Incapable of addressing the rapid decline of the TransAtlantic economies, NATO's leaders meet to plan military build-up and future wars. |
The latest provocation, a blockade of Russia's Baltic port, could lead to a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. |
Does adding Finland and Sweden to NATO cross a Russian "Red Line"? If so, what will this mean? |
While most people live under the delusion that nuclear war is not possible, the U.S.-NATO policy makers are preparing to fight one. |
April 27—A major clash is now out in the open, between those nations and leaders backing measures to end the Ukraine conflict and produce more food to prevent famine, and those financial and political interests, centered in the Trans-Atlantic, perpetrating their “rules-based,” sanctions-based order, who want more weapons to Ukraine, and who couldn’t care less if it prevents settling the conflict or creates desperate hunger. We face the risk of nuclear war. |
Secretary of Defense Austin admits U.S. goal is "to weaken Russia" as NATO plans escalation today at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. |
April 11—The trans-Atlantic nations, as NATO and its “allies and partners,” are ravaging the world’s economies, including their own, and including subjecting hundreds of millions of people to the threat of famine, in order to “weaken” and “crush” Russia and its partnership with China. Their leaders, instructed by oligarchs of the City of London and Wall Street, seem almost to welcome the severe austerity they are imposing on their own peoples, as some sort of talisman of victory in what can easily become a world war with nuclear weapons. The “weaponized” U.S. dollar is being discredited as the international reserve currency it has informally been since the 1970s destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system. |
Read this critical analysis by Lyndon LaRouche on the threat of NATO expansion in 1997. Miniver Cheevy on NATO. |
April 6—In addition to their ongoing “controlled disintegration” of the world physical economy, the British are now carrying out a “controlled demolition” of the existing international institutional architecture, because it is getting in the way of their Brave New World. |
Russia declared guilty of war crimes by British Ambassador to U.N. Scott Ritter asks, "Where's the evidence?" |
April 4—The NATO Alliance and Russia are sliding further down the slope toward nuclear war, and no sane person can deny that now. The UK and United States will now be demanding from NATO allies a full embargo of Russia, compounding—if they agree to it—the economic disasters hitting European and threatening developing nations. |
The wars and financial disintegration which threaten humanity are the result of the unilateralist agenda which benefits the world's wealthiest and most corrupt oligarchs. |
March 26—Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told an audience in Moscow on March 25 that the U.S., EU and NATO have already “declared a hybrid war, a ‘total war,’” on Russia, and noted that this was the term “used by Hitler’s Germany,” and is “now voiced by many European politicians when they talk about what they want to do with the Russian Federation.” |
March 24—Early today in Kabul, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a surprise visit to meet with Taliban government leaders, discussing the Belt and Road Initiative, in particular connecting Afghanistan to CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor.) |
March 23—Ironically, it is on the anniversary of the SDI that a fully maddened British Empire is driving the conflict between the U.S./U.K./NATO and Russia to the point of nuclear confrontation—on both the military and economic fronts. |
March 21—The NATO countries’ unheard-of monster economic sanctions and financial confiscations are, deliberately, forcing the world toward two blocs; the media in those countries portray Russia as being economically, permanently crushed, with China and India unable significantly to help it. |
What is the intention of the economic warfare being conducted against Russia and President Putin? |
March 16--Over the last 24-48 hours, the British attempted to escalate their world war on both the economic and military fronts. |
March 15—Along with the fighting and casualties in Ukraine, a special phase of grandstanding is now in play in the confrontation provoked against Russia by the U.S./UK/NATO bloc for years. |
March 14—Although nearly daily negotiations are taking place between Russian and Ukrainian teams, NATO’s leading U.K. and U.S. governments and media have mobilized to prevent any successful settlement from emerging, as fiercely as they have mobilized to destroy Russia’s economy and overthrow its President Putin. |
March 13—The developments of 2022 to date have made it abundantly clear that Lyndon LaRouche’s forecasts over the last half-century about the unavoidable breakdown crisis of the post-Bretton Woods floating exchange-rate financial system were shockingly accurate. |
