Oct. 29—The world woke up this morning to the sobering news that the Russian Defense Ministry had announced that they had repelled an aerial and maritime drone attack against the Sevastopol naval base on the Crimean peninsula, which was carried out by Ukrainian military units under the direct control and supervision of the British Navy. Describing it as a “terrorist attack,” the Russian Defense Ministry stated that it was “carried out under supervision of British specialists in the city of Ochakov, Nikolayev region in Ukraine.” The statement then added that “representatives from this unit from the British Navy were involved in plotting, organizing and implementation of the terrorist attack in the Baltic Sea on 26 September this year to blow up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines.”
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reiterated the Defense Ministry’s charges of British complicity in both the Nord Stream sabotage and the new attack on Sebastopol, adding that Russia would be urgently bringing the matter before the UN Security Council.
Although EIR has no independent confirmation, as of this writing, of the Defense Ministry’s charges, three different European military and security specialists consulted by EIR concurred that Russia was highly unlikely to make up such charges unless they had “smoking gun” evidence to back it up. They further noted the deafening governmental silence about the results of the investigations of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines, which certainly raises the question as to what is being covered up. And former CIA analyst and Russia specialist Ray McGovern tweeted Saturday morning: “Russia not likely to blame UK for ‘supervising’ today’s drone attack on Russian ships near Crimea AND sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines WITHOUT EVIDENCE.” And this news service has repeatedly emphasized the leading role of Britain in driving the crisis to escalating war, from then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s April trip to Kiev to sabotage the negotiation process, to his May visit to Sweden and Finland to ensure their accession to NATO.
Add to these developments of the last 24 hours, the Oct. 27 release of the Biden administration’s new defense strategy documents, including its Nuclear Posture Review, which lower the threshold for the U.S. use of nuclear weapons. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told RIA Novosti on Oct. 29 that Russia was alarmed that the new defense documents provide for “an increase in the number of scenarios, including outside of the nuclear context, which allow the use of nuclear weapons.” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin bluntly denounced the new doctrine as “nuclear blackmail (which) will not work on China,” noting that it “lowers the threshold for using nuclear weapons.”
So, what is this war all about, anyway, which threatens to unleash a thermonuclear holocaust which none would survive?
It’s pretty clear to most thoughtful people that what’s going on in the Ukraine theater is not some sort of war between Russia and Ukraine, over territory or resources.
It is also not a simple proxy war between NATO (using its weapons and Ukrainian troops, supplemented by foreign special forces) against Russia—although that comes closer to the truth.
The real issue is the dangerous death-rattle of the imploding trans-Atlantic financial system, and the banking Establishment’s deployment of Global NATO to prevent Russia, China and others from creating a new international financial architecture to replace them. The ideas for how to bring such a transition about, without war, are under intense scrutiny and discussion around the world, as reflected in the proposals presented on Oct. 27 by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai Discussion Club; those put forward on Oct. 25 by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche at an international conference organized by the National Committee for BRICS Research of Russia; and the broad range of proposals discussed at the Oct. 27 Schiller Institute second seminar of current and former elected officials from around the world, “Stop the Danger of Nuclear War.”
In thanking Zepp-LaRouche for her remarks at the BRICS event, Dr. Irina Yarygina, one of the conference organizers and head of the Economics Department at the Moscow State Institute of International Relation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, told the gathered experts: “We are really highly appreciative of the participation of the founder and president of The Schiller Institute in our conference. And in spite of political tensions, there is a great possibility for a cooperation in the fields of science, technology and innovation, and we are looking forward to working in concert. It will be extremely important that you have put your attention to the main problems and challenges we are facing at the moment.”
And at the conclusion of his remarks to the Oct. 27 seminar, which was held in a meeting room in the Mexican Congress as well as online, Mexican Congressman Benjamin Robles Montoya called for “the formation of a group of legislators who represent everyone on all continents, if possible of all nationalities, to go dialogue directly with the governments of every country interested in world peace … as well as a New Economic Order that incorporates the new principles in favor of humanity.” He concluded: “We are very happy to join with you, from here in the Chamber of Deputies, in this great crusade for peace.”
With the danger of nuclear war, and of a financial blowout, increasing by the day and hour, no time can be lost in that organizing task—including building for an upcoming third international seminar of current and former elected officials and other political leaders, now scheduled for the third week of November.
