaria, after these two particular countries refused to pay for the energy supplies in Russian rubles. Do you expect Moscow to take this kind of action against more European Union countries?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, we should remember that the Russian reaction is coming in reaction to the West confiscating $300 billion in Russian assets, after they took $9 billion from the Afghani people. So the dollar system is not regarded as safe any more, and therefore, Russia and many other Asian countries are reorienting and trying to create an alternative financial system based on gold and other commodities. And you have right now, massive agreements between Russia and India, Russia and China, and many others. I think if it would come to such an embargo, or cutoff from oil and gas from the side of Russia, or the other way around, I think Russia in one sense would cope better than Germany! Germany and Europe would go into a real economic crisis. So the people who are pushing Germany and others in this direction are really not acting in the interests of Germany or the European countries.

CRI: Thank you very much for your analysis. That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank.

Listen to the podcast here.


Page 7 of 37First...678...Last