March 4—In key venues of international relations this week, it was evident not all nations are lining up behind the lies of the U.S./British/NATO bloc associated with the demand that the economy of Russia must be destroyed, and by extension, that of China too, and other targeted nations with them. The truth is—even if only partially presented and understood amidst the fierce media cover-up and social control—that the Western bloc has been encircling and provoking Russia for decades, as part of its intent to preserve the Western casino economy at all costs, especially now that the casino is untenable. Even the Green Reset gambit cannot put it back together again.It is anathema to this crowd that Russia and China are collaborating on economic development, especially as declared by their Presidents on February 4, as a joint commitment for a new worldwide development era. And so we are at the point of extreme confrontation, extreme chaos and extreme danger. But the truth remains free. At the Quad meeting (by video) yesterday of heads of state and government of India, Japan, Australia and the United States, the bully bloc expectation was to have the leaders form a united front and issue a statement that condemned Russia and its invasion of Ukraine, but India would not go along with it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called instead for an end of hostilities and diplomacy. The report afterward from India’s Ministry of External Affairs underscored Modi’s insistence that the Quad remain focused on its core objective “of promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” On Ukraine, Prime Minister Modi emphasized “the need to return to a path of dialogue and diplomacy.” The day before, the UN General Assembly met to vote on a condemnation measure of Russia. While 141 countries out of a UN roster of 193, voted for the resolution, this tally left out 47 nations—virtually 25% of the world, not going along. Most of these abstained, or listed themselves as absent. Of these 47, fully 27 are from Africa, and constitute half of the 55 nations of that continent. They did not line up for the lies. From Uganda, Lt. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of President Yoweri Museveni tweeted after the UN vote that, “the majority of mankind (that are non-white) support Russia’s stand in Ukraine. Putin is absolutely right. When the U.S.S.R. parked nuclear armed missiles in Cuba in 1962, the West was ready to blow up the world over it. Now when NATO does the same, they expect Russia to do differently.” On March 3, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an extraordinary press conference, amidst the intensifying NATO censorship, at which he took questions from major Western media from the U.S. and Europe. He summed up at one point, that what is at stake is the world order itself. He said, “In the final analysis, this is not just the situation in Ukraine—the efforts to demilitarize and de-Nazify it—to prevent the continuing manifestations of genocide on its territory, putting a stop to any violence and ensuring for the Ukrainians an opportunity to decide their destiny themselves; no, it is the world order that is at stake. It is for this reason that the West is avoiding, in any way it can, giving a response to our implicit, clear-cut proposals on the security system in Europe that rely on existing agreement.” Mr. Lavrov’s description of the situation today makes clear the vital importance and urgency of the Schiller Institute’s statement and petition process for a new world security and development architecture, “Convoke an International Conference to Establish a new Security and Development Architecture for All Nations.” This weekend in the United States, the LaRouche movement is taking the message to the streets as the Truckers Freedom Convoy converges on Washington, D.C.. The newly-printed, mass circulation report will be on site from The LaRouche Organization, “Stop Global Britain’s Green War Drive.” |
In an op-ed published on Feb. 11, 2022, by the French “souverainist” weekly Marianne, Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun, argue in favor of a French exit from the integrated command of NATO. The German economist Peter Dittus is the former secretary general of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), while Frenchman Hannoun is its deputy director general. We reprint it here in full:“Faced with the Ukrainian Crisis, France’s NATO-EXIT Is an Absolute Emergency” Breaking with the policy of non-alignment followed by de Gaulle, Giscard and Mitterrand for 43 years, France once again became a member of the integrated military command of NATO in 2009, without the French people having been consulted by referendum. The current Ukrainian crisis reveals the serious perils to which France is exposed by being attached to a defensive collective security organization under the command of the United States that has become expansionist. Since November 2021, the French, like other peoples of