1

Jyllands-Posten leder imod Ukraines sortliste:
Ukraine risikerer at bevæge sig over på den forkerte side,
når det handler om det frie ord

Jyllands-Postens leder den 11. august kl. 18.30:

  • FOR ABONNENTER

Ukraine og det frie ord

Det er​ bekymrende, når Ukraine sortlister forskere og andre, der har et andet syn på konflikten end den entydigt proukrainske.

Dækning af lederen i Officielt EU-Website/ Europa-Kommissionen/Repræsentationen i Danmark:

https://denmark.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-i-dagens-aviser-fredag-den-12-august-2022-2022-08-12_da

Udvidelse: Ukraine og det frie ord
Jyllands-Posten skriver blandt andet i sin leder: “Om ikke før så i hvert fald efter den 24. februar i år har den ukrainske befolkning og landets præsident, Volodymyr Zelenskyj, ikke kunnet været i tvivl om, at et samlet Vesten og EU bakker landet fuldt op. […] Og den tidligere skuespiller Zelenskyj har ud over at være en autentisk og stærk leder af sit land også – i sin grønne army-T-shirt – afsløret sig som en blændende kommunikator og fortolker af mediesamfundet. […] Det har været med til i endnu højere grad at understrege og overbevise om, at Ukraine naturligvis hører til i Europa og med tiden i EU – en dag på den anden side af krigen. Men for at nå dertil er der betingelser, der skal opfyldes. Blandt dem er den grundlæggende accept af det frie ord. Allerede inden krigen var der historier om, at ytringsfriheden for især medierne ikke altid havde gunstige vilkår i Ukraine, og at det under en krig som nu er endnu værre, er indlysende. […] Center for Modvirkning af Desinformation lyder som noget fra George Orwells ”1984”, men det er et center under Ukraines Nationale Sikkerhedsråd. Centeret har formentlig en central funktion under krigen, men det er for nylig også blevet brugt til at sortliste 72 internationale politikere, tænkere og forskere, heriblandt fire danskere: Rusland-eksperten Jens Jørgen Nielsen, freds- og konfliktforskeren Jan Øberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Sverige Ulf Sandmark og professor på Aalborg Universitet Li Xing. Fælles for de fire danskere er, at de i slutningen af maj deltog i et seminar om alternativer til den aktuelle sikkerhedspolitiske struktur i verden for at mindske spændinger og opdelingen af lande i f.eks. medlemmer og ikkemedlemmer af Nato. Bl.a. Li Xing er imod Ruslands angreb på Ukraine, men han har også baseret på sin forskning sat spørgsmålstegn ved sanktionspolitikkens virkning på lang sigt. […] Derfor er det bekymrende, når Ukraine sortlister forskere og andre, der har et andet syn på konflikten.”
Kilde: Jyllands-Posten, s. 28

 




Udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod skal i samråd om Ukraine-listen

Aug. 5, 2022 (EIRNS)–COPENHAGEN, Aug. 5 (EIRNS) — Den 1. august anmodede formanden for Folketingets Udenrigsudvalget Bertel Haarder (Venstre) den danske udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod om et samråd om Ukraine-listen på vejen af udvalgsmedlem Marie Krarup (uafhængig). Ethvert folketingsmedlem har ret til at kræve, at enhver minister mundtligt besvarer skriftlige spørgsmål, der tidligere er stillet. På Folketingets hjemmeside annonceres anmodningen om samråd og de to spørgsmål. Datoen er endnu ikke fastsat.

 

På Folketingets hjemmeside:
 

Samrådsspm. om den ukrainske liste over udlændinge, som “fremmer” den russiske fortælling mv., til udenrigsministeren

Samrådsspørgsmål U

Vil ministeren forholde sig til den ukrainske liste over udlændinge, som “fremmer” den russiske fortælling, herunder bedes ministeren svare på, om listen efter regeringens opfattelse er udtryk for respekt for ytringsfrihed, demokrati og andre værdier, som ministeren mener, Danmark bør fremme i verden?

 

Mener ministeren, at Danmark fortsat kan begrunde sin støtte til Ukraine med våben og penge med, at Danmark således er med til at støtte demokratiske værdier uden for Danmark? Der henvises til ”Ukraine offentliggør liste over udlændinge, som fremmer ”russisk fortælling” om krigen i Ukraine, tre danskere figurerer på listen”, bragt på www.mreast.dk den 29. juli 2022.

