Article Search

Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche made a powerful appeal to all citizens to join her to mobilize support for a conference to establish a new strategic architecture, before the crazed war hawks in the Trans-Atlantic blunder into a nuclear war. Describing the present situation as "terrible...out of control", she said the total media control has allowed governments to place economies on a war footing, which threatens to unleash mass deaths due to famine. The present sanctions regime against Afghanistan, she stated, threatens five million children now. Instead of addressing this, there is a drive by the U.S. and the N ATO powers to demonize Putin and crush Russia. I call upon you to join us, she said, to convene a conference "in the spirit of the (1648) Peace of Westphalia," to create a security architecture which addresses the needs of all nations and peoples. At the center of her proposal is to accept the offer of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who called for an integration of the U.S. and Europe with the Belt-and-Road Initiative.

Feb. 25—Natalia Vitrenko, chairwoman of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU), and Alessia Ruggeri, of the Comitato per la Repubblica in Italy and also a member of the Committee of Coincidence of Opposites of the Schiller Institute, were on a exclusive TV program broadcast live on the evening of Feb. 23, together with journalists, host Luca La Bella and Gianmarco Landi, and Russian journalist Iryina Mikhaylova, who lives in Italy and volunteered to translate for Vitrenko, whom she knows and admires.In the first 10 minutes of the hour-long interview there were technical difficulties to get Vitrenko connected to the program, and during this time Alessia Ruggeri briefed the audience about her endorsement of Operation Ibn Sina and the fight by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute President, to not only to prevent a war with Russia, but also to prevent mass starvation in Afghanistan. Natalia Vitrenko then joined the discussion, by means of simply having her cell phone image presented to the camera, and she was able to answer many questions from all three participants. The exchange started with a question on the situation in Ukraine, since Putin’s announcement that Russia recognized the two Donbas republics. She emphasized that the Ukrainian people want peace, but the followers of Stepan Bandera (neo-Nazi militias) in the country are being supplied with weapons from America and Britain, and that makes a war possible. During the broadcast, she insisted that it is the Americans and the British who are pushing for war, not the Ukrainian people, who are against war. To a question from Alessia Ruggeri on President Zelenskyy’s request to join NATO and the EU, Vitrenko replied, “the people in Ukraine do not want to join NATO. There was a referendum in 1991 against joining any military bloc. It is Zelenskyy who wants to join NATO because he does not defend the interests of Ukraine, but that of the United States and the U.K.” Host Luca Di Bella asked Vitrenko about her situation, since she had been attacked at a political rally in the past, and she confirmed that she feels threatened by the Ukrainian neo-Nazis and called for an urgent de-Nazification of the country. There was a question also on the role of Soros in the Euromaidan, and in the present politics there. Vitrenko confirmed that many Soros people are in the government and the Euromaidan coup was also sponsored by his foundation. Alessia Ruggeri asked her about Putin’s statement during his Feb. 21 speech about the Odessa massacre in 2014, for which, he said, those responsible should be punished. Vitrenko replied there must be a Nuremberg Tribunal against such crimes against humanity. An audience of 1,300 people were watching the interview on YouTube, and many of them thanked Natalia Vitrenko for her courage and firsthand report on the situation. Also the hosts thanked her, and concluded that they “pray that Natalia Vitrenko may become President of Ukraine” and that Ukraine may have peace.

