Med formand Tom Gillesberg:
<iframe width=”100%” height=”450″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”no” src=”https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/263241683&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true”></iframe>
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Kommer senere på dansk.
Hussein Askary Speech in Copenhagen to the Schiller Institute-EIR
Seminar “Extend the World Land-Bridge to Southwest Asia and
Africa,” April 18, 2016
{Hussein Askary had fair number of graphics and charts, which he
used to illustrate his presentation.}
TOM GILLESBERG: The next speaker is somebody very unique
and unusual, Hussein Askary originally comes from Iraq and had
to get out under very nasty circumstances, as many others. But
that became a blessing at least for our organization, because
Hussein, through Norway, ended up to become part of the
international LaRouche organization in 1994, and has since then
been contributing quite fantastically to our international work.
And he is one of the authors of the original {New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge} report; but then also made a
decision, that this cannot simply stay in the English language,
or Chinese. This also has to be in the Arabic language. So
Hussein took it upon himself to translate this into the Arabic
language and then also of course, write some extra parts to it,
which is necessary for the present circumstances in Southwest
Asia to have.
This report just came out. It was release on March 17, in
Cairo, in a meeting presided over by the Egyptian Transportation
Minister who then introduced Hussein, and the hope of course is
that this will become something read and studied and acted on in
the whole Arabic world, as well as the rest of the world. So
Hussein?
HUSSEIN ASKARY: You have heard Helga today, giving a very
stern and sobering warning about the state of affairs in the
world, the dangers are very real to the world today. What I am
going to do, and please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not going to
give you a picture of how rosy and nice things are, either in
Southwest Asia, the so-called Middle East, or in Africa, but, as
they say in sports, you have to keep your eye on the ball. What
Helga just said, is that there is a new paradigm in the world,
which can lead to a completely different, and new world order.
And it’s that paradigm, within which myself, the Schiller
Institute, and the people we are talking to, we want to direct
their attention to that new paradigm.
I’m thankful to Leena Malkki for her beautiful singing, and,
especially, the {Aida} aria. It was actually performed at the
opening of the Suez Canal, the second Suez Canal, last year.
The idea of great projects, the idea of great challenges,
like Hela was explaining, this idea of being in space, looking at
the world from space, and, also, the idea of major projects, like
the Suez Canal, like the Three Gorges Dam in China, the New Silk
Road, the effect they have on people, is that they challenge
their imagination, and challenge their creativity, because they
represent major difficulties, major technical problems,
intellectual problems, that have to be solved, before you achieve
these major projects. And that transforms the idea of people. It
also gives people an idea of a creative constructive identity,
and the position of man in the world, on this Earth, and also in
the universe. That is why we try to work on these concepts of the
New Silk Road, the extension of the New Silk Road, to {inspire}
people to think outside of the box, outside of the box of
geopolitics, which Helga was trying to explain. We have to get
out of geopolitics. We have to act {human} again. But that has
practical implications. There are practical problems, and other
issues, and even scientific issues we have to resolve.
So, for those who are not familiar, this is the extension of
the New Silk Road. The New Silk Road has existed as the new
strategic policy of China since 1996, but we want to expand this
into a global collaboration, a blueprint, as Tom said, a concept
for peace and cooperation among nations. We have to connect the
Economic Belt of the Silk Road (the one with the yellow), which
is already being built. As Helga said, the first train arrived
from China to Tehran last month. There are projects going on in
Siberia. So there are trains going from Asia to Europe. There is
no problem with that. We need to extend it into the Southwest
Asia region, the so-called Middle East (I can explain later why I
say Southwest Asia, and not the Middle East), and into Africa,
and of course, into the Americas.
So, you can see that the red lines are where we have the
biggest deficits, the biggest deficits in infrastructure, both
transportation infrastructure, but also in other needs, deficits
in water, and deficits in electricity.
What is different in the Arabic part, which I rewrote
certain parts of it, like the Southwest Asia part, we also added
the Arabian Peninsula, also, to the idea of the connection to the
New Silk Road. This is no longer simply a Silk Road; this is the
World Land-Bridge, which can unite all the continents of the
world.
In 1996, I had the great fortune to work with Helga
Zepp-LaRouche and the team of {EIR} to make the first major study
of the New Silk Road, and it was that one which was adopted by
the Chinese government as the strategic policy of China. It was
also a thick report like this.
This work is being done, mostly in East Asia, Central Asia,
Iran, Turkey, Russia, all these nations are involved, but what is
lacking is the connection to the rest. So it has been 20 years
since that idea emerged, but there was no response from the
countries in the Arab world, for example, or in Africa.
Now, the idea with all these lines is not only about trade.
We want to warn people, that we are not talking about moving
goods from China to Europe. That’s not our concept. That’s a
byproduct. What we mean by the New Silk Road, the World
Land-Bridge, that we need to create development corridors: a
development corridor where you bring power, water, and technology
to areas that are landlocked, that are far from industrial zones,
and, explore the resources, human and natural resources of that
region, to develop new centers of economic activity. Like
landlocked nations, like in Central Asia, or the Great Lakes
region in Africa. That’s the concept. It’s not about trade,
although trade is an important aspect of this.
In 2002, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, the American economist and
political leader, the husband of Mrs. LaRouche, was in Abu Dhabi,
in a conference about oil, and the role of oil in world politics,
and the future of oil. And there were many ministers of oil
actually from the Arab countries — the gentleman to the right is
the energy minister of the United Arab Emirates — and Mr.
LaRouche shocked everybody, and said that the Arab countries, or
the Gulf countries, have to gradually stop exporting raw oil, and
actually use raw oil and gas as an industrial product, for
petrochemicals, plastics, where every barrel of oil will give
many times its value, rather than burning it as energy. He said
that you should use your position in the world, as a crossroads
of continents. You have to utilize that position as a crossroads
for world trade, but also, the connection between Africa, Asia
and Europe.
So I added these to the Arabic version, because I think that
this is a very unique area in the world, not only that its
strategic location is very unique, no other part of the world has
that; you also have two-thirds of the world’s energy resources,
so-called, oil and gas in that region, but also, most
importantly, you have about 450 million people. Most of them are
young people. And actually, many of them have a good education.
You also have nations with a very ancient history and culture,
and a very historical identity, like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and
so on, and they also have an idea of themselves as becoming key
players in the world, but we hope that they will become key
players in the world in the economic, scientific and cultural
sense.
The problem is that all these advantages have been turned
into disadvantages. So this region has become a center for global
politics, for global geopolitics, and that is why we see the
conditions we have in the whole Middle East region becoming like
this.
Our idea is, now we have this new situation with the Russian
intervention, the prospect, the possibility of having a peaceful
political solution in Syria, the prospect of uniting many powers
to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda, and so on, both in Iraq and Syria,
and also in Libya. But this should be followed, as Helga said, we
need a Marshall Plan, we need an economic development plan, to
establish peace on a true basis.
The reason I joined the Schiller Institute in 1994, was that
I was in Oslo, and I was working as a translator, and there was a
Palestinian children’s delegation coming with Yasser Arafat; and
I was going around with them, and, at that time, you had the Oslo
peace agreement. A week later, I saw a sign that the Schiller
Institute was having a meeting in Oslo. They had a very
interesting title. They said in the meeting that if you don’t
start with the economic development of the Palestinian people,
the people in Jordan, Syria, Israel, and so on, if you don’t base
the peace process on a solid economic basis, this whole thing
will fail. And the peace process is, of course, dead now, both
because of that, but also because of geopolitics which has
prevented reaching a true peace.
So, therefore, to establish true peace, we need an economic
and scientific program. Helga referred to president Xi Jinping’s
visit to the region in January this year. I consider this as an
historic turning point, actually, because at that point, in late
January, Saudi Arabia and Iran were at the point where there was
a big risk of a direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, because
of the beheading of a Shi’a clergy in Saudi Arabia, which led to
demonstrations, the burning of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, and
so on. So the Chinese intervention came at a very crucial point,
where they said, “Look, all these religious conflicts and
problems you have with each other, can lead the whole world into
a disaster. Why don’t we work on our method? We offer you to join
the New Silk Road. We offer economic development, and technology,
and even financing, so we can connect all of your countries which
are in conflict with each other together into this global
process.” And this is very, very important. And nations in the
region have to really grasp that opportunity now, and, instead of
discussing the fate of President Assad, they should discuss what
kinds of economic projects they should work together on.
One of the issues that I didn’t mention, is that, for
example, even as Helga said, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they can
join this, if they stop this other policy, because we also have
one of the largest concentrations of financial power in the Gulf
countries; the so-called sovereign funds of the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries is about $2 trillion. This can be transformed
into credit.
In the report, I propose the establishment of the Arab
Infrastructure Investment Bank. A bank which will be financed by
these rich countries, which would have a capital of $100-200
billion, and that capital will only be earmarked for
infrastructure and development projects.
So every nation has a role in this. And in the report, we
have also added, which is not in the English report, a plan, a
general outline for the reconstruction of Syria, by utilizing
Syria’s position also as a bridge for the Silk Road, both from
Asia, and from Europe, into Africa. We also propose the
construction of a Syrian National Reconstruction Bank, which is
very important. We have a very important chapter in the report
about how nations can internally finance major infrastructure
programs. Because, the big question, which comes all the time
when I am in Arab countries, or in Africa, is, they say “OK. This
sounds good. Who will pay for this? Where will the money come
from?” Actually, you don’t really need money, in that sense. You
can create the money, but you have to know where to use that
money. As Helga said, the central banks in Europe and the United
States are pumping massive amounts of liquidity into the
financial and banking system. But none of that is transformed
into technologies or projects, public projects, or housing
projects, or industrial projects in Europe or anywhere. So money
is being printed, but it is not being used.
But there is a method, which we call the Hamiltonian
national credit system, which every nation can actually
internally generate credit to finance part of its national
development plans, and this is one thing we put in the Syria
plan. Because every time there is a war like in Bosnia, in
Lebanon, and so on, you have donor conferences, where every
nation says that we will give you so much money, 100 million, 50
million, but there is no centralized idea about how to rebuild
the whole country. It all depends on donations, small drops which
come. We want something massive. We want something big. Foreign
governments should contribute to that by exporting technology to
Syria, for example, which Syria cannot afford to build, or afford
to buy, in the current situation.
Also, a part of our plan for Southwest Asia is to fight
against desertification, by managing and creating new water
resources, stopping the expansion of the desert. This is the
Iraqi Green Belt project to stop the effect of sand and dust
storms, which actually is a big problem for many cities in Iraq,
sometimes even reaching into Iran, by building a Green Belt,
planting trees in a large scale, a belt by using both ground
water and water from the rivers. This is a kind of national
program which can unite the people of Iraq for an idea of their
future together. Not Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, Turkish, and so on,
and so forth. These are the kinds of projects, real physical
projects, which will challenge people to work together in a
country like Iraq.
Now, I took this Egyptian model, because in Egypt, you have
a very terrible situation, which is the accumulation of 30 years
of destructive economic and financial policies, mostly caused by
former President Mubarak’s and Anwar Sadat’s collaboration with
the IMF and the World Bank. There should be a shift in the way
Egyptians consider their economy. Because Egypt always waits for
the IMF or the World Bank, the EU or the United States to give
some money so that they can start something new. And usually
money does not go to large scale. Europe, the United States, the
UN, the IMF and the World Bank will {never} finance large
infrastructure projects. That’s the policy. Small, small, small
is beautiful. That’s what they say.
But in Egypt, with the new leadership in Egypt, you have the
focus on mega-projects, which is a necessity. If you want to save
Egypt’s economy, Egypt’s entire infrastructure has to be built
from scratch again. There should be new industrial and
agricultural centers, which they are focusing on.
Using high technology, they try to attract the highest
levels of technology, and internal financing. You know, President
el-Sisi, when they wanted to build the Suez Canal, there was no
money, as usual, they said. So what he did was something unique.
He went outside the central bank. He went outside the budget, and
said, “I will go on TV, and I will tell the Egyptian people that
we want to build this canal. It’s crucial for our nation. We want
you to give the money.”
In 2013 I wrote a memorandum for Egypt, an Egyptian Economic
Independence Document, I called it. Actually, inside Egypt, you
can raise more than $100 billion, because there are resources
inside Egypt. People, even today, buy dollars. They take part of
their salary, and buy dollars or gold, and keep it at home, so
that financing disappears from the system. It’s not reinvested in
the system. People keep their money because of the unstable
economic situation.