Af: Marie Krarup (UFG)
Til: udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod ()
Dato: 01-08-2022
Status: Ikke besvaret
Emne: udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik

 

Link: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20211/almdel/URU/samspm/U/index.htm
 
Billede: Michelle Rasmussen



DR’s hjemmeside: Aalborg-professor er på sort liste hos de ukrainske myndigheder

Her er linket: Aalborg-professor [Li Xing] er på sort liste hos de ukrainske myndigheder




NYHEDSORIENTERING MAJ-JUNI 2022:
Dansk-svensk videokonference d. 25. maj 2022:
For en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer,
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke.
NEJ til at afskaffe forsvarsforbeholdet
NEJ til Sverige og Finland i NATO

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Afghanistan: Den humanitær krise, og hvad der skal gøres.
Interview med H.E. Ahmed Farooq, Pakistans ambassadør til Danmark

May 31, 2022 interview with H.E. Ambassador Ahmed Farooq, Ambassador of Pakistan to Kingdom of Denmark.  
Contact: www.pakistanembassy.dk
Interviewed by Tom Gillesberg, chairman, Schiller Institute in Denmark, and Executive Intelligence Review’s Copenhagen bureau chief.
Contact the Schiller Institute in Denmark: si@schillerinstitut.dk ; +45 53 57 00, Danish: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.schillerinstitute.com

This transcript appears in the June 10, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.  Subscribe to Executive Intelligence Review (larouchepub.com)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

På engelsk:

This transcript appears in the June 10, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this transcript]

INTERVIEW: Ambassador Ahmad Farooq

Twenty-Two Million People in Afghanistan Continue To Face a Dire Humanitarian Emergency

The following is the edited transcript of the interview with His Excellency Ambassador Ahmad Farooq, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Kingdom of Denmark, conducted by Tom Gillesberg, May 31, 2022 at the Pakistani Embassy in Denmark. The video of the interview is available here.

Tom Gillesberg: I’m Tom Gillesberg, Chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, and also with Executive Intelligence Review. I’m here at the Pakistani Embassy in Denmark with His Excellency Ambassador Ahmad Farooq, the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Kingdom of Denmark since April 2020. Before that, the Ambassador held several posts in connection with the United Nations: Counsellor/Alternate to the Rome-based UN Agencies; Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the UN; member of Pakistan’s Security Council team; Director General dealing with counter terrorism at the UN and other multilateral forums; and Director, dealing with the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, Counter Terrorism, UN Peacekeeping and other political and peace and security issues.

Your Excellency Ambassador Farooq, I’m very glad you agreed to give us an interview. You gave a speech to the Schiller Institute in Denmark’s Afghanistan seminar in October 2021, “Afghanistan, What Now? Peace Through Economic Development,” where you especially described the dire situation in Afghanistan at the time, and how the Afghanistan war had affected Pakistan. Since then, the people of Afghanistan have suffered through seven months of winter conditions, and the humanitarian situation is much worse, probably the worst in the whole world. Could you please describe the humanitarian emergency for the people of Afghanistan right now?

View full size

Michelle Rasmussen
H.E. Ahmad Farooq, Ambassador of Pakistan to Denmark.

Ambassador Ahmad Farooq: Thank you very much, Tom. I would first of all like to thank you and the Schiller Institute for coming to the Pakistan Embassy in order to discuss this important issue that is being faced by the people of Afghanistan and the region. The Schiller Institute, I must say, has been doing a very good job, in highlighting what is happening in Afghanistan, so I would like to begin by thanking you for that.

You have very rightly said that Afghanistan has been going through a very difficult situation, and when we met at the Schiller Institute in October, things were not as bad. But we could see which way the situation could go, if the international community did nothing to help the people of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, what we had foreseen at that time did play out in the following period. What we now know—and these are statistics [that] have come out from the United Nations—is that over 22 million people in Afghanistan continue to face a dire humanitarian emergency. Over 1 million Afghan children are malnourished and at the risk of dying. The winter period, in particular, has been very hard on the people of Afghanistan, because of the food shortages and because Afghanistan had been facing a prolonged drought even before things happened in August of last year. That, combined with the economic situation that Afghanistan faced after the withdrawal of the international forces in particular, has helped to further compound the humanitarian crisis being faced by the people of Afghanistan.

So, it continues to be a very difficult situation there. The region itself, obviously, has suffered from this conflict for over four decades, and we continue to do so. There is a lot of concern in Pakistan, as it is a very sad and difficult situation that we see which the people of Afghanistan are currently facing.

View full size

Ibn Sina (Avicenna), 980–1037, the great doctor, philosopher, and political advisor.