the West, have been subjected to an unprecedented mental conditioning conducted by the United States and NATO on the theme of the “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine,” which may go down in history as an episode of disinformation along the lines of the fabricated intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003. What is the reality? Millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the two self-proclaimed Donbas people’s republics live under sporadic firing and shelling by the Ukrainian army against separatist forces. The concentration of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders is obviously aimed at dissuading Kiev from attempting to regain direct control of the enclaves of Donetsk and Luhansk by force. NATO’s successful disinformation on Ukraine has consisted in presenting Putin’s moral obligation to defend these Russian-speaking populations—which Ukraine wants to progressively deprive of the right to speak their language—as a prelude to the total annexation of Ukraine by Russia. The Myth of an ‘Imminent Russian Invasion’ NATO manages to pass off a concentration of Russian troops ready to come to the rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas as an “imminent Russian invasion” of the whole of Ukraine, including Odessa, Kharkiv and Kiev. An insane invasion that in reality Russia completely rules out … unless it is pushed into it by a possible prior Ukrainian attack on the Donbas. The only war that NATO seems to be winning is the one of information. We show in our book [OTANexit: Urgence Absolue, Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun, Jan. 16, 2022] the striking German propaganda map in the weekly Bild of December 4, 2021, giving an imaginary detailed plan of the “imminent Russian invasion.” The role of propaganda is terrifying, because of the charge of hatred generated by the lies on both sides. On the NATO side, the aggressive and bellicose discourse of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is irresistibly reminiscent of the famous Orwellian inversion: “Peace Is War.” And If France Had the Solution? Paris must avoid the military spiral into which the United States and NATO want to drag it. In the coming weeks, it must not allow itself to be involved in a war in Eastern Europe that is not its own. France has already agreed to deploy hundreds of men in a NATO battle group in Estonia. On January 1, it took the lead in the NATO Rapid Response Force, which includes at least 7,700 French soldiers. President Macron has just announced the possible dispatch of 1,000 French troops to Romania under the NATO banner on the “Eastern flank,” in the Black Sea region. The military escalation is dangerous. For the security of the French people, it is necessary to exclude committing the French army under the banner of NATO in a war in Ukraine or Belarus. On the other hand, France has a diplomatic weapon to resolve the serious crisis between NATO and Russia. The detonator of this crisis was the stubbornness of Jens Stoltenberg and the Americans to pursue since 2018 a creeping process of accession of Ukraine to NATO, called “open door policy,” seen by Russia as a threat to its security. To put an end to the current confrontation, President Macron should simply declare solemnly in the name of France that his country will oppose any request from Ukraine to join NATO. As decisions on membership of the Alliance require unanimity, France can exercise a veto. In doing so, the President would be in line with the commitments he made during his 2017 presidential campaign not to support NATO’s expansion to Ukraine. It would be an elegant way out of the crisis. Alas, the French President, during his visit to Moscow and then to Kiev on February 7 and 8, 2022, did not consider this simple solution because French diplomacy did not oppose in the NATO bodies the mad “open door policy” to the membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. On the other hand, France supports NATO and the G7 in their demand for the return of Crimea to Ukraine, knowing full well that it cannot be done without a war, possibly nuclear. American Subordination At the time of the (Maastricht) 1992 referendum on the EU treaty, no one could have imagined that this great project of Mitterrand and Kohl for peace would be deviated from, from 1998 onward, by the American geopolitical project to take de facto control of the European common defense and security policy. This was due to the simultaneous enlargement of the EU and NATO to ten Eastern European countries between 1991 and 2007, and also to President Sarkozy’s decision, with far-reaching consequences, to abandon in 2008 the Gaullist strategic position of refusing to participate in NATO’s integrated military command. From the moment that 21 of the 27 EU countries, including France, became full members of NATO, the initial spirit of Maastricht was betrayed, because “Europe for peace” was inevitably going to be thwarted by the interference of the United States, with its own geopolitical objectives, in the common European defense and security policy. In reality, there can be no independent French or European defense within the current framework of participation in the integrated military command of NATO by France and 21 other European Union states. The concept of “European strategic autonomy” within NATO is an illusion, given the control of the United States over this Alliance. The EU seeks to hide this fundamental flaw behind a vague concept: the “strategic compass.” The fundamental incompatibility between the U.S.