To Win Peace, Redouble Schiller Institute Call for ‘A New International Security and Development Architecture For All Nations”By Dennis Small
May 22—Many people that LaRouche movement organizers speak to in the broader population, both in the United States and in other countries around the world, are having difficulty grappling with the strategic implications of what is happening today in the Ukrainian theater, preferring instead to view it as a kind of soap opera, or a particularly nasty football game. They root for one side or the other; follow the predictions that the media serves out to them like pabulum about “who is going to win”; and protect themselves psychologically by remaining emotionally distant from what is actually at stake, in plain view for all to see: The British Empire is goading Russia to the nuclear brink over Crimea, while launching an “economic decoupling” war against China which would be equally deadly for the planet. And that the U.S. government, along with the British and the EU, are spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to finance Nazis—yes, actual Nazis with swastikas and pictures of Hitler and Stepan Bandera tattooed all over their bodies—to wage their war in Ukraine.
The first corrective is to understand the underlying economic breakdown dynamic that is stoking the war drive, and that the breakdown has also unleashed galloping inflation and deadly physical economic shortages—from baby formula, to essential medicines and health supplies, fuel, and, most critically, food. A quarter of humanity stands at the doorstep of looming hunger, with many millions well past the threshold and now facing famine and starvation.
The second corrective is to consider the nature of war itself, and how wars are won or lost. We turn to Lyndon LaRouche for the requisite concepts, as presented in a June 4, 1977 statement, “To the Governments of a World at the Brink of War,” which remain fully applicable to the strategic situation today:
“The principal reason Napoléon Bonaparte was finally defeated was that his foreign policies were those of looting the nations of Europe rather than establishing republican governments efficiently directed toward developing industrial progress in concert with France. It was not England or Prussia, or Russia, that defeated France, but Napoléon himself, a fact exemplified by the militia forces created by the Scharnhorst reforms.
“Nazi Germany was defeated for the same categorical reasons, the same vital political principles of strategy which defeated the U.S. forces in Vietnam. U.S. strategy toward Indo-China was degraded to the objective of pure destruction, because U.S. policy, especially after the dumping of ‘Big Minh,’ precluded offering the adversary population the positive basis for a durable peace….
“The strategic policies of David Rockefeller and his allies [today we could say the City of London and Wall Street—ed.] are identical in character and implications to those of Adolf Hitler. Just as the Nazi regime was impelled to loot Europe because austerity against the German industrialists and labor force, austerity in behalf of the Mefo-Bill and Rentenmark financial bubbles, could no longer be continued without destroying Germany, so David Rockefeller and his dupes and allies are embarked on the same extrapolation of a Schachtian inward-turning hyperinflation. The Carter Administration, while it continues to be David Rockefeller’s puppet, can not win a war for the fundamental reason that it is incapable of adopting durable peace-winning objectives.”