Gillesberg: Obviously, much too little humanitarian aid has reached Afghanistan. The Schiller Institute has been pleading for emergency action. We also did that very much in the seminar together with you, to alleviate the sufferings of the Afghan people. And our founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche has proposed Operation Ibn Sina, named after the great doctor and philosopher and political adviser from the region, born in 980, also known in the West as Avicenna. Operation Ibn Sina is a call for mobilizing emergency humanitarian aid and building a modern health system as a focus for sparking the long-term development of Afghanistan’s infrastructure and economy. What do you think of this? And what must be done to prevent even more millions of people from starving and many dying?

Ambassador Farooq: I think—and it is the position of the government of Pakistan in this regard—that the international community needs to come together and address the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, and that there is need for engagement with the authorities in Afghanistan. There is a need for coordinated provision of humanitarian assistance for the people of Afghanistan.

So far, what we are seeing is that there is a sporadic effort, and obviously, many Western countries that were present previously in Afghanistan, no longer have any presence there. Then, we also had a significant presence of the United Nations which mostly is not there anymore. Then, there is this issue of how to deal with the authorities in Afghanistan, and what we generally see is an effort to try to bypass them when dealing with the people of Afghanistan.

Now, Afghanistan is a large country in terms of size, area, and also in terms of the size of its population; it’s over 40 million people. The way we see it, it is not possible for a good, coordinated humanitarian effort to reach the most vulnerable people in the country when you are trying to bypass the authorities. This is something we have been calling upon the international community—that everybody needs to come together and look at what the humanitarian needs are in Afghanistan. The other issues, the political issues, obviously, those also have to be dealt with, but the priority has to be on how we can prevent further suffering in Afghanistan.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, we have been trying to facilitate, for example, the UN humanitarian effort. Most of it in the past was also being routed through Pakistan, and we have an arrangement with the UN on how they can again direct their humanitarian actions through Pakistan. So that is happening.

But again, I think the principal obstacle is this issue—that the policies which the Western countries have come up with, is that whatever they do there, they have to bypass the authorities. And that, in itself, is preventing a more sustained and coordinated effort to help the people there.

So when you mention about the initiative which Helga Zepp-LaRouche has launched, it is a very good idea. It’s something that should have a lot of traction, particularly for Muslim countries, because obviously Ibn Sina comes from our part of the world, and could provide a sort of rallying point for Islamic countries to help the people of Afghanistan. So, anything that can be done should be done. We are of the view that it is our obligation to help those poor people there.

Gillesberg: Could you say more about what the government of Pakistan is concretely proposing, and what they are doing in relation to Afghanistan?

Ambassador Farooq: Well, being the most immediate neighbor of Afghanistan, and a country which has suffered throughout the last four decades, both in terms of the humanitarian angle—we have been hosting over 4 million refugees at any given point in time, and over 3 million still continue to live in Pakistan, we have faced the security dimension of the instability in Afghanistan, especially over the last 20 years, so we have a deep interest in having a stable Afghanistan as our neighbor.

View full size

UNICEF/Omid Fazel
Refugee camp in Afghanistan, May 18, 2020.

Right after the events of August 2021, we coordinated with the international community, first in the evacuation of the international staff, diplomats, Afghan nationals that the international community wanted to evacuate from there. We have been trying to coordinate efforts among the neighboring countries of Afghanistan. So, Pakistan hosted a conference in September of the six neighboring countries; then another conference was held in Tehran, Iran, in October, and we participated in that. We then hosted the meeting of the Troika-Plus: This is a grouping of China, Russia, the United States, and Pakistan, so we hosted that, and on the sidelines of that meeting, there was also a meeting of this grouping with the Taliban delegation. Then we hosted the emergency meeting of the Islamic countries’ Foreign Ministers in December, which was focused, specifically, on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan.

So our effort has been to promote engagement with Afghanistan, bring the international community together, so that we, specifically, deal first with the humanitarian situation. Bilaterally as well, Pakistan has contributed, despite our economic difficulties, about $30 million in terms of humanitarian assistance. We have been facing the challenge of COVID, and despite that, we have tried to keep cross-border movement of people, as well as trade of goods and services open, so that the people of Afghanistan do not suffer more than they have to. And we recently also allowed a shipment of wheat from India: This is a sensitive issue in Pakistan, but for the benefit of the Afghan people, we allowed an overland shipment of Indian wheat from India to Afghanistan.

So, we continue to engage with the international community in terms of what we can do to help Afghanistan.

Gillesberg: Pakistan also organized the conference in Islamabad of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) about Afghanistan, on March 22-23 this year. What was the result of that meeting?