-controlled NATO and an independent French or European defense does not prevent our leaders from defending the thesis of complementarity between the EU and NATO in terms of defense, as summarized on December 11, 2021 by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs: “We are keen for the EU and NATO to complement and reinforce each other in order to contribute to strengthening security and defense in Europe. This is the meaning of the strategic compass that will be adopted during the French Presidency of the EU Council.” Defense: The Impasse of ‘At the Same Time’ The EU’s “strategic compass” is above all an effort to provide a conceptual framework for the false idea that “European strategic autonomy” in relation to the United States is compatible with the NATO membership of the vast majority of EU member states. This complementarity between NATO and the EU, the “at the same time” applied to defense, is an illusion. The fussy logic of national independence has given way to the vague and misleading concept of strategic autonomy and the search for interdependence and interoperability with our “allies.” Beyond the immediate crisis surrounding Ukraine, the [French] presidential elections of April 10 and 24 must allow for a decision on the question of NATO. All those who reject NATO’s march towards the war that is brewing on the Eastern borders of the EU have a unique opportunity, with the presidential election of 2022, to send a simple and clear message of peace to the leaders of our country, in one word: NATO-EXIT (Otanexit). It is a question of ensuring that a candidate for peace is elected President, who is committed to putting an end to France’s alignment with NATO. One can think that the outgoing President will want to avoid a debate in the presidential campaign on the question of our military alliances in NATO: alliance with the adventurism of the Anglo-Saxons, whose arrogance was revealed by the Australian submarine affair, unnatural alliance with Islamist Turkey, alliance with Polish nationalism, and tomorrow perhaps, alliance with a Germany that could use NATO as a springboard for its remilitarization, or even alliance with Kosovo against Serbia. This list alone allows us to measure the risks of a collective security system comprising 30 heterogeneous nations, and dominated by one of them. An Unconstitutional ‘Defense Union’ On January 7, 2022, in a joint press conference with President Macron in Paris, the President of the European Commission allowed herself a federalist statement that exceeded her prerogatives: “We agree that we need a real defense union.” In the presence of President Macron, she spoke of adding a “Defense Union” to the Economic and Monetary Union in the future, without taking into account the fact that this statement is contrary to the French Constitution, which is based on national independence, national sovereignty and national defense. It is necessary to oppose the stealthy European federalism that is currently being practiced, which cannot replace a federalism that is democratically accepted—or rejected—by referendum, according to the procedure followed in 1992 by François Mitterrand for the transfer of monetary sovereignty provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. The French people must reject the concept of defense union under the banner of NATO that Ursula von der Leyen wants to impose on them. France’s current alignment with NATO, through its participation in the integrated military command under American leadership, is a strategic dead end for a country with a universal vocation like France. Today, this country has a historic role to play in stopping the march towards war in Europe initiated by the NATO sleepwalkers. France’s exit from NATO, which will mark the end of the alignment of France’s foreign security policy with the United States, will have an immense impact on the world. It will signal Europe’s independence from American exceptionalism, the renewal of multilateralism, the emergence of a multipolar world and the rapid demise of the obsolete NATO framework. France will then rediscover its universal vocation, contributing to the global balance for peace, and playing, thanks to its rediscovered impartiality, a role of synthesis within the P5, the concert of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and France), a P5 whose composition must be maintained and whose role as regulator of world peace must be enhanced.
