June 2—The most recent manifestation of empire has taken the form, since World War II, of an Anglo-American “special relationship” dedicated, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, to ruling a unipolar world under its financial, cultural, and military control.
That intention has brought the world today to the brink of World War III, a nuclear armageddon whose most obvious trigger — although not the only possible one — is found in Ukraine, which is being flooded with increasingly sophisticated (although not always very successful) weapons.
Two of the latest escalations towards a war from which civilization might never recover, are the provision to Ukraine of missile systems better able to strike inside Russian territory, and the admission by Gen. Paul Nakasone — the Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command — that “We’ve conducted a series of operations [against Russia] across the full spectrum: offensive, defensive, [and] information operations.”
How many U.S. publications and politicians declared that Russia had essentially engaged in acts of war, as they spread hoax stories that internet meddling by Putin led to Donald Trump’s 2016 electoral victory over Hillary Clinton? “Russia’s Cyberattacks Aren’t Meddling—They’re Acts of War” blared a Daily Beast headline from 2018. “When you attack a country, it’s an act of war,” Sen. John McCain said in 2016 on Ukrainian TV, according to CNN. “So we have to make sure that there is a price to pay so that we can perhaps persuade Russians to stop this kind of attack on our very fundamentals of democracy.”
If the Russian hack of the DNC — a hack that never happened — is “an act of war,” what should Russia make of “offensive” cyber-operations made against it in the current situation?
What will occur if the new missile systems Ukraine is receiving — currently few in number, but not likely to be the last that are sent — are used to launch strikes in Russian territory? There will be “absolutely undesirable and rather unpleasant scenarios,” according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
With the growing danger have come increasing calls for sanity.
“Technically we are at war,” said Italian Gen. Fabio Mini, former chief of staff of NATO Southern Europe Command, who opposes the NATO-EU policy of arming Ukraine. “We should have dismantled NATO at the end of the Cold War.” If anyone is being provocative, he says, it is NATO, and in particular the UK, which is pushing for a more expansive international role. Former French minister Pierre Lellouche just wrote an article warning against NATO directing European policy, including warmongering with Russia. Former Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis gave a shocking speech in which he stated that “the US has no motive for peace in Europe” and that the new Cold War “will not be a revival of the old. It will be much worse and much more unpredictable.”
Mankind’s survival indeed depends on the dismantling of NATO and the establishment of a global security architecture that meets the security and development interests of all countries of the world. And this can only occur through addressing the underlying cause of the mounting conflict: the collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system, a collapse that Lyndon LaRouche forecast decades ago, based on his understanding of physical economics.
In the present situation, when hyper-inflation drives people to think more deeply about economic policy, when the lies of the media become yet more apparent, there is a receptiveness to new and profound ideas.
The most powerful upcoming forum for those ideas is the June 18-19 conference hosted by the Schiller Institute, “There Can Be No Peace Without the Bankruptcy Reorganization of the Dying Trans-Atlantic Financial System.”