Feb. 24—“Before we finally and irrevocably reach the point of no return in mankind’s history — the point at which a global, thermonuclear war obliterates the human species — we must act swiftly to correct the absolute disaster that the imperial policy of the EU and the United States has created in Ukraine, and in relation to Russia and China. And we must especially eliminate the roots of this civilizational crisis, before the point of no return is reached.” So wrote Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a March 8, 2014, article. Eight years later, her analysis is absolutely spot-on.The failure of NATO and the United States to respond seriously to Russia’s December 2021 security demands has led to a situation where President Putin felt that he had no choice but to launch a “special military operation” in Ukraine to achieve its demilitarization and denazification, before the situation in Ukraine, including increasing quantities of materiel and foreign military service members, created an absolutely unbearable security threat. The literally Nazi menace in Ukraine, installed in that coup, was exposed in a powerful expose published by Executive Intelligence Review in February 2014: “Western Powers Back Neo-Nazi Coup in Ukraine.” The roots of the civilizational crisis driving the mad rush towards conflict with Russia and China is the collapsing the trans-Atlantic financial system, and the hysterical intent to use military threats and “green” blackmail to maintain the unipolar supremacy of the trans-Atlantic elite. As stated in the Schiller Institute’s February 23 petition — which is drawing an increasing number of signatures — “behind this very real danger of war, and the cause of that danger, is the blowout of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system…. The City of London and Wall Street, the owners of that bankrupt system, are desperate to destroy any functioning alternative to their system — such as Russia and China’s alliance … — and the financial Establishment has openly stated that this is what is at stake.” Will that establishment’s mad demand for submission be overcome, to be replaced by a new paradigm, a new security and development architecture for all nations? The answer lies in our hands. Join the LaRouche movement’s work to demand the immediate convocation of an international conference like that which crafted the Peace of Westphalia. The petition is available in English here.

Feb. 20—FLASH: The Elysée Palace released a statement early Feb. 21 Paris time, stating that President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin are prepared, in principle, to meet in a summit over Ukraine. The statement indicates that this follows the initiatives of President Emmanuel Macron to promote the “security and strategic stability in Europe.” The text states, “Presidents Biden and Putin have both accepted the principle of such a summit,” contingent on there being no invasion of Ukraine by Russia. No response from Washington nor Moscow is known by EIR at the time of this Alert.The title and theme of the keynote given by Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “Long-Term Survival: A New International Security Architecture,” at the Institute’s international conference Feb. 19, provides the way to look at key events in today’s fast-breaking, dangerous situation. There will be no “long term” for humanity, without curbing and ending the dangerous push by the U.S./U.K./NATO bloc for confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, to the point of igniting nuclear conflagration. We are called to act in the short term. Similarly, without short-term action, the deadly march of famine and disease are reaching the point of mass kill-off, and the end of any “long-term” survival for humanity, as of our present-day ranks of 7.8 billion people. On the war push, the weekend updates include the following. Today, French President Emmanuel Macron held calls with President Putin, Ukraine President Zelenskyy, and President Biden. In Washington, Biden met in the Situation Room of the White House for a special National Security Council (NSC,), with an expanded, in-person attendance, including heads of the Departments of Defense, Treasury, and State, the CIA, the NSC, and other agencies. The two-hour session, according to the read-out, concerned dealing with alleged Russian aggression against Ukraine. Before the meeting, Secretary of State Tony Blinken went on three Sunday morning network news programs to stress Biden’s announcement Feb. 18, that “intelligence” confirms that Putin has “made the decision” to attack Ukraine, unless diplomacy prevails. Blinken repeated that he will meet in person with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Feb. 24, in Europe, if “Russia does not invade Ukraine” before that time. The G7 will also meet Feb. 24, hosted by Germany, current G7 chair, for the purpose of heads of state and government to discuss “the geopolitical situation related to the situation on the Russian-Ukrainian border.” This was announced Feb. 18, and also a joint G7 statement was issued Feb. 19, subtitled, “Russia’s threatening military build-up around Ukraine.” In the Donbas, escalated shelling and violence are continuing. Today, the Foreign Ministry of Belarus announced that