Ambassador Farooq: Yes, as I mentioned in my previous response, actually the emergency session on Afghanistan was held in December. And there were two important outcomes of that conference: First was that a special humanitarian trust fund was created for Afghanistan; and then the Organization for Islamic Cooperation also appointed a special representative to deal with the humanitarian situation. These were the two key decisions that were taken at the December meeting. In March, we had a regular session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC, which basically operationalized those two decisions. So now that trust fund is operational, and countries have started to contribute money to that, which would then be channeled to Afghanistan through the Islamic Development Bank. So the OIC has its own set of organizations that can deal with these humanitarian issues, and we feel very happy that we were able to coordinate, and to have this work done for Afghanistan.

Gillesberg: What is your message to people in the U.S. and in Europe, regarding Afghanistan, and what should happen?

Ambassador Farooq: Our consistent message to our European and other Western partners is that we have to come together: It’s our obligation to help the people of Afghanistan, and it is important to continue to our engagement even with the authorities of Afghanistan. We do understand that there are sensitivities with regard to issues relating to political inclusion, as well as human rights, especially the rights of women and girls. But we believe that in order to make progress on these issues as well, we have to continue our engagement. Pakistan has been, as I mentioned, part of several initiatives in terms of trying to bring countries together on Afghanistan, and we have consistently joined the international community in expressing the same concerns that they have, in terms of human rights, in terms of political inclusion, and especially the rights of women and girls. So we share those concerns, but we believe if we are to make progress, we have to continue our engagement with the country.

View full size

OIC
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on March 22-23 in Islamabad, Pakistan operationalized a special humanitarian trust fund for Afghanistan, and appointed a special representative to deal with humanitarian aid.

Then, the most important aspect, I think, that has to be addressed is the economic meltdown which has happened in Afghanistan, because without a functioning economy, you cannot deal with the humanitarian situation. The world cannot be expected to just keep pumping in money in terms of providing food and medical assistance: The country eventually has to stand on its own two feet. And for that, we have to ensure that the banking system of the country is functional, and we have to look at this issue of the sanctions that exist against the Taliban authorities, because when you have that kind of a situation, it is not possible for a country to do business internationally. So these, I think, are some of our key messages to our international partners, for how we bring about stability in Afghanistan, and take them out of the current sad situation.

Gillesberg: This also includes, of course, that part of these sanctions has been to freeze all the accounts of the national government of Afghanistan, so they do not have Afghanistan’s money to spend on dealing with the situation in Afghanistan; but it’s also a big factor that Afghanistan has been cut off from the whole SWIFT system, which means that Afghanis living abroad are not able to send money back home.

Ambassador Farooq: Exactly. So this is what I’m trying to say, that the international connectivity of Afghanistan with the banking system—the banking system of Afghanistan, it is clear, has collapsed. There is an issue of liquidity, which the United Nations is trying to address, and we appreciate that. More needs to be done. When you mention about freezing of Afghan assets, again, they have the money to take care of their people for some time, but because of the sanctions, they don’t have access to it. And lately, we were also disappointed with the decision that part of that money has been sequestered to pay, to compensate the victims of, for example, the 9/11 attack. So this again, is an unfortunate decision, because that money was the money of the people of Afghanistan: They need it. They are starving to death. So that consideration should have been given.

Gillesberg: Well, now, on top of all the calamities, you can say, in that situation, you also have a war between Russia and Ukraine, with the U.S. and NATO actively engaged in many ways, and which also directly affects the situation with these enormously rising food prices, and all of the other things involved. Now, could cooperation to help the people of Afghanistan maybe be a way for the great powers to begin to cooperate to solve their problems?

Ambassador Farooq: Well, it has been most unfortunate for the world as a whole that we have this conflict in the heart of Europe in the 21st century, which was unthinkable until a few months back, and unfortunately, it has diverted the focus of the international community from grave humanitarian situations like Afghanistan, like Yemen, also some situations in Africa, and the entire focus is now on this war: So this is most unfortunate.

Frankly, sitting in Europe, and looking at the positions which the opposing sides have taken on this conflict, I really don’t see a possibility of some kind of a compromise—I mean, cooperation on Afghanistan that could help solve this conflict. It has to be the other way around. There has to be peace in Ukraine, which would be for the betterment, I think, of the entire international community. And Pakistan was among the first countries that raised these concerns, that this conflict would have serious consequences for the global economy, and especially for the developing countries that are dependent on import of food items, grain, import of petroleum products.

And it is playing out: You have seen what has happened in Sri Lanka. Pakistan itself is facing very serious economic issues on the external front, because we also import wheat, we also import most of our petroleum products, so it has put a serious strain on our economy. I’m sure there are many other countries that are facing these difficulties. So what we urge all the players that are involved in this conflict is, that we have to find a peaceful solution through dialogue, through diplomacy, because conflicts and wars don’t provide any solution. That has been our consistent perspective in respect of Afghanistan, and we say that, also, in the case of Ukraine.