But if you encourage the Egyptian people with this kind of
national development projects, which will put their kids to work,
unemployed young people, they would come out with the money. And
this is what el-Sisi did. I wrote at the time, that they should
build a National Development Bank, not just one fund for the Suez
Canal, as they did. But as soon as President el-Sisi came on TV
and said, “We want to build this canal, but we don’t have the
money. We want the Egyptian people to pay for it.” So they went
out, and in one week they raised $8 billion. And people were
queuing late into the night; I met a banker last year, who said,
“We had to stay open into the night, because people were queuing
at the banks to buy the bonds!” Egyptians are real patriots. They
love their country, but if they are encouraged by good
leadership.
Of course, the Suez Canal is not giving back what was
supposed to be already from the beginning, because world trade
has collapsed. The level of transit in the Suez Canal has gone
down, not because of Egypt’s policy, but because the world
economy is going down. Global trade has been collapsing. But the
idea is to use the Suez Canal as a development zone. And this is
what I got from people in the Suez Canal Authority — that they
are not only thinking about transport of goods, but they want to
utilize that route to build new industrial zones around the
canal, like we showed in the development corridor idea. And, of
course, Egypt has a very key role, both in the Arab world — it’s
the most important Arab country — and also in Africa.
Now Egypt has one big problem — it’s the demographic
problem. People say that Egypt is overpopulated. That’s not true.
Egypt is not overpopulated. Cairo is overcrowded! Ninety million
people live on only 5% of the land of Egypt; 95% of the land of
Egypt is empty. It’s not used, but it’s not overpopulated. The
United States and Europe have been financing the Egyptian
government with hundreds of millions of dollars for family
planning, so that women will have fewer children. But no projects
were built to expand Egypt’s economic potential to accommodate to
the new generations, so that they can have new agricultural and
urban centers out in the desert!
After I was in Egypt last year, I wrote a report for a major
economic conference in Egypt to attract investment; but these are
the ideas which came out of both the conference, and my
observations about Egypt’s role in the New Silk Road. In Egypt,
people were very negative to the idea of the New Silk Road,
because they said that the transshipment on the Silk Road will
take away trade from the Suez Canal — that shipments will go
from Asia to Europe by land, and we will lose. So there are a lot
of people in Egypt who are actually against the idea. But I was
telling people, “Look. It’s not about trade. If you have economic
development, you will need more Suez Canals to accommodate the
trade. But if the world economy is not growing, there is no
development, there will be no trade. And people will compete on
attracting trade into other areas.”
So the idea is to develop Egypt’s economy, but also
contribute to more development and more trade among nations. And
it’s in utilizing Egypt’s position to connect to Sub-Saharan
Africa, to North Africa, the Middle East, and to the Arabian
Peninsula. Interestingly, after I was in Egypt, last week the
Saudi King was in Egypt, and they decided to build this bridge.
At Sharm el-Sheikh, there is a connection over the Gulf of Aqaba.
I think that the Egyptian President invited the Saudi King to
support the building of this bridge between the Saudi territories
and southern Sinai, which will turn Sinai from an isolated area,
suddenly into becoming the center between two major economies.
There are now big problems in Egypt, because the President
made a terrible mistake by conceding sovereignty over the Tiran
and Sanafir islands to the Saudis. There was a dispute between
the two countries for many years, but President el-Sisi suddenly
declared that they are Saudi islands, and now there is a big
uproar in Egypt. And the mistake was that there was no public
discussion about it. The parliament didn’t have anything to say
about this. So, now there will be a review of the agreement. But
the idea of this project is very important.
Now, for Egypt to get out of that demographic box, is for
Egypt to expand its economic activities into the desert. This is
the development corridor proposed by Dr. Farouk El-Baz, who is a
space scientist, and he is right now an advisor to the President.
And he designed this idea of creating the new valley, the new
Nile Valley, by building railways, roads, and new urban centers.
I added these green zones, because these are actually becoming
new agricultural areas that the Egyptian government wants to
invest in, by creating new farmlands — they are talking about 4
million acres of land, and settling young people into these
regions, and building new agro-industrial centers. But what is
needed is to extend the development corridor, the black line,
into the economic zones.
This is the Africa Pass. One of our Egyptian friends, an
engineer, presented this at our conference in 2012, it’s the same
idea, connecting Egypt to North Africa, to Europe, and into the
Great Lakes region of Africa. Now, the Great Lakes region
countries, like Rwanda, Burundi, the eastern Congo, Uganda, they
have massive problems of economic development, also because they
are very far from the transport corridors of the world. We wrote
a series of reports two years ago about the cost of shipment of a
container. The Danish shipping company A.P. Møller-Mærsk has
statistics that the cost of a shipment of a container from
Singapore to Alexandria is $4,000, to Mombasa in eastern Kenya,
it becomes $5,000; but to the capital of Uganda, it goes to
$8,000, because there are no good roads to ship that container!
Into Rwanda and Burundi it reaches $10,600 per container. So they
cannot bear the cost of shipment of containers that maybe have
technology inside them, and machines, and that is a major problem
for these so-called land-locked countries. So you need to have
new lines of transport which will reduce the cost of the
transport.
Now these are ideas which the African nations, the African
Union, have had for many years. There are many very nice plans,
but the attitude of the rest of the world to Africa, because
Africa, by itself, does not have the technology, at least, to
build these projects, and there has been no willingness in
Europe, or the United States, to finance, or contribute to
building the projects proposed in any of these major reports, to
integrate the infrastructure of Africa and enhance economic
development. Because without infrastructure, you cannot have
economic development.
But some of these lines are now coming on the agenda, thanks
to the intervention of the BRICS nations, and also of China. For
example, the Cairo-Cape Town highway idea, President Jacob Zuma
of South Africa, presented this actually twice at the BRICS
summit in 2013 and 2014, and he said, “This is a crucial, a key
element in the development of Africa. We need to work with the
BRICS nations and China, Russia and India to build these
projects.” There are 400 road and rail projects involved in this.
But this is a big challenge, both in terms of financing, and in
terms of technology.
There is also the possibility of connecting the river
systems of Africa for river transport, like in Europe, the
Main-Rhine-Danube Rivers are an important transport artery, and
development artery. In the same way, you can connect the Nile to
the Great Lakes, to the Zambezi River through a number of canals,
and so-called trans-modal transport systems, where you can ship
from rivers to rail, and back to rivers, to lakes, and so on, in
an easy way.
Filling the gap which the United States and Europe have left
for many, many years, now the Chinese–. Well, in Europe, we
have a very problematic and twisted relationship to poverty, to
poor countries, to underdeveloped countries. Europeans look at
Africa as a burden. It’s a problem. How do we solve this problem?
But the problem is that the whole focus has been on aid,
emergency relief, and so on, and so forth, but that really
doesn’t solve problems. I mean, people talk about genocide. In
Africa, every year there are 4 million children who die. Now,
talk about a war crime. There are 700,000 children before the
age of five who die every year in Africa. So, you cannot solve
these problems with small aid projects here and there. You need
to think big. You need to provide those people with adequate
transport, electricity, water systems, and this cannot be done by
so-called aid programs. In Africa 600 million people don’t have
access to electricity, out of 1 billion.
But you look at the Chinese, when they look at an
underdeveloped country, they see an opportunity. They see
potential. They see a “win-win” strategy — new markets, new
areas of development, and they should intervene in that
situation.
It is the same idea that President Franklin Roosevelt of the
United States had. All of his fights with Churchill were exactly
about this problem. Roosevelt told Churchill in the middle of
World War II, that you British are very stupid, because you suck
the blood of the Africans, and you get pennies, you get nothing,
by sucking their blood. But if you develop Africa, as independent
nations, as modern nations, as we did with the United States,
then you will gain much, much more; if you treat them as humans,
if you develop their infrastructure, schools and hospitals.
And this is exactly what the Chinese are thinking about. Out
of the problem, they see an opportunity. Prime Minister Li
Keqiang was in East Africa, and also Nigeria in May 2014, and
immediately said, “We want to help Africa to connect all the
capitals with railways,” which is a big deficit problem. And they
started from East Africa. And now there are projects being built
from Lamu, a new port, into the land-locked South Sudan, into
Uganda, into Rwanda and Burundi. And China is both financing
major parts of this, but also contributing to building it, to
solve the problems of the land-locked countries and the need for
development.
China recently completed, it’s not running yet, but part of
the railway is running, from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. There is an
old railway, which is not functional, built by the French
colonialists, but now there is a new, electrified railway, which
goes from Djibouti to Addis Ababa.
Two interesting things about this railway are, firstly, that
Ethiopia is always associated with famine and food problems. Some
of these problems still exist. These are on the way to being
solved, but to bring food from the ports to inside the country
usually took two months, because of the lack of infrastructure.
So starving people could not have food in time. Even if the food
existed in the port, coming from around the world to Djibouti, it
was almost impossible to bring the food to the people who needed
it. Now, that food can be shipped in 10 hours, to the capital,
and also to other areas. The other interesting fact about this
railway is that China is not just building the railway, and
financing it, but training and educating engineers and workers to
run these systems.
Now, Ethiopia has a massive infrastructure plan for
connecting all the major cities of Ethiopia, with the railway and
roads. The other thing about the railway is that it is all
electrified. And the Ethiopians will use all these new dams they
are building, to electrify the railway. So they don’t need import
oil, and gas and diesel to run the railway system. They will
domestically provide the energy to run the trains.
So, Ethiopia, I am very sure it will never be associated
anymore with famine and poverty. Ethiopia is a great nation, a
very proud nation. They have massive resources, but these
resources have been dormant, have not been utilized. But now,
with the Chinese intervention, and also India is active there,
these resources will be developed.
This is just a metaphorical picture. This is the
Mombasa-Nairobi railway being built by a Chinese and a Kenyan
worker. In Africa, the propaganda goes that the Chinese never let
the locals work in these projects. They bring their own workers,
they bring their own engineers, their own technology, they build
the thing, and then they leave. It’s not true. They always
involve local workers. They train them, because they cannot run
these systems; the locals will have to run these systems
themselves.
But they are also training the labor force in Uganda. They
are building an Army Corps of Engineers, so that the Army can
play a positive role in the development of the country.
Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers played a very
important role, even in advanced countries. So this is part of
the same project.
Another important infrastructure project for Africa is
Transaqua. Lake Chad is drying up, which is a known fact, and 30
million people are affected, because they live as fishermen, or
they have grazing land around the lake in Chad and Nigeria, and
Niger. All these countries are affected. There are 30 million
people around that region, and there will be massive migration
actually from the Lake Chad region. So there is an idea called
Transaqua, which was developed by one of our friends, an Italian
engineer, to bring 5% of the water from the Congo River, or the
tributaries of the Congo River, and build a 2,800 km.-long canal
into the Chari River, and then flow downwards into Lake Chad, to
refill the lake; but also to have a new economic zone, and build
the Mombasa-Lagos highway, which was one of the plans I showed
earlier.
So you can transform that part of Africa, which in people’s
minds is a complete jungle, into a new economic zone, but also to
bring water to the Lake Chad region.
Now, there are some other issues I want to address. One of
the big deficits of course in Africa, is the energy consumption.
And as I said not everybody has that; the average international
level of energy consumption is about 2,800 [kw?] but that’s not
equal. The only two countries which are exception are South
Africa and Libya, before that. So the energy needs in Africa are
{enormous}! I mean Africa has a lot of wealth, but also the
hydropower potential which has never been built. But the
attitude of the Western countries, like the Obama administration,
they have something called “Power Africa Initiative,” that
certain nations in Africa will get energy provided. But they’re
not talking about hydropower, they’re not talking about nuclear
power, they’re not talking about coal or gas or so on. They’re
talking about so-called “renewable” or “sustainable energy.” And
the International Energy Agency has a criteria for access to
energy, which is a modern access to energy is about 100kw-hours
per year per person. And this diagram shows very ironically,
that that amount will be consumed by an American in three days!
But they expect Africans to live with that for a whole year!
Here’s just one more ironical idea: My refrigerator can consume
many times as much as an Ethiopian individual.
These are the criteria for President Obama’s Power Africa
plan, that the plan will eventually help these nations come to
this line, while the real needs are that big now, and they will
be that big in a few years. So, all these ideas to help Africa
from the Obama administration, they’re not adequate! It’s just a
complete bluff. It does not help, if you just look at the
numbers.
And this is also another irony of the Obama administration
policy. These are the sources of energy for the American people,
the American economy, and these are what the Obama administration
{doesn’t} want you to do. So it’s “do as we say, not as we do.”