certain of the joint exercises with Russia called “Union Resolve,” which were to have ended Feb. 20, will instead be continued, given the increased tension. Yesterday, President Putin, joined by Belarus President Lukashenko, observed a successful exercise of the nuclear-capable triad of air, submarine and ground missile launching. On the pandemic and famine front, the situation worsens. Look at the resurgence of well-known diseases, recently controlled, if not conquered. In Africa, Mali is the latest location of polio spreading; the African Union has announced plans to combat it, but resources are desperately short. In Afghanistan, measles is spreading, in addition to the impact of COVID-19. On COVID-19 itself, WHO Executive Director Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned Feb. 18, of the “dangerous narrative that the pandemic is over,” saying it is not true. “Not when 70,000 people a week are dying from a treatable and preventable disease…. Not when 83% of the population of Africa is yet to receive a single dose of vaccine. Not when health systems continue to strain and crack under the caseload. Not when we have a highly transmissible virus circulating almost unchecked, with too little surveillance to track its evolution.” Plus, conditions are ideal for the emergence of “more transmissible, more dangerous variants.” For the world food supply, there are huge shortfalls, from the combined impact of general hyperinflation, lack of infrastructure (covered up as “climate change”), cartel domination, and lack of concerted government action. There are absolute shortages in fertilizers, herbicides and fuels, among other key inputs. Beside the fact that the world 2022 wheat harvest is expected down by 10 million metric tons, the 2022 oilseed harvest will be down for the fourth year in a row. The South American Soybean Belt of Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina projects its harvests, starting soon, will be down by millions of tons. In China, major soy-processing facilities run by the cartels—Bunge, Louis Dreyfus, Cargill etc—have just announced temporary closures for several weeks, because of hyperinflation and short soy supplies. Chinese leaders can be expected to do something about this. But millions will die, in the “market democracies” of the dying Western casino system, unless we force nation-serving measures, as Lyndon LaRouche laid out in his development-economics programs so clearly. These are the situations requiring a vision for a new architecture for “long-term security,” and the courage for short term, emergency action. We can take up the call sounded in the Schiller Institute Feb. 19 conference, “100 Seconds to Midnight on the Doomsday Clock—We Need a New Security Architecture!” During the conference, in one of the video clips of Lyndon LaRouche, he spoke about the nature of man being to solve problems. Doing it, he said, brings joy. We have the opportunity for great joy right now, given the severity of the problems. A note of hope was sounded today at the close of the Beijing Winter Olympics. The music at the beautiful ceremony featured the Ode to Joy, by Ludwig van Beethoven and Friedrich Schiller.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated today that the agreement released following the summit between President Putin and President Xi last week was extremely important, and has shaken things up in a positive way. The two leaders reasserted the concept of peaceful coexistence, which includes non-interference in other nations' affairs, reflecting the principles of the Bandung conference. Coming at the time of the ramping up of tensions between NATO and Russia, it is shaping the potential for a new international geometry, which requires a discussion of a new security architecture.President Macron's meeting with Putin pushed things in that direction, and other smaller countries are speaking out -- for example, Pakistan's President Imran Khan. She is hopeful about what might come from Germany, but agreed with Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, that Germany remains a "U.S. protectorate." The other major development she highlighted was the Schiller Institute-RIAC seminar yesterday addressing achieving a solution to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. She described the announcement by President Biden that the U.S. will release funds frozen by the U.S. which belong to Afghanistan, which can be used to purchase food, medicine, etc., is a "step forward", but what is required to fully overcome the crisis there is the cooperation of all major powers, with the regional powers, to fully integrate the country into the regional economy.