Gillesberg: Well, most people and most politicians normally say, “first we have to create peace, and once we create peace we can begin to collaborate.” The Schiller Institute has always insisted that it’s the other way around, that you create peace through development: That if nations engage with each other, in really taking care of their common interests by having economic development, then you also have the opportunity for long-term peace.

The Schiller Institute is right now circulating a petition that was released a few days before the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, entitled, “Convoke an International Conference To Establish a New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations,” modeled on the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which, after 30 years of war in Europe, which really was over 100 years of war in Europe, the conflicting parts then agreed that peace could only come about by taking into account the interests of every country. Also, the regional economic development programs are essential for increasing global security. Do you have any comments on this proposal?

Ambassador Farooq: I think it’s a good proposal. But if you look at it from a historical perspective, didn’t this happen at the end of the Second World War when we created the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter has all those elements—respect for territorial integrity, non-use of threat or force; solving disputes through peaceful means—all this was there, and then the whole global architecture was created, the financial and economic architecture that was meant to promote peace and development. And the European Union, itself, is the best example that once countries start to cooperate economically, then the chance of having a war is reduced significantly. We are seeing this in the Southeast Asian region, where we have ASEAN. So it is correct.

But at the same time, we still see, that there are forces, or it’s perhaps when a certain generation which has gone through these difficult times is phased out, and there is a new generation, they forget about how destructive wars are, and you see the start of another war happening. There has to be a consistent effort by humanity that wars don’t provide any solutions, and we have to look at cooperation between the countries, and through that find peace.

So, this petition you have launched, it’s very timely, but now we have a war here, and we have to find a peaceful solution to it, because conflicts, as I said, are no answers to any differences between countries.

Gillesberg: Well, Mr. Ambassador, it’s been very interesting talking to you about these matters, and much more could be brought into the discussion, but is there anything else, at the end of the interview, you would like to say to the viewers?

Ambassador Farooq: Well, it’s been an interesting time for me, serving as Pakistan’s ambassador to a member of the European Union. And I believe that it is important to develop a better understanding of each other, in order to have peace, stability, and global prosperity. The world is facing huge challenges: COVID was just one example, but the bigger challenge and threat that the entire globe is facing is climate change. And what we are seeing is, for example, that the situation in Ukraine tends to dilute your focus from the bigger challenges that we all are collectively facing. So there is a need for bringing the world together to address those challenges in which everybody has a stake.

One of the key things for us which has come out of this conflict in Ukraine, is that we didn’t want to take any further sides in great power conflicts, because we believe that developing countries have to focus on the betterment of their people, and we have to look at what bigger challenges we are facing in the future.

Gillesberg: Also, when you have a conflict, where the obvious unsaid question is, when will this escalate into thermonuclear war, if the dynamic is not changed, it’s difficult to see how you can be a “winner” by simply choosing sides.

Ambassador Farooq: Exactly.

Gillesberg: Then it might be better to change the dynamic.

Ambassador Farooq: That is correct.

Gillesberg: Well, Your Excellency, thank you very much for the interview. And let’s talk again later, when, hopefully, some of these issues are getting a more interesting development, which gives more opportunity for actually solving the problems.

Ambassador Farooq: Thank you Tom. It’s always a pleasure to interact with the Schiller Institute.

clear

clear

clear




Hvorfor Danmark bør afstå fra et intensiveret geopolitisk militært engagement,
af næstformand Michelle Rasmussen:

Fra videokonferencen den 25. maj 2022.

Jeg vil lige bruge et par minutter på at tale om den danske situation, idet jeg afløser Tom Gillesberg, der er formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark siger helt klart, at folk skal stemme NEJ ved folkeafstemningen, som skal afholdes den 1. juni. Folkeafstemningen drejer sig om en situation, hvor fem partier i den danske regering i forbindelse med Ukraine-krigen stemte for at få en folkeafstemning, som en del af et nationalt forsvarskompromis, herunder Socialistisk Folkeparti, som i første omgang havde sørget for fravalgene. Det var tilbage i 1992, hvor den danske befolkning først havde stemt NEJ til Maastricht-traktaten. Derefter kom forhandlingerne, der førte til Edinburgh-aftalen, frem til fire undtagelsesbestemmelser. Derefter stemte befolkningen JA til at acceptere Maastricht-traktaten.