So the United States produced 37% of its energy from coal, that’s
forbidden for Africa; 30% produced by natural gas, that’s a very
suspicious policy, because there’s the carbon problem; 19%
nuclear — absolutely no nuclear for Africa; 7% hydropower — the
United States is very suspicious of hydropower projects, and so
on and so on. So what is left is solar, so-called geothermal,
and biomass, which the United States produced only 0.1% of its
needs. But that’s recommended for Africa. [laughter]
So anyway, the idea is that if Africa joins the new paradigm
shift, African nations, they have exactly, in African families
and African individuals, they have exactly the same needs as we
have; as we have in Europe or in the United States. There is
absolutely no difference. So they’re trying to convince the
Africans that they should just, maybe, if they’re lucky they
could get a lightbulb at home, so the kids can read, by having a
solar battery. They will not bite!
I mean, if you bring electricity to a village, what people
will do, is not simply have a lightbulb, if you bring electricity
to a village, — and one of our friends made a study in India —
is that people will start to want to use new devices. They have
to have other appliances at home, you need to have a stove, so
women don’t have to many hours and cut trees and come home and
cook with the wood, and suffocate with the smoke. Farmers will
have to have tractors. They will need to have workshops which
use electricity; people will want to have TV sets, computers.
They want to build industrial projects. They will need
refrigeration which is a big problem in Africa, because most of
the food produced in the Sub-Saharan goes wasted because there’s
no refrigeration.
So just to give yourself an illusion that you will provide
every African lightbulb, just forget about it! Because the needs
of those people are so immense, and they will not give up on
their right to have a living standard which is similar to ours.
Why shouldn’t they have it? And this is what — here, in the
ideology in Europe and the United States I know, they should not
have this kind of technology, they should not have this kind of
development in Africa, because that’s not “sustainable.” Which is
not true. It is sustainable, if you provide the tools and the
technology to do that. Actually in Africa, there are more
resources than in Japan or in the United States and Europe, to
sustain industrial development!
So the problem is in the policy. The problem is how they
look at Africa, and how they look at the problem of poverty and
so on. And that has also to change, exactly as we changed with
geopolitics, we have to change our attitude to the problems of
Africa, and have really the right methods to solving them, and
treating African nations as equal to us, and African families as
equal to us, and African individuals as equal to us.
Nobody here will give up their living standard, and live in
the forest — maybe some people who do, there are some Danes and
Norwegians… [laughter] But we want to have education. We want
to have warm housing, we want to have clean water; we want to
have a future for our kids; we want to have trains which go on
time. This is what the Africans want. You know, there’s nothing
different, we’re all one human race!
So, when you design policy and you say, “No, Africans should
have ‘sustainable energy,’ not nuclear power,” then you are
breaking with that idea of a real human family and equality. So
I think I’ll stop here. [applause]
Dias til talen:
Schiller Instituttet og Executive Intelligence Review holdt et seminar mandag den 18. april 2016 på Frederiksberg på engelsk.
Inkl. en diskussion om EIR’s specialrapport Den Nye Silkevej Bliver til Verdenslandbroen
Introduktion:Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark
Musik:
Fischerweise af Schubert
Ritorna Vincitor! fra Aida af Verdi
Leena Malkki, soprano fra Sverige
Dominik Wijzan, pianist fra Poland
Teksterne på originalsprogene med engelsk oversættelse
Video: Introduktion og musik
Talere: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets internationale præsident, kendt som “Silkevejsdamen” (via Skype video)
Video: Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Audio: Introduktion, musik og Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Afskrift: Et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden: Afskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale
Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Mellemøsten og Afrika: Hussein Askary, EIR’s Mellemøstredaktør, som lige har oversat den arabiske version af rapporten.
Den Nye Silkevej og den iranske rolle; Hr. Abbas Rasouli, først sekretær på Irans ambassade i Danmark.
Video: Hussein Askary og Hr. Abbas Rasouli.
Audio: Hussein Askary og Hr. Abbas Rasouli
Afskrift: Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Sydvestasien og Afrika: Afskrift af Hussein Askarys tale
Afskrift: Den Nye Silkevej og Irans rolle: Afskrift af Hr. Abbas Rasoulis tale
Mere om Den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen på dansk:
Specialrapport: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Den Nye Silkevej fører til menneskehedens fremtid! Oktober 2014
Den kommende fusionsøkonomi baseret på helium-3. En introduktion til en kommende EIR-rapport om Verdenslandbroen.
BYG VERDENSLANDBROEN FOR VERDENSFRED
Helga Zepp-LaRouche var taler ved et seminar for diplomater, der blev afholdt i Det russiske Kulturcenter i København den 30. januar 2015, med titlen: »Økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde mellem nationer, eller økonomisk kollaps, krig og terror? Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Nyhedsorientering febr. 2015.
Tema: Den Islamiske Renæssance var en Dialog mellem Civilisationer, af Hussein Askary
Genopbygningsplan for Syrien: Projekt Fønix: Diskussionspunkter om Syriens genopbygning
Link: Homepage about the EIR report The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge
The English, Arabic and Chinese versions of EIR's report are available from EIR and The Schiller Institute in Denmark.
Prices for the 400-page report:
English: printed 500 kr.; pdf. 300 kr.; Arabic: printed 500 kr.; Chinese: pdf. 300 kr.
Please contact tel. 53 57 00 51 or 35 43 00 33, or si@schillerinstitut.dk
Invitation:
Terror in Europe, and elsewhere. Waves of refugees leaving countries racked by war and economic ruin, from Afghanistan to Africa. Threats of financial crash in the trans-Atlantic region. Dangers of escalating confrontation and war against Russia and China. Is there any hope for the future?
The Schiller Institute and Executive Intelligence Review, led by the ideas and efforts of Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, have been working for decades to create a paradigm shift, away from "geopolitics," to a new era of cooperation between sovereign nations, based on an ambitious infrastructure-driven economic development strategy — a plan for lasting peace through economic development.
In 2013, this New Silk Road and Eurasian Land-Bridge strategy was adopted by Chinese President Xi Jinping, who called it the “One Belt, One Road” policy, which now includes agreements with 60 countries. In addition, the economic development alliance among the BRICS countries, and the establishment of new credit institutions, constitute an alternative in the making.
In December 2014, EIR published a ground-breaking special report in English, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, the sequel to its 1996 report, which elaborates the new set of economic principles needed for world economic development. The Chinese version was issued in 2015.
Now, if there is to be a solution to the heart-wrenching suffering of the people of the Middle East and Africa, and the effects of the crisis in Europe, the New Silk Road must be extended to those regions, on its way to becoming the World Land-Bridge. The recent negotiations led by U.S. Secretary of State Kerry (despite opposition from other factions in the Obama administration), and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, regarding Iran and Syria, have also helped to create the political preconditions for such a new “Marshall Plan” to immediately come into effect.
There are already moves in that direction. An example of “win-win” cooperation was demonstrated during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent visit to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran, where he confirmed China’s support for real economic development in the region, backed up by $55 billion in loans and investments.
And on March 17, the Arabic version of EIR's report was presented in Cairo by Egyptian Transportation Minister Dr. Saad El Geyoushi, and EIR Arabic desk chief Hussein Askary, who translated the report, at a well-attended launching at the Ministry. An expanded chapter on proposals to rebuild Southwest Asia is included.
The Copenhagen seminar will present the vision of a new paradigm, instead of geopolitics, terror, war and economic collapse. Mustering the creative efforts of populations collaborating to rebuild their nations, is the only way forward.
We hope that you will be able to attend this important seminar, and join in the discussion about how this alternative can be brought about.
Links:
Here are links to information about EIR's March 24, 2016 Frankfurt seminar, co-sponsored by the Ethiopian consulate, including the speeches of Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Hussein Askary.
Report about the Frankfurt seminar
Homepages:
Danish: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com
www.schillerinstitute.org
www.larouchepub.com/eiw
Arabic: www.arabic.larouchepub.com/
Other languages: Click here
København d. 6. april, 2016 – Ved et seminar i København i tirsdags, med titlen ’Udfordringer for Tunesiens demokrati’, der blev holdt ved det Danske Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), gav Mahmoud Ben Romdhane, minister for sociale affærer i den siddende tunesiske regering og tidligere menneskerettighedsaktivist udtryk for en politik, der hænger sammen med den Nye Silkevej/Verdenslandbro. Til trods for det faktum, at Schiller Instituttet ikke blev opfordret til at stille spørgsmål, sagde ministeren i respons til et spørgsmål fra en kinesisk fotograf om forskelle mellem de tunesiske og den kinesiske økonomier (frit oversat):
Verden er under forandring. I løbet af de næste 20 år vil verdens centrum bevæge sig fra det Atlantiske Ocean til Stillehavet. Kina og Indien, begge nøglenationer, er allerede de største lande. På grund af vores gode relationer med Europa kan vi blive en platform for forbindelser mellem Indien, Kina, Asien, Europa, Afrika og den arabiske verden. Vi skulle begynde at undervise i kinesisk i vore skoler, og jeg er frustreret over, at vi ikke allerede er startet. Vi har haft møder med kinesiske firmaer, og vi diskuterer mange projekter, overvejende om infrastruktur. Kineserne udtrykker deres ønsker, og vi er åbne over for deres forslag. Vi ser frem til muligheden for investeringer og jobskabelse.
Et andet højdepunkt under seminaret var da Houcine Abassi, formand for Tunesiens indflydelsesrige fagforening, UGTT, en af de fire organisationer, der har modtaget Nobelprisen, angreb ”stormagterne”, der står bag terrorismen. Som svar på et spørgsmål om hvorfor økonomien ikke er blevet bedre siden revolutionen for fem år siden sagde han (frit oversat):
Arbejdsløsheden er 15 %, hvilket skaber vrede blandt ungdommen. Det skyldes en fejltagelse af den tidligere regering. Om Gud vil, vil vi finde løsninger. Men vi kræver hjælp fra verden udenom os. Hvad er grunden til, at terroren har ramt vores land? Vi lykkedes med at udvikle en forfatning. Verdens stormagter skabte terroristerne. De mente at de kunne gøre situationen værre. Vi ændrede spillet. De lande, der skabte terroristerne, er nu selv under angreb fra terrorister. Hvad vil det internationale samfund forpligte sig til at gøre? De sydlige middelhavslande vender sig til Europa. Se på de flygtninge, der kommer fra Syrien. Hvis det samme sker i Tunesien, vil der komme millioner af flygtninge til Europa. Europa må arbejde sammen med Tunesien om at forsvare Europa. Det ser vi intet af på nuværende tidspunkt.
Minister Mahmoud Ben Romdhane sagde videre, at revolutionen var en kamp for jobs, værdighed og frihed, men folket har kun fået frihed. Han pegede også på problemet med at leve som nabo til det største våbenlager – i Libyen, hvilket får tuneserne til at øge deres forsvarsbudget, og truslen om terrorisme har påvirket deres økonomi. Dette skal ses i en geopolitisk sammenhæng, sagde Abassi, og påpegede stormagternes rolle. Det er i hele verdens strategiske interesse at forhindre Tunesien i at blive et nyt Libyen.
Seminaret blev også adresseret af en leder fra en industri-sammenslutning, der også har modtaget en Nobelpris; han sagde, at der aldrig kom direkte europæiske investeringer til Tunesien. Tunesien behøver Europa, og nu, efter terrorangrebene i Frankrig og Belgien, er det klart, at vi alle er i samme båd.
Ved den efterfølgende reception blev de to første talere præsenteret for den nyligt trykte arabiske udgave af rapporten om Verdenslandbroen, og de øvrige deltagere blev inviteret til det kommende Schiller Institut-/EIR-seminar om udvidelsen af den Nye Silkevej til Mellemøsten of Afrika.
Med formand Tom Gillesberg:
Engelsk udskrift. Vi begynder vores udsendelse i aften med at oplæse en kort erklæring fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i Belgien, Agora Erasmus, om bombesprængningerne i Bruxelles. Erklæringen fordømmer gerningsmændene til disse angreb og sørger over ofrene for angrebene. Men erklæringen opfordrer os også til, konfronteret med denne fornyede nødvendighed, at arbejde sammen med vore mulige samarbejdspartnere i Rusland og andre lande for at besejre ISIS én gang for alle; men også til at fjerne roden til denne terrors årsager én gang for alle.
NATIONS MUST WORK TOGETHER TO FURTHER MANKIND! –
International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, March 25, 2016
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's March 25, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast with the
LaRouche PAC Friday evening webcast. I am here tonight in the
studio with Jason Ross and Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team. We had a chance to have a discussion earlier today
with Mr. LaRouche.