Patrick Lawrence, one of the few honest journalists in the U.S., together with economist Marshall Auerback, published a piece in Scrum on Wednesday that identifies the extraordinary joint statement by Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin on Feb. 4, in the same manner that Helga Zepp-LaRouche and EIR have stated and the British Empire’s Daily Telegraph admitted negatively—a new era, an era without geopolitics, has emerged, based on the respect for all humanity’s right to security and development. As Lawrence and Auerback put it in their title: “The World Just Turned—Ukraine and the Putin-Xi Statement.”Some quotes from this important article: “[W]e are living it and cannot see it historically without great effort. But we are living through a passage of the 21st century whose long-term significance is hard to overstate. The future is arriving, to put the point another way. Who would have guessed it would come to us by way of the ongoing morass in Ukraine? “On the ground, the crisis in Ukraine sharpens by the day. This is the point of Washington’s incessant efforts to provoke Russia into an incursion that will justify a proxy war on the part of the U.S. and those few allies hawkish enough to follow its lead into the cesspit of corruption and crypto—Nazism on the Russian Federation’s southwestern border. “But on the ground is not where to look if we want to understand this long-festering crisis and its likely outcome—not as of last week. When Presidents Putin and Xi issued a declaration of mutual solidarity as the Winter Olympics opened in Beijing last Friday, all changed, changed utterly. What the Russian and Chinese leaders had to say in 5,300 words puts the mess in Ukraine in a fundamentally new perspective. What happens there will stand as a mile marker and nothing more on the way to a global order most of humanity has awaited throughout the postwar decades—all seven of them. “This is immensely positive.” They describe the Joint Statement (published in full in this week’s EIR) as a “document of historic magnitude.” comparing it with the joint statement at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia, of the formerly colonized nations, declaring the principles of freedom, sovereignty, the right to development, and respect for all nations. Xi and Putin fully backed Russia’s call for a new security architecture which, following the OSCE, insists that one nation’s security can not be at the expense of another. But the Xi-Putin statement is universal, they write: “Now what might have been resolved by way of a new settlement on European and Russian security has become a question of a genuinely new global order. This is what happened in Beijing last week. Secretary of State Blinken, his spokesman, Ned Price, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, the Pentagon, the intelligence apparatus, the NATO leadership in Brussels: None of these appears capable of addressing this new reality.” The authors point to an emerging “Eastward diplomatic démarche French President Emmanuel Macron is currently leading, compared to an”American campaign of propaganda and disinformation that is almost certainly the match of anything marshaled during the Cold War," pointing to the absurd, unsubstantiated accusations flowing from the White House and the State Department on a daily basis about Russian dirty deeds. The two gleefully reference AP’s Matt Lee’s showdown with State Department spokesman Ned Price, in which Lee referred to wild stories as “unhinged conspiracy theories, in Alex Jones territory.” The authors point to the color revolution in Ukraine in 2014 as the “first major misstep” of the unipolar world’s hubris. Putin, they note, quickly called the referendum in Crimea, arranged a $400 billion natural gas deal with China, and launched a “global hands-across-the-water tour of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East to begin expanding relationships with non—Western nations.” Now, Xi and Putin have “submitted nearly 40 times since the Kiev coup. What began on the economic and trade side now has political and military dimensions.” The Xi-Putin statement, they write, “is a bilateral statement announcing a new world order altogether, with an attendant aspiration to advance sustainable economic strategies worldwide.” They quote from the statement, that “a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world; and the international community is showing a growing demand for leadership aiming at peaceful and gradual development”; they also note the statement’s attack on “certain states” who are, the statement says, “flouting democracy and go against the spirit and true values of democracy. Such attempts at hegemony pose serious threats to global and regional peace and stability and undermine the stability of the world order.” The two authors conclude by pointing to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence which Zhou Enlai signed with India, which were then incorporated into the 10-point declaration at the 1955 Bandung conference. They print all 10 points verbatim, adding: "We quote them in full because it is instructive to read them next to the Joint Statement. They are historical ballast. They remind us that there is nothing very strange or outré, and certainly nothing overly ambitious, about the world Putin and Xi envision: It is the world two-thirds of U.N. member nations and more than half of humanity desired before the Cold War buried their postwar hopes and aspirations. The Russian and Chinese leaders have just demonstrated that these hopes and aspirations were never extinguished. Maybe it is as simple as this. “Hardly do Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping propose an easily, swiftly completed project. (And hardly will a solution of the Ukraine crisis prove easy or swift.) Great movements in history never work that way. And that is what Putin and Xi have just described.”