En af undtagelserne var, at Danmark ikke ville deltage i de fælles europæiske EU-militære aktiviteter. Vi mener, at befolkningen skal stemme NEJ. Det ville være en måde, ikke blot at forhindre Danmark i at øge sine militære aktiviteter med EU, men også at sætte en stopper for en militariseringsproces, der især siden 2001 har været i gang. Personligt er jeg amerikansk statsborger, og for nylig er jeg også blevet dansk statsborger. Og jeg vil sige, at Danmark, mit nye hjemland, i stedet for bare at følge med i USA’s politik, mit oprindelsesland, at Danmark i stedet burde arbejde for at ændre USA’s politik.

Lyndon LaRouche opfordrede for mange år siden til en fire-magts-aftale. Hvis USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien og Rusland samarbejder om at etablere et nyt retfærdigt økonomisk verdenssystem, et nyt kreditsystem, kunne dette har været grundlaget for konfliktløsning gennem økonomisk udviklingssamarbejde. Som Li Xing sagde, er det bedste alternativ til krig at få iværksat et økonomisk samarbejde. [Dermed kunne den nuværende konflikt have været undgået.]

Siden 2001 har Danmark deltaget i alle de krige, som USA, tilskyndet af briterne, har indledt, fra Afghanistan under statsminister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, og det var især under statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, som senere blev NATO’s generalsekretær, at militariseringen blev optrappet. Danmark deltog i krigene i Irak, og så havde vi Libyen. Vi var med i de andre krige, der kom bagefter.

Nu er Danmark i forhandlinger med USA om etablering af en bilateral forsvarsaftale, som formentlig vil omfatte permanent udstationering af amerikanske tropper på dansk jord, hvilket vil sige, at udenlandske tropper for første gang i fredstid vil blive permanent udstationeret her.

Der var et spørgsmål til de fem partier, der kom med dette nationale forsvarskompromis, fra en journalist til de to højrepartier, Det Konservative Folkeparti og Venstre, om, hvad de ville sige, hvis USA ville bede om at forhandle om opstilling af atomvåben i Danmark. Og deres svar var: “Jamen, det må vi da tale om.” Det er også en total kursændring i forhold til den tidligere danske politik.

Den anden ting er, at det ikke er nok at stemme NEJ ved folkeafstemningen. Det vil ikke løse problemerne. Men det vil være en måde at dæmme op for denne trinvise militarisering.

For det, Schiller Instituttet siger, er, at nøglen til en mere fredelig verden ikke er at øge militariseringen, men at etablere en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og økonomisk udvikling, hvor man kan undgå krigsudbrud. Som Jan Øberg påpegede, kan man have konflikter, men hvordan sikrer vi, at de ikke fører til krig? Hvordan kan vi løse disse konflikter på en fredelig måde?

Det er her, at idéen om fremgangsmåden med den Westfalske Fred dukker op. Jeg vil snarest stille et spørgsmål til Helga for at få mere at vide om det.

Danmark har også haft en anden tradition. Et af vores slogans her har været, at i stedet for krigsførelse skal vi bygge broer. Der er en dansk tradition for økonomisk udvikling, partnerskab med lande om vandudvikling, om brobygning og om energiudvikling. Det er det, vi skal fremhæve.

In English:
I will just take a few minutes to speak about the Danish situation, standing in for Tom Gillesburg, the chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark.
The Schiller Institute in Denmark is definitely saying that people should vote NO in the referendum, which is to be held on June 1st. The referendum concerns a situation where after the Ukraine war, five parties in the Danish government voted to have a referendum as part of a National Defense Compromise, including the Socialist People’s Party, which had organized the opt-outs in the beginning. Back in 1992, where the Danish population had first voted NO to the Maastricht Treaty. Then,  the negotiations that led to the Edinburgh agreement came up with four opt-outs. Then, the population voted YES to accept the Maastricht Treaty.

One of the opt-outs was that Denmark would not participate in the joint European EU military activities. We think that people should vote NO. This would be a way, not only to prevent Denmark from increasing its military activity with the EU, but would also put a stop to a process of militarization that has been going on, especially since 2001. Personally, I’m an American citizen, and recently, I also became a Danish citizen. And I would say that Denmark, my adopted countr, ought to, instead of just following along with the policies of the United States, my native country, that Denmark should, instead, work to change the policies of the United States.

Lyndon LaRouch, many years ago, called for a four power agreement. If the United States, Russia, China and India would cooperate to establish a new just world economic system, a new credit system, this could be the basis of conflict resolution through economic development cooperation. As the Li Xing was saying, the best alternative to war is to get economic cooperation going.

Since 2001, Denmark has participated in every war that the United States, goaded on by the British, have launched, from Afghanistan under Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, and it the militarization was especially escalated under Prime Minist Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who later became the NATO’s general secretary. Denmark participated in the the wars in Iraq, and then we had Libya. We had the other wars that came after that.