We are going to begin our broadcast tonight by reading a
short statement that was issued by the LaRouche movement in
Belgium, Agora Erasmus, which is a statement on the Brussels
bombings. It's a statement condemning the perpetrators of these
attacks and also mourning the victims of these attacks. But it's
also a statement which is asking us to renew our sense of urgency
in the face of the urgent necessity to work with our possible
collaborators in Russia and other countries, to defeat ISIS once
and for all; but also, to root out the causes of this terrorism
finally once and for all. The statement reads as follows: It is
titled, "Brussels Bombings: Let Us Be Firm and Coherent Against
Terrorism and Its Sponsors".
"Today Brussels is in tears. At this tragic juncture, our
thoughts and heart goes to the victims, their families and
friends. Our affection and support goes to the first aid workers,
the police forces, the security services, the authorities of the
government and to all those simple citizens who kept calm and
showed solidarity in this horrible hardship.
"However, we cannot but call on the Belgian government to
draw the lessons of these attacks, and to act immediately to
uproot immediately both the known networks, as well as the
godfathers of this barbarism:
"First of all, the decades-long, evil role of Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, in spreading the Wahhabite and Salafist ideologies and
the financing of terrorist organizations, towards which the
Belgian, as well as the US, the British, and the French
governments, have all turned a blind eye.
"Second of all, the complicity with Daesh of Turkey, a
member state of NATO whose headquarters are 8 km from the
attacks. While Erdogan and his family buy Daeschs oil and provide
them with weapons and equipments, the EU submits itself to
Turkeys wishes by exchanging refugees, and offering it billions
of Euros.
"Finally, there is the financing of terrorism, which would
be impossible without the banking facilities of the fiscal safe
heavens offered by the City of London and Wall Street; as
documented in a US Senate report in the case of British bank
HSBC. In Belgium, an investigative parliamentary commission on
the financing sources of terrorism, if allowed to do their job,
would quickly arrive at the conclusion that an orderly banking
reorganization, through a banking separation law based on the
Glass-Steagall Act, would be an excellent weapon in the war on
terrorism.
"In addition to those three concrete measures, we need a
shift in our overall political orientation. Instead of seeking
endlessly for confrontation and geopolitical domination, Belgium,
as well as other member states of NATO and the EU, have
everything to win from detente, entente, and cooperation with
Vladimir Putins government in Russia, who happen to be the only
heads of state sticking to principles of really being committed
to defeating Daesh.
"Let us also deepen our cooperation with China, with which
Belgium is celebrating 45 years of very good relations, and is
working for mutual development with its New Silk Road vision.
Only economic development shall create better living conditions
and cultural exchanges between peoples that will allow us, for
real, to eliminate the threat that hit Brussels today."
Now, the context of these attacks obviously is something
which we here at LaRouche PAC have been continually coming back
to after the January 7th attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo,
then the November attacks later in Paris, and then the attacks on
March 22ns in Brussels. As former Senator Bob Graham, who is the
co-chair of the 9/11 investigation into the Joint Inquiry Report,
has continually emphasized, only be declassifying the 28 pages of
that report and bringing the spotlight to who actually funded the
logistical and created the support network apparatus to make 9/11
possible — the Saudi government and others connected to the
Saudi Royal Family — will we be able to shut down these
logistical networks and these financing networks. The fact that
the George Bush administration and now the Obama administration
has continued to fail to release those 28 pages, has allowed the
Saudi government to continue to act with impunity financing first
al-Qaeda, now ISIS, and any other organization that pops up based
on the same ideological orientation. So, that is absolutely
clear.
However, there is a broader context as well; and this is
what I'm going to ask Jason Ross to discuss a little bit with us
here tonight. As the statement out of the Agora Erasmus
organization in Belgium stated, what is absolutely necessary is a
political paradigm shift; a shift in our political orientation.
We must continue what is now begun, preliminarily, with the
association between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov;
and the agreements that have been drawn up between the United
States and Russia to defeat ISIS on the ground in Syria. This is
a good direction, but it must go much, much further. And also, a
collaboration with China; and the working together of the United
States, the EU, and China is something that Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing very broadly. Both with a trip
that she recently made to India, where she was one of the
featured speakers in a prominent international forum that
occurred there; and then at an event that occurred this past
Wednesday, March 23rd in Frankfurt. An EIR seminar where the
continuing discussion of the extension of the Silk Road — the
development perspective that China has initiated — what is being
discussed in Europe now as a new Marshall Plan for the Middle
East and North Africa — is the context for economic development
and a culture of hope and a culture of commitment to the future.
And optimism as opposed to perpetual war, which is required to
change the conditions on the ground in Syria, Iraq, in Libya, and
in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. This was the
subject of a very prominent forum that occurred the previous week
in Cairo, Egypt; where Hussein Askary, a representative of EIR,
presented with the representatives of the Egyptian government,
the first Arabic-language version of the EIR Special Report, "The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge". This is something
that we covered in our broadcast here last week.
So, to discuss that very important conference that occurred
in Frankfurt, involving Helga LaRouche and many other prominent
individuals, I would like to ask Jason to come to the podium now.
JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, this was really a tremendous
intervention that took place in Germany; and as Matt said,
follows on the other recent successes of Helga Zepp-LaRouche in
India and Hussein Askary in Egypt. This event, which took place
this Wednesday in Frankfurt, had 75 attendees and a very high
level discussion of the paradigm that is necessary to build a
future and eliminate the war and economic collapse, which is
otherwise the direction that the trans-Atlantic is heading in,
potentially to drag the world with it.
Among the speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who we'll get
into some more detail on that in particular; Hussein Askary gave
a report on what he had done in Egypt, as well as announcing that
at the same time that the seminar was taking place in Frankfurt,
a seminar was also taking place in Yemen. Which had been
organized there to work through the Arabic version of the World
Land-Bridge report; despite being under Saudi bombardment
literally in a very real way, this future orientation was taking
place in that nation. Other speakers included the Ethiopian
Consul General, who spoke about development in his nation and
about the 800,000 refugees and displaced persons currently living
in Ethiopia; and the government's plans for developing a future
through such projects as the Millennium Dam. Two speakers from
Italy — Marcello Vichi and Andrea Mongano — spoke about the
Transaqua Project; a decades-old proposal which would be able to
replenish Lake Chad, which is far below half of its previous
capacity. And in drying up, it is eliminating a source of
livelihood for people in the adjoining nations, and making it
much more difficult or impossible to root out terrorism by
replacing it with a positive economic policy. Ulf Sandmark was
also a speaker. His trips to Syria in the last couple of years
led to the formation of a Phoenix proposal, as he called it, for
the redevelopment of Syria. That gives you a sense of what the
overall tenor of the meeting was.
In her presentation, Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked whether we
are morally fit to survive. Given the crisis that we're facing
and given the response to it, are we morally fit to survive?
Referencing the recent events in Belgium, she pointed out that
terror can affect anybody; she also pointed out that in that same
time period, there was a Saudi Arabian bombing of a marketplace
in Yemen leaving 120 people dead, including 20 children, and 80
people wounded. These are people, too. People in Yemen also do
not deserve to be killed and blown up. To root this out, an
opening up of those 28 pages, the classified section of the 9/11
Report that covered over the role of Saudi Arabia in that crime;
these 28 pages have to be released, and the real source of
terrorism — namely involving nations that the United States and
Britain are working with, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, this has
to be cleaned up.
You contrast that with what is happening. Cooperating with
Turkey; where the dictatorial president has recently shut down
one newspaper, and there is talk of another one being closed
down. And an extortion operation to get money from the EU to
prevent the motion of asylum seekers; to deport those seeking
asylum — that is not a solution. What is a solution? She says,
where is our humanity; where is humanity going? What's the
potential for dealing with this? [Mrs. LaRouche] says, look at
China. China is a nation which, over the recent generations, has
pulled 900 million people out of poverty; and in their current
five-year program, calls for eliminating poverty entirely in
China by 2020; and playing a role in eliminating poverty in the
world by 2025. Now that is an objective for a nation to have.
The One Belt – One Road policy that is official Chinese
government policy at this point, represents a real victory for
the New Silk Road — the World Land-Bridge proposal that the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement have been
championing for over 20 years now. This is Chinese policy. China
is moving away from simple labor towards more complex forms of
exports; high-speed rail, a replacement of "Made in China" with
the motto of "Created in China". And of course, their efforts in
space. The tremendous efforts of the Chinese space program, which
go beyond replicating feats performed by other nations — some
many decades ago — to doing the entirely new; going to the far
side of the Moon, as planned in an upcoming mission. Something
that has never been done — a landing on the far side of the
Moon; representing a unique environment for various types of
astronomical researches.
So, how can terrorism be stopped? Clearly, you have to not
hide the sources of it; not hide the funding of it. Tell the
truth about Saudi Arabia. But that's not enough; the long-term
solution, of course, requires development. The only plan for
peace is not a negation of war and conflict; it's an affirmation
of what a peace looks like among nations and among peoples.
So, this theme was also the subject of Hussein Askary's
presentation; and he recounted for himself and the beginning of
his involvement with the LaRouche movement, taking place in 1994.
When, with the Oslo Accords and the potential for peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians, LaRouche had said at the time, if
there is not an economic development program, this peace will not
succeed; which was true. And there was not an economic
development program, and that peace did not succeed as it could
have. Hussein remarked on his recent trip to Cairo; where, as
viewers of the website are familiar, he was a primary participant
in a conference sponsored by the Egyptian Transport Ministry
itself, to launch the Arabic edition of the New Silk Road Special
Report. In doing this, not only was this a top-level endorsement
from the Transport Minister himself — who headed the meeting;
but it represents a potential for cooperation within the region
as a whole.
Among the World Land-Bridge concepts is included an
up-shifting of the quality of development. For example, Hussein
brought up Mr. LaRouche's 2002 trip to the region, when he
attended a conference held in Abu Dhabi, among oil ministers and
others. And LaRouche said at that time that the future for that
region could not be one of a raw materials exporter, an oil
exporter; but rather processing and industry would have to take
place as an idea of a future orientation for the economy there.
So, there are many old cultures within this region; ancient
civilizations with an historical grounding. The potential for
cooperation there is tremendous; and it's not about local
interests being played against each other. Some people in Egypt,
for example, might have thought that building the connectivity of
the New Silk Road would lessen the payback on their investment in
the new Suez Canal. If land routes are possible, won't that
reduce shipping? But, that's not the way to look at it. As a
general sense of connectivity and improvement in conditions of
economy, these things aren't mutually exclusive. So, just as
Egypt raised $8 billion from within the nation to complete the
construction of the new Suez Canal within the astounding period
of one year, the Transport Minister announced at this meeting
that Egypt was prepared to invest $100 billion — a trillion
Egyptian pounds — over the next 14 years into roads, rail,
logistics centers, into connectivity in the Southwest Asian
region, as well as with Africa. He spoke about the plans for
cooperation between Egypt and South Africa and other nations, for
rail and road connectivity crossing the entire continent from the
north to the south. Something which does not currently exist;
there is not strong connectivity among these nations of East
Africa in this way.
Hussein spoke about the fact that 95% of Egypt's territory
is currently empty; and the potential with water resources to
totally transform the nation. So that, among these projects —
many of which China is eager to cooperate with — there lies a
sense for stability. Does terrorism have to be stopped? Do people
willing to kill others have to prevented by military means at
times? Yes. But the only way you're going to have a stable future
and progress and happiness for that, is through a legitimate
program for development.
So, what can we do here? Well, we've heard a lot of good
news recently. Helga Zepp-LaRouche's trip to India was excellent
news. Hussein Askary's trip to Cairo and the various seminars and
meetings that he held there — about which you can read more on
our website. The conference just this week in Frankfurt; these
represent positive developments increasing the potential for this
new paradigm taking over as directing the course of human
affairs.
Here in the United States, we have a number of
opportunities. Let's take a look at Manhattan, for example. Every
Saturday, there's an opportunity for direct discussion with these
Manhattan dialogues with Lyndon LaRouche himself. Coming up very
soon, on April 7th, there will be a very important conference
held in Manhattan, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, about
which you can read more and find registration information here on
our website. A conference in the US, dedicated to the principle
of how we can join this orientation; what kinds of concepts have
to guide relations among nations, and about the scientific
mission for mankind, and about the culture that's commensurate
and assists in bringing about these kinds of developments.