The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the Schiller Institute (SI) will be convening a seminar on Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8 AM EST on the topic, “The Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan: Toward a Long-term Solution."Among the topics to be addressed by a panel of six speakers will be:: What are the causes of the Afghan humanitarian crisis What are the geopolitical implications of a failed state in Afghanistan What is needed to reverse the immediate threat of mass starvation and refugee problems A long-term solution to the humanitarian crisis: the role of the global powers Opening and closing statements will be presented by Dr. Andrey Kortunov, Director General of RIAC, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, chairwoman of the SI Additional speakers will include:Ivan Safranchuk, Director at the Center for Eurasian Studies of MGIMO UniversityTemur Umarov, Fellow at the Carnegie Moscow CenterJim Jatras, U.S. diplomat, former advisor to U.S. Senate Republican leadershipGraham Fuller, 25 year career as a CIA operations officer, author Questions may be submitted to questions@schillerinstitute.org

This is translated for publication in EIR from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s lead article in the January 27, 2022 issue of Neue Solidarität Jan. 23 (EIRNS)—After the hectic diplomacy of this week—Annalena Baerbock in Kiev and Moscow, Antony Blinken in Kiev, then in Berlin to meet with the foreign ministers of the United States, France, Great Britain and Germany, Blinken’s meeting with Chancellor Olaf Scholz and finally the meeting of foreign ministers Sergey Lavrov and Blinken in Geneva—the danger of a world war which could annihilate mankind has not been averted. After the last meeting, Lavrov stated that he expected to receive a written answer from the U.S. and NATO next week concerning the legally binding treaties demanded by Russia, which provide that NATO will not expand further east to Russia’s borders, that Ukraine will not be admitted to NATO, and that no offensive weapons systems will be placed on the Russian border. Blinken referred to further talks with “allies and partners in the coming days,” after which Western concerns and ideas could then be shared with Russia.However, if the U.S. position remains what Blinken, according to RT, told journalists after his meeting with Lavrov—namely that there is no room for compromise on Moscow’s main demand, and that a non-negotiable principle of America and its allies is that the Ukrainian people have the right “to write their own future”—then the very short fuse threatens to burn very quickly. Indeed, the formulation used by Blinken is just a sophistical way of referring to Ukraine’s entry into NATO, which is part of the Anglo-American narrative on “Russia’s aggressions.” But for any honest historian, as well as for everyone who looks at a map, the facts are clear: After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, it was not Russia that moved its borders some 1,000 km westward from the border of the then-Warsaw Pact to reach somewhere in France around Lille, but it was NATO that advanced to the east by 1000 km. Thus, it clearly broke the verbal commitments given to Gorbachev by the George H.W. Bush administration, and especially by then-Secretary of State James Baker III, that NATO would not move “one inch to the east.” A closer look shows that the methods used by NATO to add 14 new member states in Eastern and Central Europe and in the Balkans were not always the most subtle. According to the Western narrative, it was the desire for freedom that pushed these countries into NATO. But the reality is different. After the shock therapy of Jeffrey Sachs and the brutal policy of privatization, with no concern for the social consequences, had drastically impoverished the populations of the former Comecon, a massive network of NGOs was set up with thick checkbooks, with the aim of effecting a paradigm change in favor of the West. In 1990, at the time prior to German reunification and during the upheavals in Eastern Europe, this author personally experienced how the first democratic attempts of self-organization by the people in the East were cold-bloodedly smothered and replaced by compliant opportunists, often enough in positions of government. “Corruption is good” became the motto in many places—then at least we know whom we can trust. So much for the principle of “letting peoples choose their own future.” The latest example just came from the—failed—attempt to carry off a color revolution in Kazakhstan, with the use of “Maidan techniques” as Vladimir Putin correctly pointed out. If Putin is now demanding—in the context of what German Gen. Harald Kujat (ret.) told DLF radio/TV was not in preparation for a military attack, but rather as a threatening backdrop (i.e., the redeployment of about 100,000 Russian troops closer to the Ukrainian border although some of them are still hundreds of kilometers away)—legally binding written assurances that NATO will neither be extended further eastward to the borders of Russia, nor will ever accept Ukraine as a member, then this is simply a way of expressing that for Russia a red line has been reached. Given the fact that there are already 10,000 NATO troops in Ukraine, including some 4,000 U.S. troops, that private mercenary outfits are training Ukrainian military units in eastern Ukraine for false-flag operations, that the U.K. is supplying offensive lethal weapons to Ukraine, that U.S. and British warships and fighter jets are provoking incidents in the Black Sea aimed at providing the reconnaissance aircraft with information about