|
Today Secretary of State Antony Blinken held a State Department press conference, and closed-door sessions with members of Congress, announcing that the U.S. has provided written responses to Russia’s December texts of proposed security agreements. He also stated, “Additionally, NATO developed and will deliver to Moscow its own paper with ideas and concerns about collective security in Europe—and that paper fully reinforces ours, and vice versa. There is no daylight among the United States and our allies and partners on these matters.”In reality, while Blinken’s remarks repeated his usual dark litany of accusations and threats against Russia, daylight is showing through from many directions, on how dangerous and how “British” this whole confrontationism is. Blinken may blow clouds of smoke about “unity,” input from “allies,” and the like, but reality is otherwise. Even a reporter asked Blinken, you talk about “a unified approach with Europe. What do you make of Germany’s stance?” She said, “Would you say that you’re happy or satisfied with Germany sending helmets to Ukraine instead of arms shipments?” Blinken could only huff and puff about how each country has “different capabilities.” In brief, what Blinken did say in his press briefing, was that Russia is the aggressor against Ukraine, and warned, “We’ve lined up steep consequences, should Russia choose further aggression.” Blinken reiterated his “two path” sophistic approach to Russia: that Western militarization in Eastern Europe is the path of deterrence, but otherwise, the U.S. and the West are open to diplomacy, “should Russia choose it.” On the so-called deterrence path, Blinken gave a full report. He said, “Three deliveries of U.S. defensive military assistance arrived in Kiev this week, carrying additional javelin missiles and other anti-armor systems, 283 tons of ammunition and non-lethal equipment…. More deliveries are expected in the days to come. We have provided more defensive security assistance to Ukraine in the past year than in any previous year…. Last week, I authorized U.S. allies—including Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—to provide U.S.-origin military equipment…. Also last week, we notified Congress of our intent to deliver to Ukraine the Mi-17 helicopters….” And 8,500 U.S. servicemen are on “heightened readiness to deploy” in case needed to “to harden the Allies’ eastern flank.” Among the expanding opposition to this dangerous showdown are several political leaders and formations in Europe. In Croatia, President Zoran Milanovic said this week that his country will in no way get involved in the Ukraine crisis, nor send soldiers. He states that Ukraine does not belong in NATO, and that it was the European Union (N.B., including the U.K.) that triggered a coup in Kiev in 2014. Moreover, Milanovic said, as reported by Euractiv, that the crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine or Russia, but is connected with the dynamics of the United States internal situation, and that international security problems reflect “inconsistencies and dangerous behavior” by the U.S.A. In Spain, the Unidos Podemos party and eight smaller parties, all nine leftwing members of the Socialist Party’s governing coalition, have publicly opposed Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s decision to send military forces to participate in NATO’s buildup of forces against Russia, and are calling for an anti-war mobilization like that of 2003 which drove out the Aznar government that had deployed Spain’s military forces for George Bush’s war on Iraq. The existence of NATO itself is being questioned. On Friday, Jan. 28, French President Emmanuel Macron will be speaking by phone to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Today in Paris, officials of the Normandy group of four nations—France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, met for eight hours, and issued a statement. They plan to meet again in Berlin next month. Today, Sputnik news ran an article reviewing the opposition in France and elsewhere in Europe to the U.S./U.K. showdown with Russia. Headlined, “French Politician: Puzzled by U.S. Warmongering, France & Germany Trying to Avoid EU Militarisation,” the article is based on an interview with Karel Vereycken, Vice-President of Solidarité & Progrès in France, who said that “France and Germany aren’t interested in dancing to the U.S., the U.K. and NATO’s tune—for good reason….” The Schiller Institute is providing the critical platform internationally to wake up the world to the war danger and to what has to be done in foreign relations and economically, including emergency humanitarian action, to stop the conditions and perpetrators who created this terrible emergency. The website offers ammunition, and another international conference to rally action is in the works for early February.
|
By Harley SchlangerApril 23, 2021 -- As tensions increase dramatically due to the targeting of Russia, China and other nations which refuse to submit to the unipolar, "rules-based order" enforced by the U.S., U.K. and NATO, President Putin delivered a "stern warning", in his 17th annual State of the Nation address on April 21. While addressing Russian concerns over the state of the economy, his remarks were pointed regarding the strategic crisis stemming from ongoing geopolitical provocations in Ukraine, against Belarus and elsewhere, even as he reiterated his desire for more cooperation, renewing his call for a summit of the Permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council.
|