So, there's no amount of good news from around the world,
although it's good to have good news; but there's no amount of
good news that can replace the obligation of us in the United
States to oust Obama to prevent conflict, war, the direction
we're going right now. Without ousting Obama and repudiating that
policy orientation, the good news around the rest of the world
isn't going to be enough to prevent a commitment towards
conflict, to prevent its coming into being.
MEGAN BEETS: Earlier this week, Secretary of State John
Kerry travelled to Moscow for a series of meetings, including
with President Putin of Russia; and also for extensive dialogue
and discussion with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov. These discussions obviously centered around the
ongoing US-Russian cooperation in resolving the conflict in
Syria. Going into the meetings and press conferences, both Kerry
and Lavrov stressed strongly that the successes in Syria are due
to the close collaboration between the United States and Russia;
and also expressed the hope that this cooperation can continue
and extend beyond Syria to address other urgent challenges and
conflicts in the Middle East, such as the ongoing atrocities in
Yemen and also beyond.
Now, after the conclusion of what were many, many hours of
meetings, Kerry began the joint press conference with Lavrov with
a statement which goes to something which is much more important
than cooperation among nations to resolve existing conflicts and
dangers, as urgent as the solutions of those conflicts may be.
And his statement points to the essence of the real meaning and
purpose of cooperation among nations. So, he said, "Let me just
say that earlier today, I had the privilege of meeting with Scott
Kelly, the American astronaut who spent 340 days in space with
his counterpart, Mikhail Koryenko. I had a chance to talk to both
of them about their time in space together; where they spent that
remarkable period of historic time cooperating and working
together. Two astronauts, one American one Russian, who were
working to study the effects of long-term space flight on the
human body. And as I listened to both of them talking about their
time, it emphasized to me the fact of close collaboration being a
demonstration of what not just two astronauts can do; but what
nations can do when they work together, whether it's on the
International Space Station, or international diplomacy."
Now in that context, we look to China and the leadership
that they have taken in their lunar program, as Jason mentioned a
moment ago. We look at the accomplishments of the recent past,
such as their 2013 landing on the surface of the Moon with a
lander and a rover; which is the first time in nearly 40 years
any nation has done that. And we also look forward to the
achievements that are planned for the next two years; their 2017
sample return from the Moon, and their 2018 landing on the lunar
far side — the first time ever, for any nation. These kinds of
things represent real value for mankind; both economically and
elsewhere.
So, what I'd like to do now is invite Jason to the podium to
elaborate on that point.
JASON ROSS: At least in the United States, growth really
stopped in the 1960s and '70s. Now, this is point that Lyndon
LaRouche had made at the time, that he makes in his economics
courses; that he has in his economics textbook. And one that many
people may not agree with, saying there's been a tremendous
amount of development since then. However, a comparison of the
rate of growth from the 1930s until after the assassination of
Kennedy — the close of the 1960s — reveals a rate of growth of
productivity, of power consumption, of water consumption, of
markers of physical economy that have taken a tremendous turn
downwards since that time, over the last 45 years. So, why is
that? Partly it has been a lack of a commitment or even an
antagonism to economic development; a deliberate reduction of
economic output. Something that was sped [up] with the collapse
of the Soviet Union — growth; or limited or bounded by certain
conditions. And if we don't change those bounding conditions,
there is simply a limit to what economic growth will be possible.
Let me give an example. China; we've seen the tremendous
success of China in lifting people out of poverty. This is a real
achievement; especially over the last generation or so. This
achievement, this incredible success, utilized — in the main —
technologies which existed; much of it was not based on new
technologies. That doesn't take away its being a tremendous
accomplishment; and one that shouldn't be taken for granted.
India, for example, is another large nation similar in size to
China, which has not seen the same success in eliminating poverty
and in getting economic development within that nation. So, China
has definite claims to a sense of pride in the success that
they've had in that sense.
But let's think about what it is that really drives economy
forward. And if we look on the large scale, developments such as
a couple of centuries ago, the liberation of power created by the
steam engine; the ability to use combustion and heat to turn that
into motion, completely transformed mankind's relationship to
nature. Totally transformed the economy. It took some time to be
implemented; but the economy that resulted from the
implementation of that new technology was, frankly, in many ways
incomparable to what came before. This wasn't just about
improving production by having machinery so there'd be less
workers required to do the actual physical muscle labor of moving
things, or using animals for a similar purpose. It also
transformed what we were able to do. The transportation afforded
by the steam engine — trains, for example; this is something
totally new.
Think about the materials advancements that were made since
that time with the incredible developments of chemistry in the
late 1800s; the new understanding we had of the world around us.
There were further materials science breakthroughs made in the
middle of this past century; and which continue to some degree
today. But let's consider the real progress in science and in
power that is required to set a new level for what could be
accomplished; that moves forward what those limits to economic
growth are. We're not currently even near the limits of what we
could do, even with current technology. Poverty can be completely
eliminated on this planet with current technology. But to move
the level of what's possible, that requires something
fundamentally new.
Something of that level would be represented, for example,
in breakthroughs on fusion. Fusion, which as we've discussed many
times over the course of decades in the LaRouche movement, is a
complete transformation in our relationship to the natural world.
If we had accomplished the useful implementation of fusion power,
both for the types of electrical power that we use today as well
as for transforming our relationship to materials by allowing the
refining and processing of ores on a totally different scale than
currently exists. The introduction of fusion as a scientific
breakthrough, will represent a really new era in the power of
mankind.
Space; this is another place to look, in terms of what is
going to move the frontiers of science itself forward. We have to
develop a greater understanding of the Universe as a whole; of
these large, large-scale systems to develop new insights and to
make new scientific discoveries. Not every discovery that we'll
ever make in the future depends upon being in space; but if you
don't have that orientation, you're definitely limited.
And what do we see, for example, with China? With the
super-conducting tokamak that they have, the East Tokamak; as
we've discussed a couple of times on this show today already —
the plan to go to the Moon. The plan to go to the far side of the
Moon; to do something new. This goes beyond playing catch-up;
this is playing leap-frog. This is, as a nation, having a
commitment to a universal role as the society of organized
people, towards achieving things that will have a
world-historical importance. Like the development of the steam
engine; like other breakthroughs that transformed humanity as a
whole. A nation has to have that mission — barring incredibly
dire poverty conditions — a nation has to have that as its
mission; otherwise it simply has no legitimacy to exist. It has
no mission; it has no purpose. And then, people are not connected
to a sense of achievement that lies far outside of their own
lifetimes.
What we need to do, among nations, is have that social
commitment to developing a new future for everybody; and of
allowing our citizens, our society, to actively and knowledgeably
play a role in bringing that about. So, this goes far beyond
removing a few bad things, getting bad people out of office. We
need to have an affirmative idea of what we want to achieve and
what we want to be as a society, as a nation, among societies and
nations of the world.
And again, this upcoming April 7th conference will represent
the highest level discussion of these types of issues in the
United States — from economics, science, culture; this will all
be covered. I highly encourage people to find out more about it
on our site; the registration information is there. And the
conference will also be available on our website.
OGDEN: Wonderful; thank you, Jason. So, I would encourage
you to please register and encourage other people to register for
this event. Also, coming up this weekend in New York City, if you
are in the area, on Easter Sunday at 6pm, there will be another
concert of portions of Handel's {Messiah}; which will be offered
by the Schiller Institute at a church in Brooklyn. And many
people may have seen the recording of the December 12th and
December 13th concerts. This, I'm sure, will be even better than
those. So, if you are in the area, or if you can make it to New
York this weekend; I would encourage you to come. And you can get
more information about that concert also, through the Schiller
Institute. So, thank you very much; thanks to both Megan and
Jason for joining me here today. And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.
22. marts 2016 – Idet han udtrykte sin dybtfølte kondolence over for det belgiske folk, har den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin »kraftigt fordømt disse barbariske handlinger« samtidig med, at han forsikrede »det belgiske folk om Ruslands absolutte solidaritet med det belgiske folk i disse svære timer«, sagde talsmand for Kreml, Dmitry Peskov, i dag, iflg. en rapport fra Sputnik. »Præsident Putin har allerede sendt kondolencetelegram til Kong Philippe af Belgien i forbindelse med civile dødsfald i en række bombesprængninger i Bruxelles«, sagde Peskov til reportere.
»I takt med, at flere og flere mister livet, og vi mister kostbar tid, begynder folk at forstå, at denne politik med dobbelte standarder mht. bedømmelsen af terroraktiviteter, er en politisk blindgyde«, sagde talsperson for det russiske Udenrigsministerium Maria Zakharova kort tid efter, at der begyndte at indløbe rapporter om angrebene i Bruxelles, rapporterer BRICS Post. »De kan ikke støtte terrorister i én del af verden uden at forvente, at de også vil dukke op i en anden del.«
Med en anklagende finger rettet mod NATO for at forsømme forsvaret af sin egen baghave, og med et udfald mod NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, tweetede chefen for Ruslands parlamentskomite for udenrigsanliggender, Alexey Pushkov, at NATO-chefen har tilladt »folk at sprænge sig selv i luften lige under hans næse«, mens »NATO var optaget af at bekæmpe den imaginære, russiske trussel«, rapporterer Newsweek.
Se også: Putin: Rusland er forpligtet over for fredsproces i Syrien; fortsat militær årvågenhed over for terrorisme
22. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Byen Bruxelles, der er hjemsted for NATO og Den europæiske Kommission, kom under terrorangreb i dag. Angrebene fandt sted på Bruxelles Maalbeek metrostation, og kort tid efter rev to eksplosioner igennem Zaventem-lufthavnens afgangshal. I skrivende stund er dødstallet kommet op på 34, med 230 sårede, heraf nogle alvorligt. Sprængningerne blev udløst af selvmordsbomber.
ISIS påtog sig efterfølgende ansvaret via sin propaganda-website med følgende udlæg: »Kæmpere fra Islamisk Stat åbnede ild i Zaventem-lufthavnen, før flere af dem detonerede deres bombebælter, ligesom en martyr-bombemand også detonerede sit bombebælte i Maalbeek metrostation. Angrebene resulterede i flere end 230 døde og sårede.«
De belgiske myndigheder forhøjede beredskabet mod terrortrussel, lukkede al offentlig transport i den belgiske hovedstad ned og rådede lokalbefolkningen til at holde sig indendørs efter eksplosionerne. Det belgiske VTM-medie rapporterede også, at ikke-essentielt personale på Tihange atomkraftværket, der ligger 85 km øst for Bruxelles, blev evakueret. VTM sagde også, at der ikke foreligger beviser for, at atomkraftværket skulle være udsat for trusler. Denne forsigtighedsforanstaltning blev indført, angiveligt, fordi de belgiske myndigheder havde fundet materiale, der tilsyneladende viste, at en belgisk topembedsmand inden for atomkraft var blevet overvåget, i lejligheden tilhørende Mohamed Bakkali, som var blevet arresteret for påstået involvering i terrorangrebene i Paris i november sidste år.
Der blev indført forhøjet alarmberedskab i mange byer i hele Europa, og også i USA.
Foto: La Grand-Place, Bruxelles.
22. marts 2016 – Idet han udtrykte sin dybtfølte kondolence over for det belgiske folk, har den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin »kraftigt fordømt disse barbariske handlinger« samtidig med, at han forsikrede »det belgiske folk om Ruslands absolutte solidaritet med det belgiske folk i disse svære timer«, sagde talsmand for Kreml, Dmitry Peskov, i dag, iflg. en rapport fra Sputnik. »Præsident Putin har allerede sendt kondolencetelegram til Kong Philippe af Belgien i forbindelse med civile dødsfald i en række bombesprængninger i Bruxelles«, sagde Peskov til reportere.
»I takt med, at flere og flere mister livet, og vi mister kostbar tid, begynder folk at forstå, at denne politik med dobbelte standarder mht. bedømmelsen af terroraktiviteter, er en politisk blindgyde«, sagde talsperson for det russiske Udenrigsministerium Maria Zakharova kort tid efter, at der begyndte at indløbe rapporter om angrebene i Bruxelles, rapporterer BRICS Post. »De kan ikke støtte terrorister i én del af verden uden at forvente, at de også vil dukke op i en anden del.«
Med en anklagende finger rettet mod NATO for at forsømme forsvaret af sin egen baghave, og med et udfald mod NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, tweetede chefen for Ruslands parlamentskomite for udenrigsanliggender, Alexey Pushkov, at NATO-chefen har tilladt »folk at sprænge sig selv i luften lige under hans næse«, mens »NATO var optaget af at bekæmpe den imaginære, russiske trussel«, rapporterer Newsweek.