Russian military capabilities—what conclusions is Russia supposed to draw from all these and many other policies? In reality, NATO is already operating practically in Ukraine, but formal NATO membership would definitively confirm that it was no longer possible to defend Russia’s fundamental security interests. Even as the abovementioned diplomatic talks were ongoing, the British broadcaster Sky News reported that the U.K. had deployed 30 members of its “Special Operations Brigade” to Ukraine to train Ukrainian troops on anti-tank weapons that were also supplied by the British. According to the military spokesman for the Donetsk People’s Republic, more than 460 tons of various lethal weapons, including 2,000 NLAWs (anti-tank missiles), have recently been delivered by nine C17 aircraft to Ukrainian forces stationed on the line of contact with the Donbas, which include a considerable number of radical nationalists. Whether these weapons are defensive or offensive in nature depends, as always, on the specific combat situation. Shortly after Moscow presented the two treaties to the United States and NATO on Dec. 15, Putin announced that Russia would respond to their rejection with “appropriate military-technical retaliatory measures.” In a Jan. 15 article in National Interest magazine, David T. Pyne, currently working for the Task Force on National and Homeland Security (a Congressional Advisory Board), cited Brussels-based U.S. analyst Gilbert Doctorow’s interpretation of what these “military-technical retaliatory measures” might entail. Doctorow assumes that it means the additional deployment of Russian nuclear-capable SS-26 Iskander-M short-range missiles to Belarus and Kaliningrad, which would threaten NATO front-line states and eastern Germany. Moreover, the new nuclear-armed Tsirkon sea-launched hypersonic cruise missiles could be stationed off the American coast near Washington. Earlier statements from Russian officials noted that such missiles could destroy the American capital faster than the President could escape on Air Force One. Therefore, if the U.S. and NATO reject Russia’s demands for security guarantees, there is a real probability that we may have to deal very soon with a double Cuba crisis, but without a John F. Kennedy as U.S. President. Rather, we have a President Biden whom the war hawks in his entourage openly refuse to respect and who “correct” him if he says he does not seek war with Russia. It should be clear to all thinking persons that in the event of a war waged with nuclear weapons—be it “limited” or not—no one in Germany would survive. For our new Foreign Minister Baerbock, it is obviously not clear, otherwise she would not fall into NATO jargon in such a synchronized manner with “dear Tony” as she just did at the Berlin press conference. The Greens have completely morphed into a war party. And if someone begins pondering, like former Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, what nuclear options there might be against Russia, then they should seek therapy against suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Under such circumstances, Germany’s membership in NATO can no longer be defended. We immediately need a new international security architecture that takes into account the interests of all countries, explicitly including those of Russia and China. If we have learned anything from history, it is that only those treaties that include the interests of all the states involved, such as the Treaty of Westphalia, can be the basis for lasting peace. Peace treaties that do not do so, such as the Treaty of Versailles, contain the opening salvo for the next war, as we in Germany should have painfully learned. NATO, which unnecessarily excluded Russia from the European house after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and has since increasingly become an offensive alliance, not only no longer corresponds to Germany’s security interests, but has become the primary threat to Germany’s existence. We need a new security architecture that overcomes the geopolitics responsible for two world wars in the 20th century, one that defines the common goals of mankind as its fundamental principle. And this includes, first and foremost, the elimination of the primary cause of war—which is the imminent collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system—and the creation of a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system, that vanquishes poverty and underdevelopment everywhere in the world. All peace-loving people in the world are called upon to enter into an open dialogue on this issue.

The Schiller Institute today sponsored a critical forum under the title: “A Difference In Leadership: Can War with Russia Still Be Averted?” Speaking from the Russian Mission to the United Nations, Ambassador Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN, presented the stark reality of the current rush to war by Western leaders. “It seems,” he said, “that our Western colleagues are blinded by the so-called ‘victory’ in the Cold War, and continue to live these memories and try to talk from the position of superiority, and impose double standards. They blame us for the presence and movement of our troops on our own sovereign territory, while claiming that everything they do on NATO territory is nobody’s business. This will no longer work.”Helga Zepp-LaRouche posed the higher order approach to the crisis: “I suggest very strongly that we need a new security architecture, which has to reflect on the basic lessons of history. You have to look at treaties which did lead to peace, and those which didn’t. A good example for the first is the Peace of Westphalia, where after 