Sept. 20—In the blink of an eye, the citizens of the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, along with two southern regions of Ukraine—Kherson and Zaporozhye—set up referenda for Sept. 23—27, voting on whether to formally rejoin Russia. All parties assume that in one week, the overwhelmingly Russian-speaking populations of these areas will have spoken their minds; and Russian leaders have indicated that they will take on this responsibility. At that point, Russia’s “special military operation” is over, as is the West’s “proxy” war. Those new areas of Russia are not to be toyed with.
Putin has been quite direct and open—Russia’s “special military operation” has been a small part of what they are capable of. For six months, they have avoided the destruction of civilian infrastructure, where it would have saved the lives of Russian soldiers to have done otherwise. Russia had no beef with most of Ukraine’s population, and no interest in making their life worse than it already was. Putin’s issue was with NATO’s armaments at Russia’s door, and with a neo-Nazi element holding Ukraine hostage, never allowing the agreed-upon Minsk Accords to be followed. Was he kidding when he said Russia’s security concerns had to be dealt with? Is he kidding now about the dangers of a West arming Ukraine to the teeth; about what it means to directly fight British, Polish, and American operatives in the field; and about Russia’s policy of nuclear weapons is and is not?
Oh-so-clever Western geopoliticians have sanctioned themselves into a corner, where the realities of heating and eating are not so easy to dance around. (The United Kingdom just began to experience a series of critical strikes at its ports and railroads, scheduled over the next ten days.) A host of direct, person-to-person dialogues are slated for this week, with all the side meetings around the UN General Assembly. Russia’s Lavrov, India’s Jaishankar and China’s Wang Yi—coming off last Friday’s SCO summit in Samarkand—have a full dance card and are, as it were, loaded for bear. Fully aware of the ugliness of the geopolitical rantings they will face, they are fully armed to forge ahead. It turns out that the personal ability to reason, face-to-face, one-on-one with other leaders, on actual solutions that mutually benefit countries and regions, make such individuals a clear and present danger to the geopoliticians.
Will wild charges of “mass gravesites,” Russian “torture” of innocent civilians, etc., chase countries back into their cubby holes, incapable of rational deliberation? It worked with the Hitlerian big lies around the “Bucha massacre” in early April, locking the world into a permanent war mode. (In a sense, it has paralyzed the thought processes of the Western world since no later than 9/11/2001—a casualty of not listening to Lyndon LaRouche’s clear warnings.) Will hysterical, contrary-to-reality screaming over “Bucha 2.0—the Izium Horror Show” again freeze the cognitive abilities of countries?
How did LaRouche know in 1984 about the dissolution of the Soviet empire? How did he know about a terror attack on Washington, DC in 2001?
Sergey Glazyev, in the middle of operations to put the physical economy ahead of financial instruments—that is, so the dog wags the tail—made it pretty simple: Those countries that are showing success are the ones that have benefitted from the scientific approach of LaRouche, and his worked-out ‘physical-economic’ solutions. There is plenty there in that scientific approach to keep the cognitive abilities moving forward, and not continually falling prey to desperate hoaxes. Sure, as Mexican President Lopez Portillo put it, listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche—but digging in and mastering his method is key now for finishing off the existential danger of the ‘permanent war’ geopolitical gang.