Se også: Putin: Rusland er forpligtet over for fredsproces i Syrien; fortsat militær årvågenhed over for terrorisme
Dias til mødet:
Løsningen er enkel: Kasinoøkonomien må afsluttes gennem realiseringen af Glass/Steagall-loven; en international gældskonference må afskrive bankernes giftige værdipapirer, og et nyt kreditsystem må finansiere investeringer i den Nye Silkevejs projekter. Og hertil har vi ikke brug for et oppumpet, overnationalt bureaukrati i Bruxelles, men derimod en alliance af suveræne stater, som er forpligtet over for den fælles mission for udvikling af de områder i verden, der har et presserende behov for vores hjælp.
Kun, hvis Europa finder tilbage til sin humanistiske tradition, vil vi kunne bestå.
20. januar 2016 – General Harald Kujat (pensioneret), den tidligere formand for NATO’s Militærkomite (2002-2005) og Stabschef for Tysklands Forbundshær (2000-2002), afsluttede sine bemærkninger på talkshowet »Under den Linden« på Phoenix TV den 18. jan. med en appel til omsider at udarbejde en altomfattende strategi for Syrien for at drive Islamisk Stat ud, og han understregede behovet for en genopbygningsstrategi i lighed med Marshall-planen. General Kujat optrådte på programmet sammen med regeringens rådgiver i terrorisme, Guido Steinberg.
Studieværten bad general Kujat om en afsluttende erklæring, der adresserede den kendsgerning, at deres diskussion havde demonstreret manglende udsigter, der således skabte et vakuum, som terroristerne udnyttede.
Her følger en oversættelse af general Kujats bemærkninger:
»Jeg må selvfølgelig komme tilbage til det, jeg sagde før. Terroristerne ser selvfølgelig, at vi ikke har en, jeg vil bruge konceptet, altomfattende strategi, til hvilken ville høre, f.eks., en økonomisk genopbygningsplan, en Marshall-plan for denne region og lignende ting. Det er meget synligt. Og det, som hr. Steinberg netop sagde med, at USA er faldet bort som en stabiliserende faktor, men det kan ændre sig. Amerikansk politik er kendt for pludselige skift. Det kan ændre sig igen, men i øjeblikket har det været sådan siden 2003 [Irakkrigen], og Europa alene kan ikke udfylde denne rolle. Det har vi set. Vi så bare til i mange år, mens flygtningene fra Syrien samledes i Libanon og Jordan. Vi har så at sige fulgt katastrofen her fra tribunen, og vi var ikke engang i stand til at forudse konsekvenserne af dette for vort eget land, for ikke at tale om at udvikle i det mindste en idé om, hvordan man kunne skabe en mere stabil situation. Og man må desværre sige, at dette fører til de resultater, der er kommet frem her i vores diskussion, at man bliver frustreret, fordi man ikke kan komme med en omfattende løsning, eller nogen som helst form for løsning, for man ser kun selektive tilgange, reaktioner, krisestyring, og så, når det faktisk allerede er for sent. Det er det store underskud i vores vestlige politik; det er især også et underskud i europæisk udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik, og især et underskud i den tyske udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik, den største og økonomisk stærkeste magt i Europa.«
Kina er mere end rede til at investere i den form for afgørende infrastruktur, der ville opbygge det eurasiske område som en zone med fred, stabilitet og fremgang. Men Europa må rette op på sig selv, hvilket betyder at dumpe briterne, og at dumpe de britiske agenter som Schäuble, og som driver Europa hen imod en intern konflikt og imod kaos. Hvis Europa falder ned i kaos og kollaps, i særdeleshed i sammenhæng med det europæiske banksystems fallit, og Mellemøsten forvandles til en zone med permanent krig i den islamiske verden, mellem sunni og shia, mellem arabere og persere, så vil man få et masseslagteri i hele Eurasien; koncentreret i den transatlantiske del og med en forlængelse ind i Mellemøsten, og udsigten til eurasisk fremgang vil blive dræbt.
Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. januar 2016 – USA og verden står over for en umiddelbart forestående, alvorlig fare. Præsident Obamas Årlige tale til den amerikanske Kongres demonstrerede, at han er totalt ude af kontrol, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag. Talen var et komplet falsum, og enhver, der accepterer Obamas løgne, lægger USA åben for den totale ødelæggelse. På vegne af briterne er Obama rede til at sprænge USA totalt i luften. Denne mulighed er umiddelbart forestående. Spørgsmålet om Wall Street skal i realiteten dække over den kendsgerning, at USA som helhed gøres klar til folkemord. Dette er den britiske politik for folkemord, og den nuværende Pave er blevet grundigt narret ind i denne britiske intrige, hvis formål er folkemord.
Det er ikke bare Obama, der udfører drabene; Obama er blot førerhunden. Det er briterne – Det britiske Imperium.
Og selvfølgelig er folk bange; men de er måske ikke bange nok. Men hvorom alting er, så må vi sige, hvad vi skal sige.
Dette er hemmeligheden bag den massive COP21 »klimaforandringskonference« i Paris i november-december sidste år, med dens skønsmæssigt 50.000 deltagere, der repræsenterede 196 nationer. Men det var ikke muligt at nå frem til en bindende aftale – hvad var da konferencens formål? Formålet var en massiv erklæring om en plan for dette folkemord. Det var en samling af tropperne til det planlagte »store drab«. Det var Dødedansen.
Og samme Paves encyklika fra maj 2015 med et krav om, at menneskeheden skulle ofres for »klimaet«, var nøjagtig det samme. Denne Pave er kommet ind under britisk styrelse og kontrol; han bliver brugt i en britisk operation. Han begår forbrydelser.
Verdensomspændende terrorangreb udført af ISIS, som det britisk-saudiske yngel, det er, er præcis det samme – som vi så det i Paris, i Californien og nu i Jakarta – sidstnævnte som det første ISIS-angreb i Sydøstasien. Bombeangrebet den 12. jan. i Istanbul, Tyrkiet, hvis regering, der er kontrolleret af det Muslimske Broderskab, er venligtsindet over for ISIS, var særlig skummelt. Ofrene var tyske turister, og de tyske massemedier har åbenlyst kastet tvivl over den tyrkiske regerings redegørelse for deres undersøgelse. Tysk fjernsyn siger, at der »ingen beviser« er for den tyrkiske regerings påstand om, at de skulle have dræbt 200 ISIS-kæmpere over grænsen i Syrien som gengældelse.
Fremstødet for folkemord er rettet direkte mod det transatlantiske område. Det ledsages af den britiske trussel om at ødelægge Asien gennem krig. Det er, hvad Obama foretager sig i det vestlige Stillehavsområde; dette bliver totalt forstået af ruserne.
1 time 28 min.:
11. januar 2016 – I et eksklusivt, vidtrækkende interview med Tysklands førende massetabloidavis, Bildzeitung, der blev udgivet i dag, men blev gennemført den 5. januar i Sotji, Rusland, greb den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin på afgørende vis ind imod britisk geopolitik, der især har været rettet imod Tyskland efter Berlinmurens fald, og fortsat er rettet imod Tyskland i dag, med det formål at sikre en permanent Øst-Vest-konflikt og krig, i stedet for enhed og samarbejde gennem sådanne initiativer som politikken for »Ét bælte, én vej«, som BRIKS-medlemmet Kina og dets allierede har fremmet, og som Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouches politik for Verdenslandbroen.
På spørgsmålet fra Bilds interviewere, »Hvad gjorde vi forkert?« efter afslutningen af den Kolde Krig, svarede Putin, »Vi overvandt ikke delingen af Europa: for 25 år siden faldt Berlinmuren, men delingen af Europa blev ikke overvundet, usynlige mure blev simpelthen flyttet mod Øst«, sagde han. »Dette skabte grundlaget for gensidige beskyldninger, misforståelser og fremtidige kriser.« Putin afslørede dernæst, at han havde undersøgt dokumenterne og mødeudskrifterne fra de drøftelser, der fandt sted i 1990 efter Berlinmuren faldt, især Egon Bahrs bemærkninger, »allerede tysk politiks patriark« og en »vis gammel tysker«. Daværende tyske udenrigsminister Gerhard Schröder, kansler Helmut Kohl og de sovjetiske ledere Gorbatjov og hr. Falin fra det Russiske Kommunistpartis Centralkomite deltog også. Putin understregede, at han og Gerhard Schröder stadig er gode venner.
Præsident Putin rapporterede, at Bahr den 26. juni 1990 sagde: »Hvis vi ikke, samtidig med den tyske genforening, tager afgørende skridt til at overvinde opdelingen af Europa i fjendtlige blokke, kan begivenhederne tage en så ufordelagtig vending, at USSR vil blive dømt til international isolation.« Bahr talte om nødvendigheden af at skabe en ny alliance i hjertet af Europa, forklarede den russiske præsident. »Europa bør ikke gå til NATO. Hele Centraleuropa, med eller uden Østtyskland, burde have dannet en separat alliance med deltagelse af både Sovjetunionen og USA. Og så siger han: ’NATO som organisation, i det mindste dens militære strukturer, må ikke udvides til at omfatte Centraleuropa.’«
Bahr, tilføjede Putin, var »overbevist om, at det var nødvendigt at ændre formatet radikalt og bevæge sig væk fra den Kolde Krigs tid. Men vi gjorde intet«. Nu »er det, som Bahr advarede om, sket«. Hele Europa blev ikke forenet, som Bahr anbefalede, og i stedet »begyndte NATO at udvides mod Øst«.
Den russiske præsident berørte igen spørgsmålet om NATO og det ikke urelaterede spørgsmål om terrorisme, som Putin sagde »også blev brugt som et middel til at bekæmpe Rusland« i 1990’erne.
»Hvis der havde været nogen, der havde lyttet til Gerhard Schröder, til [daværende franske præsident] Jacques Chirac og til mig, ville der måske ikke have været nogen af den seneste tids terrorangreb i Paris, lige såvel som der ikke ville have været en opkomst af terrorisme i Irak, Libyen eller andre lande i Mellemøsten«, fortsatte Putin. »Vi konfronteres med fælles trusler, og vi ønsker stadig, at alle lande, både i Europa og i hele verden, må forene deres indsats for at bekæmpe disse trusler, og vi tilstræber stadig dette. Jeg refererer ikke kun til terrorisme, men også til kriminalitet, menneskehandel, miljøbeskyttelse og mange andre fælles udfordringer. Men dette betyder imidlertid ikke, at det er os, der skal være enige med alt, som andre beslutter om disse og andre spørgsmål. Desuden, hvis nogen er utilfredse med vores standpunkt, så kunne de finde en bedre mulighed end at erklære os for en fjende hver gang. Ville det ikke være bedre at lytte til os, at reflektere kritisk over det, vi siger, at blive enige om noget og søge fælles løsninger?«
Putins diskussion om Ruslands forhold til Tyskland er lærerig. På trods af alt, hvad der er sket i løbet af det seneste årti, og forsøg på at »ødelægge vore relationer gennem massemedierne og antirussisk retorik«, så forbliver relationerne dog tætte, fordi begge nationers befolkning har en følelse af slægtskab over for hinanden.
Russisk-tysk økonomisk og strategisk samarbejde var til gavn for begge nationer og skabte jobs, mellemfolkeligt og kulturelt samarbejde, Skt. Petersborg Dialogforum, blandt andet. Og, understregede han, Tyskland og Rusland arbejdede sammen for at forsøge »at forhindre negative udviklinger i Mellemøsten og Irak, sammen«.
De »tåbelige og skadelige« sanktioner, der er påtvunget Rusland, har skadet begge nationer, påpegede Putin: handelsvolumen i dollars er faldet med 50 %, og mange af de jobs, der blev skabt af russisk-tysk samarbejde, er gået tabt. »Vi vil imidlertid«, understregede Putin, »overvinde de vanskeligheder, vi konfronteres med i dag«, idet der stadig er mange tilgange til samarbejde inden for mange områder. Kansler Merkel og Putin er mødtes regelmæssigt ved diverse begivenheder«, sagde han. »Jeg tror, jeg mødte hende syv gange og havde 20 telefonsamtaler med hende i 2015 … så relationerne udvikler sig stadig, Gud ske lov, og jeg håber, de vil udvikle sig yderligere.«
Kreml har udgivet en engelsk oversættelse af præsidentens interview, der kan ses her: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51154.