150 years of religious war, especially the Thirty Years’ War, people realized that nobody would be the winner of the continuation of the war. So, they agreed on the famous principles of the Peace of Westphalia, the most important being that you have to take into account the interest of the other if you want to have peace. Every time that was done—and this Peace of Westphalia, by the way, was the beginning of international law and what constitutes the UN Charter today—that leads to peace. The other example is the Versailles Treaty, which proclaimed that Germany was the only guilty party in World War I, which was not true. For sure, it was not just. It put burdens on Germany to pay not only the cost of war, but reparations, which was completely overburdening the German economy. So, the Reichsbank started to print money; that led to the hyperinflation; that contributed to the Depression. Naturally, the deep sense of injustice which the people coming out of this had, led to the rise of the Nazis and the actual takeover by the National Socialists which led to World War II.” Harley Schlanger, a spokesman for The LaRouche Organization, reviewed the arrogance of the neoconservatives and the neoliberals who believed that the West had “won” the Cold War, and that this gave them license to impose their imagined superior system of “democracy and free market economies” on all nations, by military means if necessary. He posted a chart of the illegal and genocidal wars waged against nations—Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and then the coup against Ukraine in 2014—against nations which were no threat to anyone, wars based on fraudulent charges which are acknowledged now to have been manufactured to justify the wars. This included the “shock therapy” imposed on Russia itself, in an attempt to reduce a great scientific and industrial nation into a “raw material exporter” with impoverished and declining populations. When Vladimir Putin reversed that destruction, he was labeled an “autocrat,” while both parties in the U.S. united behind the war policy. The era of unilateralism and a unipolar world is now finished, Schlanger asserted, as the China-Russia cooperation in nation building, for themselves and the 140 nations which have joined the Belt and Road Initiative, are no longer taking orders, and will no longer allow color revolutions or neo-colonial wars and oppression. Paul Gallagher, EIR Economics Editor, then dissected the destruction of the “American System,” which had been restored by Franklin Roosevelt through Glass-Steagall bank regulation and the post-war Bretton Woods system. The destruction began with the 1971 decoupling of the dollar from gold by the Nixon Administration, turning the banking system into one based on speculation rather than production. With the collapse of the speculative bubble in 2008, Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal to restore American System policies was rejected in favor of mass money printing to save the banks, creating the greatest “everything bubble” in history. The effort to sustain the $275 trillion bubble through the Green New Deal, run by the same bankers responsible for the bubble itself, by shutting down fossil fuels, many industries and farms, would result in mass depopulation of the world, already evident globally, and even within the United States. Here again, the emergence of Russia, China and the Belt and Road Initiative demonstrates that the unipolar world run by the City of London and Wall Street no longer can dictate this destruction on the rest of the world, with the danger that they may choose to launch a nuclear war rather than joining as an equal partner in a new world order. Richard Black, the Schiller Institute representative to the UN, followed up Ambassador Polyanskiy’s call for ending the forced division of the world into warring blocs, to seek those things which unite us rather than divide us. He reviewed LaRouche’s work with the scientific community in Russia, in the tradition of that nation’s great scientific geniuses, calling on the citizens of the Western nations to organize their political leaders and candidates to force their governments to give up their phobias, and cooperate in the great tasks facing mankind as a whole. A rich discussion and Q&A followed. You are encouraged to watch this crucial and productive forum, and to act on the ideas there presented.

In response to the devastating situation in Afghanistan and the clear focus the LaRouche movement has placed on turning Afghanistan into a crossroads of development, Bernie Sanders — who plays the role of a principled fighter for justice on TV — has been forced to take a stand.One day after the Schiller Institute's Jan 17 conference "Stop the Murder of Afghanistan," the Vermont senator tweeted: "Afghanistan is facing a humanitarian catastrophe. I urge the Biden administration to immediately release billions in frozen Afghan government funds to help avert this crisis, and prevent the death of millions of people." Afghanistan is facing a humanitarian catastrophe. I urge the Biden administration to immediately release billions in frozen Afghan government funds to help avert this crisis, and prevent the death of millions of people.— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 18, 2022 Afghanistan's central bank funds — which belong to the people of that nation — be released immediately. The leading powers of the world — particularly those NATO nations that helped to create its present disastrous state — must join forces to support Afghanistan in building a proud future. Learn more in Helga Zepp-LaRouche's recent presentation on Operation Ibn Sina and its namesake.