And now Denmark is in negotiations with the United States for setting up a bilateral defense treaty, which will probably include permanent stationing of United States troops on Danish soil, which would be that foreign troops would be permanently stationed here for the first time in peacetime.

There was a question to the five parties that came up with this National Defense Compromise from a reporter to the two right parties, the the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party (Venstre), about what they would they say if the United States would ask for negotiating about stationing of nuclear weapons in Denmark. And their answer was, “Well, we’ll have to talk about it.” This is also a total reversal of the previous Danish policy.

The other thing is that it’s not enough to vote NO in the referendum. That will not solve the problems. But it will be a way of of stemming the tide of this step by step by step militarization.

Because, what the Schiller Institute is saying, is that the key to a more peaceful world is not increasing the militarization, but it is establishing a new security and economic development architecture, where you can avoid the outbreak of war. As Jan was saying, you can have conflicts, but how do we make sure that it doesn’t lead to war? How can we solve these conflicts in a peaceful way?

And that is where the idea of the Peace of Westphalia approach comes in. I will soon ask a question to Helga to explain more about that.

And Denmark has also had a different tradition. One of our slogans here has been, instead of war fighting, bridge building. There is aa Danish tradition for economic development, partnership with countries about water development, about building bridges, about energy development. And this is what we need to be emphasizing.

So, I would like to introduce, then, the question period, by asking the question to Helga. This is from Sarah on YouTube, who would like to ask Helga “What is a foreseeable path to reaching a position to propose the peace of Westphalia? Is war the only way? How much can transparency work towards reaching this goal?” To sum it up. What is the idea of the Peace of Westphalia? How can these principles of peace building be used today? And how can we actually implement this?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
The answer will come soon.




Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO.
Why Sweden and Finland Should Not Join NATO:
Speech by Ulf Sandmark, chairman, Schiller Institute in Sweden, May 25, 2022

Præsentation på Schiller Instituttets seminar “Vi har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, ikke for en styrkelse af de geopolitiske blokke” den 25. maj 2022.

På vegne af Schiller Instituttet i Sverige, som er medvært for dette seminar, vil jeg gerne byde alle velkommen og især takke de talere, der er kommet før mig, for deres fremragende præsentationer.

Jeg vil forsøge at besvare spørgsmålet: “Hvorfor bør Sverige og Finland ikke tilslutte sig Nato?”

Faktisk var ansøgningerne om at blive medlem af Nato unødvendige, uforsvarlige og vanvittige. De var unødvendige ansøgninger, fordi der ikke var nogen trussel mod Sverige eller Finland. Rusland havde travlt på andre fronter, og der var ingen hensigt om at angribe vores lande.

De var uforsvarlige, fordi de øger truslerne mod Rusland i strid med OSCE-traktaten, især princippet om inklusiv sikkerhed, som betyder, at man ikke må øge sin egen sikkerhed på bekostning af andres sikkerhed i henhold til traktaten, og det er faktisk også i overensstemmelse med FN-traktaten. Det var også uforsvarligt, fordi vi nu har etableret en konfrontations linje i Nordeuropa. Under Den kolde Krig var der tidligere en meget stærk konfrontationslinje på kontinentet med store hære, der stod over for hinanden i Tyskland m.m.. Nu vil vi få den samme konfrontationslinje i Nord, hvilket gør det til et ustabilt område. Hele Østersøen vil blive blokeret med en amerikansk politik kaldet 2A/AD, “Area Denial”-politikken, som nu diskuteres i det svenske Krigsvidenskabelige Akademi.

Ansøgningerne var vanvittige, for det vi har nu er en absolut, enorm nuklear provokation, muligvis en omvendt Cuba-krise med Sverige og Finland placeret så tæt på Rusland og især deres baser for atomubåde i Arktis. Allerede nu er det tilladt for B-52 strategiske bombefly at flyve ind i svensk luftrum i henhold til værtslands-aftalen med Nato. Jeg vil gerne dele dette billede fra den 18. februar
der viser en amerikansk B-52 Stratofortress fra Bomber Task Force, som eskorteres af svenske kampfly over Sverige. Ved denne lejlighed var der ikke kun én B-52, men to. Hver af dem kan bære 12 Tomahawk-missiler, der kan have atomare sprænghoveder. Det betyder, at disse B-52, der flyver fra Storbritannien ind i svensk luftrum, fra svensk territorium på få minutter kan tilintetgøre 24 russiske byer. Det var en enorm provokation. Det var faktisk på samme tidspunkt, som den ukrainske hær øgede beskydningen af Donbass med tredive gange.