Bilds originale tyske artikel er tilgængelig på http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/wladimir-putin/interview-mit-dem-russischen-praesidenten-russland-44091672.bild.html
Og dens engelske oversættelse er tilgængelig på: http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/wladimir-putin/russian-president-vladimir-putin-the-interview-44092656.bild.html
21. december 2015 – Den russiske Rossiya-1 Tv-station sendte den 20. december dokumentarudsendelsen ”Verdensordenen”, som indeholder flere interviews med præsident Vladimir Putin, hvor han diskuterer Ruslands syn på den globale strategiske krise og truslen om terror og skarpt kritiserer den amerikanske forkærlighed for at påtvinge andre nationer (som f.eks. Ukraine) Vestens forestillinger om ”demokrati” – idet man herved overtræder international lov, fremfor at samarbejde med alle parter for at opnå fred og økonomisk udvikling og besejre terrorismen.
RT, Sputnik, nyhedswebsiten Vestnik Kavkaza (vestnikkavkaza.net) og amerikanske medier rapporterede om Putins vidtrækkende bemærkninger til den prominente russiske journalist Vladimir Soloviev, der har produceret dokumentaren.
“Det bipolære system kollapsede, og vore partnere burde have tænkt over, hvordan de skulle blive til de moralske ledere af de nyligt opståede, globale relationer”, sagde Putin. ”I stedet fortsatte de med at tænke og agere på de gamle måder, med koldkrigsklichéer.” USA og dets vestlige alliererede klynger sig til den absurde idé, at Rusland ønsker at genrejse Sovjetunionen, anklagede Putin. Hvad der er endnu værre: Europa har opgivet sin suverænitet og underkastet sig USA. ”Europa har overhovedet ingen selvstændig udenrigspolitik.”
Han sagde desuden, at Vesten tror, det kan pålægge andre områder sin egen standard for demokrati. ”Da de forskellige operationer begyndte … i Afghanistan, Irak eller Libyen, var det altid min holdning, at vi må handle forsigtigt. Man kan ikke have sine egne begreber om godt og ondt og tro, at demokrati automatisk kan overføres til andre lande og folk, andre kulturer, andre religioner og traditioner.” Se, sagde han, på katastrofen i dag i Ukraine, som køres af oligarker, der kontrolleres af Vesten, som er i færd med at afindustrialisere landet.
Den russiske præsident understregede, at han uden vanskeligheder kan arbejde sammen med Syrien, USA, Saudi Arabien og andre arabiske nationer, fordi han opretholder en konsekvent holdning, der ikke ændrer sig. Med hensyn til atomvåben, så understregede Putin, at, alt imens ”atom-triaden er den klippefaste grund, hvorpå vores atomare sikkerhedspolitik hviler, så har vi aldrig truet, og vil heller aldrig true nogen med denne atomare kølle, selv om det er et vigtigt element i vores militærdoktrin … Jeg håber ikke, at der er nogen mennesker på planeten Jorden, der er vanvittige nok til at vove at bruge atomvåben.” Men, advarede han, det virker, som om nogle lande – Obama? – ”har mistet deres virkelighedsfornemmelse” og tror, man kan diktere Rusland, hvordan det skal føre sin politik. ”Det kommer ikke til at ske”, sagde han.
Den hastighed, hvormed finanskrakket nu accelererer, kræver handling nu – før jul. Med mindre Wall Street dumpes i de nærmest forestående dage, er der ingen garanti for, at USA stadig står til Nytår. Junk-obligationer og kommercielle investeringsobligationer til 15 billioner dollars er blevet indløst blot i løbet af den seneste uge. For det meste dækker selskaber deres tab ind i forventning om en endnu større nedsmeltning på et tidspunkt i den allernærmeste fremtid.
Dette er dødsens alvorligt. En ukontrolleret nedsmeltning af det transatlantiske finanssystem, som kunne ske om timer eller dage, ville skabe den form for massekaos, der er den klassiske, britiske opskrift for den værste form for fascistiske diktatur, som altid, uundgåeligt, fører til generel krig. Fra og med den 1. januar træder i Europa de regler for bail-in i kraft, som blev presset igennem af EU-kommissionen. Banker i Italien og Portugal har allerede plyndret indehavere af aktier og obligationer i fallerede banker, og næste skridt er den fulde Cypern-model for plyndring af kontohavernes penge. Pariser-avisen Le Parisien gav i dag sine læsere en forsmag på bail-in under overskriften, »Hvad hvis din bank gik nedenom og hjem?«
Nærmere ved USA står Puerto Rico til at gå i betalingsstandsning den 1. januar over et forfaldent afdrag på 1,4 mia. dollar på en total gæld på 72 mia. dollar, og den amerikanske Kongres valgte bevidst at ignorere denne krise ved at nægte at vedtage en lov, der godkendte en beskyttelse mod bankerot, som tilbydes alle amerikanske stater og kommuner. Formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Paul Ryan og Nancy Pelosi har meddelt, at de »lover« at komme frem til denne lov pr. 31. marts, men det er en syg vittighed, for krisen for Puerto Rico og hele det transatlantiske område venter ikke til marts måned. Den kommer nu.
Lyndon LaRouche advarede i dag om, at, med mindre der før jul foreligger en komplet plan for den totale fjernelse af Wall Street og en lancering af et program for økonomisk genrejsning, med Franklin Roosevelts politik som model, så står det amerikanske folk over for den umiddelbare udsigt til et totalt, samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud. En strategisk plan fra øverst til nederst, der følger de retningslinjer, som Lyndon LaRouche har fastlagt i løbet af de seneste dage, må omgående være på plads.
Kongressen har demonstreret sin fejhed, senest ved at vedtage en katastrofal lov om bevillinger, der trodser virkeligheden omkring det umiddelbart forestående krak. Kongressen må trodses og latterliggøres for sin inkompetence. Enten lukker man Obama og Wall Street ned nu, eller også er der ingen chance. Politikken må være den at sænke Wall Street og sænke dem, som Obama og flertallet af Kongressen, der har fulgt Wall Streets linje.
LaRouche understregede også, at den saudiske sygdom med promovering af wahhabi-terrorisme må udslettes. Obamaregeringen har systematisk mørklagt de bjerge af beviser for, at saudierne står bag væksten af al-Qaeda, Islamisk Stat, Taliban og Boko Haram. Saudierne har, sammen med deres britiske sponsorer, udløst et narko-terrorist-jihadistisk angreb imod hver eneste større nation på planeten, og topembedsfolk i Obamaregeringen, fra Susan Rice til CIA-direktør John Brennan og dir. for den nationale Efterretningstjeneste, general James Clapper, har præsideret over en ondsindet mørklægning af disse forbrydelser og har udsøgt og forfulgt enhver ærlig efterretningsembedsmand, der sagde sandheden og trodsede Obamas ondsindede fantasier. De er fuldt ud medskyldige i opkomsten af ISIS og angrebene i Paris og San Bernardino og bør retsforfølges efter USA’s kriminal-lovgivning og international lov.
Beviserne for disse forbrydelser er ved at gennembryde den mur, der skulle inddæmme dem. Tiden er nu inde til, at de 28 (hemmeligstemplede) sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september 2001, fra 2002, frigives fuldt ud til offentligheden. Disse sider vil, ifølge amerikanske regeringsfolk (eks. kongresmedlemmer i særlige komiteer), som har læst dem, bevise, at al-Qaeda var de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelse, og at dette var kendt af top-regeringsfolk i den amerikanske regering, inklusive præsidenterne George W. Bush og Barack Obama, som er fuldt ud medskyldige.
Politikken må være den, fuldstændigt at ødelægge fjenden. Slå til på deres mest sårbare, dødelige flanker, med begyndelse i den kendsgerning, at Wall Street er død, er allerede død. Vi befinder os på randen af en stor dårskab, og vores nations og menneskehedens overlevelse står på spil i de umiddelbart forestående timer og dage.
I denne nyhedsorientering har vi valgt at bringe en række uvurdelige, strategiske vurderinger vedrørende kampen imod Islamisk Stat, flygtningekrisen i Europa og det igangværende finanskollaps, som er fremkommet i løbet af december måned på de ugentlige webcast, der finder sted hver fredag aften amerikansk tid på www.larouchepac.com. LaRouchePAC er en amerikansk politisk aktionskomité, grundlagt og vedvarende inspireret af den amerikanske økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche. Jeffrey Steinberg (t.v.) er en ledende medarbejder til Lyndon LaRouche og er også efterretningsredaktør for tidsskriftet Executive Intelligence Review. Ben Deniston er leder af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteam.
12. december 2015 – Under konferencen i sidste uge i forbindelse med RT’s 10-års jubilæum i Moskva, foretog RT-korrespondent Sophie Shevernadze et live-interview med gen. Michael Flynn, forhenværende chef for det amerikanske forsvars efterretningstjeneste (Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA), og en skarp kritiker af præsident Obamas overlagte, hemmelige aftaler med islamistiske terrorister, gennem ulovlige overførsler af våben fra Benghazi i Libyen til jihadist-oprørere i Syrien. På grund af sine præcise efterretnings-briefinger og sin villighed til at modsætte sig nogle af de mest katastrofale udslag af præsident Obamas politik blev gen. Flynn i 2014 fyret fra sin post.
Shevernadzes interview med gen. Flynn er slået op på hendes webside, både som video og som udskrift.
Her følger nogle af de vigtigste uddrag af den vidtrækkende dialog, der er centreret omkring gen. Flynns karakteristik af ISIS som fjende nummer et, både for Rusland og USA, og hans skarpe kritik af præsident Obamas påståede successer i krigen mod Islamisk Stat.
Sophie Sheverdnadze: Efter hvad jeg forstår, ønsker vi alle ISIS besejret, ikke sandt, det er vores største interesse, dette er en fælles trussel, som vi er oppe imod, vi befinder os i en lang kamp hen over flere generationer imod fundamentalistisk islam, så – tyrkiske forbindelse til ISIS og til oliehandlen med terrorgruppen har været kendt, og har været et problem længe før alt dette her med Rusland skete. Så mit spørgsmål er, kan vi overhovedet forvente, at Tyrkiet, der i nogen grad er en allieret, vil kæmpe mod ISIS, når landet profiterer af dem?
Michael Flynn: Ja, jeg tror, der er mange mennesker, der profiterer på ISIS. Jeg mener, at vi for det første kollektivt må – i fællesskab klart må definere, hvem fjenden, vi er oppe imod, er. Vi må klart definere vores fjende. Dette er en kræftform inden for den islamiske religion, folk har tendens til at bruge udtrykket radikale islamister, og jeg mener, at det er en god definition. Jeg har hørt et ord på arabisk, ’fa’hish’, hvilket betyder ’mere end foragtelig’, og jeg mener, at det er et endnu bedre ord end det andet, vi ser, dette andet ord, der bruges – Daesh. Dette er en fjende, der er udsprunget fra denne region, fra Mellemøsten, og den er nu spredt geografisk, spredt geografisk her i Rusland og spredt geografisk i Europa, og helt bestemt i USA. Vi har set alle disse forskellige angreb for nylig. Rusland havde sine egne problemer i 2001, i teatret i Moskva, i Nordossetien i 2004, hvor den samme ideologi dræbte børn. Jeg mener, dette nylige angreb i Californien, det var imod en social serviceorganisation; jeg mener, det er bare utroligt.
SS: Præsident Obama synes at mene, at han har inddæmmet ISIS.
MF: Ja, jeg ved, at han har sagt det, og jeg er uenig i det. Jeg er absolut uenig i det. Jeg er uenig i forbindelse med, hvordan vi har sagt, at vores strategi virker eller ikke virker. Jeg mener, at USA må indtage en større lederrolle. Et at de store spørgsmål, Sophie, – og jeg mener, dette er vigtigt for denne lytterskare – er, at for et år siden, før Rusland besluttede, før præsident Putin besluttede at tage de skridt, han tog i Syren, var situationen fundamentalt en anden. Der var muligheder, med nogle af os, der virkeligt pressede vores regering til at gøre mere, ikke blot militært, men med at ændre hele det økonomiske system, der eksisterer i Mellemøsten, og det kan jeg sige noget om, hvis du ønsker det. Men da Rusland pludselig dukker op på det mellemøstlige fodboldstadion, om du vil, så bringer Rusland sig selv i spil, og det ændrer fundamentalt dynamikken i dette særdeles geostrategiske spil, som vi befinder os i lige nu. Det er ikke et spil, det er meget virkeligt. Rent taktisk skal man huske på, at dette en fjende, der ikke har jetfly og droner, missiler og alle disse skibe, dette er en fjende, der bliver angrebet med bomber fra himlen – med droner eller jetfly, artilleri – og hvordan går de så til modangreb? De dukker op midt i Paris, midt i Moskva, de dukker op på steder som San Bernardino – det er sådan, de går til modangreb. Så når vi tænker på krigsførelse, og vi tænker på slagmarken, så er det ikke bare en direkte mand-til-mand konfrontation et sted som Raqqa eller Mosul, eller i Fallujah i Irak og Syrien. Dette er en global strid, og denne fjende har besluttet at slå tilbage på den måde, at de indgyder frygt – dette er en terror-bevægelse, det er ikke en bølle-bevægelse, det er ikke en kult, det er ikke en kriminel organisation. Det er en terrorist-organisation, der bygger på en meget radikal form for islamisme.