In the last days, and in the next days ahead, decisions are being made which will determine whether mankind has the moral capacity to survive. In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented a dramatic tour d'horizon, weaving together an analysis of summit meetings, troop deployments, and positive economic developments around the Belt-and-Road Initiative, communicating both the tremendous danger of the present, and, importantly, a pathway out of that danger.She emphasized that the bluster of Blinken in Ukraine is not completely in step with the pronouncements of Biden. She also emphasized that Putin has been clear on why Russia requires strategic guarantees, and that some in the West, such as David Pyne, Gilbert Doctorow and Gen. Kujat, are openly discussing that. You have the delegation of seven knucklehead Senators blustering after a trip to Kiev, demanding that Biden toughen up, with one — whom she referred to as Sen. Wicked — saying that Putin must be given a bloody nose. At the same time, the Iranian President was in Moscow, signing a 20-year deal, and the Chinese and Syrians finalized a Memo of Understanding for collaboration on the BRI. Finally, she spoke movingly of the Schiller Institute conference on January 15 on Afghanistan, which contrasted the present threat of millions starving, with the axiom-busting decision by India to ship wheat to Afghanistan, traveling through Pakistan.

The War Hawks behind the foolish endless wars, who continue their destruction with sanctions and freezing funds belonging to the people of Afghanistan -- which threaten the lives of millions due to starvation -- have been engaged in a dangerous escalation against Russia. While some pundits say that Putin has made his point, and "de-escalation" will occur, the cause of the problem remains: NATO, the tool used by the neocons against Russia. The best way to de-escalate, says Helga Zepp-Larouche, is to disband NATO, and cooperate in a global financial bankruptcy reorganization

Perhaps the most certain thing about the world today is the immense uncertainty about the future. Will geopolitical games targeting Russia and China cross the line—even if unintentionally—thereby triggering a nuclear holocaust that would destroy human civilization for generations? Would anyone be so mad as to allow that to occur? Or will the trans-Atlantic financial power centered in the City of London and Wall Street be forced to its knees and put through bankruptcy, as a new paradigm of growth is inaugurated worldwide, led by the mission of ensuring health, purpose, and growth in all nations?While there are no guarantees that humanity will choose a sane path, there are many reasons to hope that the latter outcome will come to pass. The success of the Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement in forcing the issue of Afghanistan is seen in the spate of reports and actions from the International Crisis Group, the United Nations, and even the New York Times and Financial Times. The ICG has issued an extensive report on the situation, denouncing efforts to cause the Taliban to fail, which would bring “famine … migration … terrorism, and … drugs.” The bitter pill of Taliban success must be swallowed, and the lives of Afghanistan’s people put ahead of ego. Funds are desperately needed, and there is no way around working with the current de facto government. Otherwise, tens of millions risk famine and death. Will Afghanistan—a crossroads of trade—prove to be a crossroads of history, a branching point in the axioms animating human behavior? The dangers are immense. It seems that Joe Biden does not personally want to risk nuclear war, but does he control his administration? Russia insists on formal, written responses to the security concerns it has raised with the U.S. and NATO, and talks continue, even as NATO nations say that Russia’s demands are absolutely unacceptable. The answer is up to you. Choose to forge a new future, to give a meaningful direction to the Earth’s next fifty years. Today, join the Schiller Institute’s seminar “To Stop the Murder of Afghanistan” and commit yourself to acting on the famous words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

In reviewing the ongoing series of discussions this week between Russia, the U.S. and NATO -- which she said so far "looks terrible" -- Helga Zepp-LaRouche returned to what she described as the two alternative approaches to relations between nations.The Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I has in common with the posture of the U.S. and NATO today the view that the victors in war can dictate the terms of peace, as a unipolar force. This blatant assertion of world dominance ignores the legitimate wishes of other nations, and insists on their subordination to the unipolar power. This typifies the "arrogance of power" of today's globalist war hawks, who claim the U.S. "won the Cold War", and therefore has the right to be the dominant world power. In contrast, the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War in 1648, was based on the idea that recognizing the "interests of others" is the key to a durable peace. The outright rejection thus far by U.S. negotiators of the legitimacy of President Putin's security concerns will not be accepted by Russia. While it is better to talk than not, she said, the overall posture of the U.S. in these talks has "lowered the nuclear threshold", making the use of nuclear weapons more likely should war break out. NATO, which should have been dissolved at the end of the Cold War, must be replaced, especially since its present policy course leads to a war in which its members in Europe will be destroyed. Belonging to a security alliance which would lead to war doesn't make sense. Demonizing Putin and attacking the Belt-and-Road Initiative when the western financial system is crashing also does not make sense. She concluded by calling on our viewers to participate in the emergency Schiller Institute's online seminar on January 17, on the theme, "Stop the Murder of Afghanistan."