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/325569-strategy-isis-terrorism-attacks/
14. december, 2015 – Den russiske generalstabschef, general Valeriy Gerasimov, afgav en længere rapport om det russiske militær til forsvars-attachéer i Moskva i morges. ”Tilspidsning af globale og regionale sikkerhedsproblemer karakteriserer situationen i verden nu til dags. Det hænger først og fremmest sammen med udvidelsen af den internationale terrorisme og radikale ekstremisme”, lagde han ud med at sige. ”For det første giver NATO’s uvenskabelige militærpolitik over for Rusland anledning til bekymring. Alliancen udvider sin militære tilstedeværelse og forstærker sine væbnede styrkers aktivitet langs den Russiske Føderations grænser.” Med deployering af et ballistisk missilforsvar og udvikling af nye krigsvåben”, sagde han, ”forværres problemet med ubalancen i de strategiske styrker.”
Andre trusler inkluderer farvede revolutioner (han brugte ikke dette udtryk, men det fremgik klart af hans beskrivelse, at det var det, han talte om) til at omvælte regeringer, spredning af masseødelæggelsesvåben; forbrydelser og narkotikahandel hen over grænser; separatisme; og ukontrolleret folkevandring samt fremmedhad. ”Kombinationen af disse årsager og tilstedeværelsen af en dybt rodfæstet, mellemstatslig spænding skaber en trussel om optrapning af nye og aktuelle konflikter. Desværre bare stiger og stiger antallet af sådanne konflikter”, sagde han. ”En forening af hele verdenssamfundets bestræbelser imod de fælles udfordringer og trusler, først og fremmest international terrorisme, er en tiltagende oplagt nødvendighed.”
Med hensyn til Syrien er Rusland i færd med at smede relationer til mange lande over denne konflikt. ”Så meget desto mere, som den moderne historie udviser eksempler på succesfuldt samarbejde mellem de vestlige lande og den Russiske Føderation. Heriblandt fælles aktiviteter under den Internationale Styrkes Sikkerhedsassistances operation i Afghanistan, løsning af problemet med kemiske våben i Syrien, styrkelse af drøftelser om ”Irans atomprogram”, undertegning og implementering af ”Minskaftalerne” og kampen mod pirater i området ud for Afrikas Horn”, sagde Gerasimov. ”Under disse omstændigheder udgør de russiske væbnede styrker statens hovedinstrument i tilvejebringelse af sikkerhed i enhver situation, såvel som i løsningen af opgaver under militærkonflikter af forskellig intensitet.”
Meget af den resterende del af rapporten var helliget det russiske militærs moderniseringsbestræbelser, som er ganske store inden for områderne bemanding samt uddannelse og udstyr. Af største betydning var Gerasimovs understregning af moderniseringen af Ruslands atom-afskrækkelsesvåben, der, sagde han, vil blive udviklet ”til at opretholde de offensive og strategisk defensive styrker på et niveau, der vil levere den garanterede afskrækkelse af aggression rettet mod den Russiske Føderation og dens allierede.” Andre områder, som Gerasimov rapporterede om, var fremskridt mht. fornyelse af udstyret i de militære tjenester hen imod målsætningen om 70 % ’s moderne udrustning ved år 2020, og professionaliseringen af tjenesternes mandskab.
12. december 2015 – I løbet af det seneste døgn har kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard optrådt på TV og i radio og talt imod Bush/Obama-politikken for regimeskift, der netop nu er i gang imod Syriens præsident Assad. På National Public Radio (NPR) her til morgen konkluderede Gabbard: »Hvis Assads syriske regering bliver væltet, vil ISIS og al-Qaeda og disse andre grupper tage magten i hele Syrien og skabe en endnu større humanitær krise, så de mennesker, der er flygtet fra Syrien, fortsat ikke vil have noget hjem der. De vil forsat ikke se nogen fred og stabilitet, og truslen mod resten af verden vil være endnu større.«
Gabbard tilbageviste værten Steve Simons linje om, at syrere skulle være flygtet ud af deres land for at undfly Assad, hvilket er den linje, som forfølges af London/Team Obama. Hun sagde: »Hvis vi ser på tidslinjen, så begyndte folk at forlade – folk begyndte at forlade landet, da borgerkrigen gik i gang. Og meget af dette er blevet drevet af den finansiering, udstyring og bevæbning, som er udført af lande som USA, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet. Og det har været, og er fortsat, en meget grim borgerkrig, hvilket er en af grundene til, at jeg er fortaler for at standse og afslutte denne borgerkrig, så vi kan fokusere vore ressourcer omkring overvindelsen af ISIS.«
I går aftes, på Fox TV News’ program med Greta van Susteren, afviste Gabbard spørgsmålet om, at Assad-regeringen skulle købe ISIS-olie på det sorte marked, som en afledningsmanøvre. »Det er vigtigt at huske på, hvem, der er vores fjende.« Hun sagde, man skulle se tilbage på San Bernadino, på hvem det var, der fløj flyene ind i tvillingetårnene, samt andre terrorhandlinger. Disse mennesker var ikke kæmpere på mission fra den syriske præsident Assad! Gabbard, der er veteran fra Irakkrigen og har rank af major i Hawaiis Nationalgarde, gentog, at vi præcist ved, hvem disse mennesker er – al-Qaeda, al-Nusra og ISIS. Med hensyn til påstandene om, at Syrien skulle købe olie fra ISIS, sagde hun, at »de rapporter, der kommer frem, er et gennemskueligt forsøg på at aflede kritik bort fra Tyrkiet«, som er et hovedtransitsted for salg af ISIS-olien. Erdogans søn og svigersøn profiterer af det. Faktum er, at, hvad enten Syrien køber noget olie eller ej, så har det minimal virkning i sammenligning med Tyrkiets åbne grænse med Syrien, som giver mulighed for, at udenlandske kæmpere, våben, ammunition, penge og olie kommer ind i terroristgrupper.
10. december, 2015 – Den tidligere leder af det amerikanske forsvars efterretningstjeneste (Defense Intelligence Agency), den bramfri generalløjtnant Michael Flynn, var blandt hovedtalerne ved en RT–konference (Russia Today) i Moskva i torsdags, hvor han understregede behovet for et samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og andre lande med henblik på at besejre Islamisk Stat.
Konferencen højtideligholdt 10-årsdagen for grundlæggelsen af RT som Ruslands internationale nyheds-Tv-station. RT har over samme tidsrum opbygget et publikum på 700 millioner mennesker til dets engelsk-, spansk- og arabisksprogede udsendelser, som det blev bemærket af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i hans lykønsknings-budskab til konferencen.
Gen. Flynns deltagelse i konferencen sendte i sig selv et budskab om, at seriøse personer i USA’s og Ruslands regeringsinstitutioner har planer om at etablere, som deres fælles sag, besejringen af et internationalt terror-apparat, der i henhold til gen. Flynns estimat sandsynligvis tæller 30.000 plus udenlandske krigere fra 80 forskellige lande i sine syriske og irakiske rækker.
I et interview med RT i forbindelse med konferencen sagde Flynn, at ”Jeg står i et forum sammen med russisk TV, helt ærligt, for at stå frem og sige til verden: ’Hør her, vi er nødt til at gøre mere som internationalt samfund’” for at besejre denne fjende, ”og vi er nødt til at have en følelse af en påtrængende nødvendighed”. Han opfordrede russerne og amerikanerne til at finde ud af at tilpasse deres strategier og angav nogle af sine egne tanker om, hvad det indebærer.
Islamisk Stat er vokset ud over blot at være en regional trussel; det er en global trussel, som vi har set det i Paris og San Bernadino i Californien, understregede Flynn. Ligesom der også har været direkte trusler inden for Ruslands grænser.
”Jeg tror, at små ting, såsom at dele efterretninger, arbejde sammen, at få hinanden indenfor i vore respektive operationscentre, kan skabe en begyndende forståelse for, hvor de militære muligheder ligger – men vi er også nødt til at have nogle andre strategiske målsætninger, der i praksis virker gensidigt understøttende”, sagde Flynn.
Af konferencens øvrige internationale deltagere, hvis præsentationer endnu ikke er nedfældet, kan nævnes den tidligere tjekkiske vicepremier- og udenrigsminister Cyril Svoboda; samt den ”tyske statsmand og forhenværende vicepræsident for OSCE, Willy Wimmer”.
11. december 2015 – I en tale i dag ved det udvidede møde i Forsvarsministeriets bestyrelse, der inkluderede Ruslands militære topledelse, fremlagde præsident Vladimir Putin og forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu et detaljeret billede af landets globale militære strategi frem til 2020. Putin indledte med en diskussion om det russiske militærs rolle i Syrien, men understregede mere bredt betydningen af opgraderingen og moderniseringen af Ruslands militære evner, inklusive landets Strategiske Atomstyrker.
Rusland må »bevæbne alle komponenterne i atomtriaden med nye våben, hæve effektiviteten af missilangrebs-advarselssystemet og luftforsvarssystemet«, sagde han. Som Shoigu påpegede, så tager den Nationale Forsvarsplan 2016-2020, som præsident Putin godkendte i november, »alle militære trusler og udfordringer i betragtning og yder beskyttelse til landet i henhold til alle varianter af militære konflikter, der måtte bryde ud med deltagelse af den Russiske Føderation. De Russiske Bevæbnede Styrkers kvalitetsforhold er blevet forbedret«. I denne sammenhæng gav Shoigu en detaljeret rapport over NATO’s provokerende udvidelse op til Ruslands grænser (se separat nyhedsrapportering).
Men hensyn til Syrien understregede Putin, at luft- og flådestyrkerne, der er deployeret dertil, forsvarer deres land.
»Vore handlinger er ikke motiveret af nogle obskure og abstrakte geopolitiske interesser eller et ønske om at træne vore styrker og afprøve nye våben – hvilket selvfølgelig også er et vigtigt mål«, sagde Putin. »Vores hovedformål er at afværge en trussel mod den Russiske Føderation.« Han sagde udtrykkeligt, at enhver styrke, der truede det russiske militær, ville blive ødelagt og opfordrede militæret til at reagere »på den mest barske måde« over for sådanne trusler. Shoigu rapporterede, at ISIS nu kontrollerer 70 % af Syriens territorium og har 60.000 militante kæmpere der. Pr. dags dato har Rusland udført 4.000 sortier og ødelagt 8.000 terroristfaciliteter.
Den russiske præsident rapporterede ligeledes, at militære aktioner er koordineret med politi og efterretningstjenester, såsom FSB, internt i Rusland. »I har set, at FSB’s organisationer i bogstavelig talt hele landet har afsløret hemmelige celler for diverse terroristorganisationer, inklusive den berygtede ISIS.« Folk med russisk nationalitet, ikke kun fra Nordkaukasus, men også fra andre regioner, er aktivt involveret i terroristernes kamp i Syrien, sagde han. »Og dette er en direkte trussel mod Rusland«, sagde han. Shoigu advarede om, at »Islamisk Stats indflydelsesområde ekspanderer. Der er en trussel om, at deres handlinger vil blive overført til Centralasien og Kaukasus.«
Putin roste de ubådslancerede krydsermissiler, der blev brugt imod terrorister i Syrien, og påpegede, at både vandbaserede og luftbårne krydsermissiler har vist sig højst effektive og kan udstyres med både konventionelle og atomare sprænghoveder. »Dette er«, sagde han, »selvfølgelig ikke nødvendigt i kampen mod terrorister og vil, håber jeg, aldrig blive nødvendigt.«
Sputnik rapporterede i dag, at Putin beordrede de Russiske Bevæbnede Styrker til at koordinere med kommandoposter under den israelsk og amerikansk ledede koalition. »Det er vigtigt at fremme kooperation med alle de lande, der virkelig er interesseret i at eliminere terrorister. Jeg taler om de kontakter, der tilsigter at sikre sikkerhed [dekonfliktion, -red.] med det israelske Luftvåbens kommandoposter og med den amerikansk ledede, anti-Daesh koalitions styrker.«