Som Jan Öberg havde mistanke om, var det et planlagt angreb for at få Sverige ind i Nato. Det var som et bagholdsangreb. Den svenske tidligere forsvarsminister Sven Tolgfors har i en bog (2016) skrevet, at man kunne forvente, at en sikkerhedskrise ville kunne ændre den svenske Nato-politik. I en sikkerhedskrise skal vi være forberedt på at gøre det rigtig hurtigt.

Vi kan også se, hvordan det er kommet i stand. Bare få uger med frygt og hysteri ændrede Finland og Sverige sig. Dette pludselige skift er stadig et chok for især den svenske befolkning. Det, der var sandt for to måneder siden, er nu forkert. For to måneder siden sagde statsminister Magdalena Andersson: “Et svensk Nato-medlemskab ville destabilisere regionen”. Nu skulle svenskerne omprogrammeres af presset fra massemedierne.

Som svenskerne har for vane, at være “de bedste i klassen”, der mestrer den type “gruppetænkning”, som Jan Öberg ligeledes nævnte. Nu forventes det, at Sverige vil være “den bedste i klassen” til krig mod Rusland og Kina. Vi befinder os i en enorm identitetskrise blandt svenskerne og især blandt de socialdemokratiske vælgere.

Tyrkiets modstand mod at tillade medlemskab for de nye ansøgere er et eksempel på den manglende suverænitet i Nato. USA skal nu “løse” problemet. Hvor er den så højt besungne frihed og suverænitet, som Nato skal forsvare, blevet af? Svenskerne er chokerede over at se, hvordan Tyrkiet behandles nu, hvor USA formodes at lægge pres på deres beslutning.

Faktisk forsvarer Tyrkiet nu den svenske og finske suverænitet mere end vores regeringer. Forhåbentlig vil flere NATO-medlemslande tilslutte sig Tyrkiet. Det vil i det mindste give os mere tid her til at stoppe dette vanvid. Ved at blokere vores Nato-ansøgning forsvarer Tyrkiet hele Nato og verden mod en omfattende atomvåbenkrise. Tyrkiet er faktisk den voksne person i rummet ved at organisere fredsforhandlingerne mellem Rusland og Ukraine, hvilket Sverige og Finland burde have koncentreret deres diplomatiske indsats om i stedet for at tilslutte sig Nato!

Men Sverige og Finland bør tage sine skæbner i egne hænder. Vi skal genetablere vores tidligere fælles mission for fred og økonomisk udvikling. Vi bør deltage i etableringen af en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer, som erstatter geopolitik og storfinansens plyndring af vores nationer. Nato har kørt os over. Sammen med andre nationer i verden kan vi nu gøre Nato forældet og begrave det.

Det første skridt for Sverige og Finland bør være at slå sig sammen med Italiens premierminister, Mario Draghi, som netop har fremsat et fredsforslag for Ukraine. Denne form for internationalt samarbejde kunne også få Tyrkiet til at presse på for at få fred i stedet for krig.

For det andet er vi nødt til at inddrage den økonomiske dimension, fordi det kan være afgørende for hele Sveriges og Finlands beslutning om ikke at blive medlem af Nato. Hele Europa er nødt til at imødegå sanktionernes økonomiske chok. Det er en neoliberal chokterapi på steroider, der kaster befolkningerne direkte ud i elendighed. Sanktionerne er [ikke til for at hjælpe Ukraine, men er] en ondsindet plyndring for at frigøre de finansielle gældsbobler på ryggen af befolkningen, industrien og middelklassen, hvilket gør millioner af mennesker i Vesten fattige og medfører massiv sult i udviklingslandene.

Faktisk vil den udplyndring i krigstiden, som de vil foretage ved at aflaste den finansielle boble, være meget større end den udplyndring, som det militærindustrielle kompleks foretager, og lige så uproduktiv.

Det vi har, er de fire love, som Lyndon LaRouche har foreslået for at standse denne chokterapi. Vi bør stoppe centralbankernes pengetrykning for at redde det svigtende finanssystem. Vi bør indføre en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling for at kunne nægte at betale for spekulationsboblerne. Med en adskillelse af bankerne vil vi være i stand til at genetablere bankerne som banker for produktiv kredit. Derefter kan vi oprette en nationalbank for udvikling, der udsteder produktive kreditter.

Helga har allerede peget på denne politik. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve den igen, fordi den kunne være det absolutte centrum for modstanden mod krigspolitikken og Nato-ansøgningerne. Det, vi har brug for nu, er forordninger til at håndtere nødsituationer med hensyn til fødevarer, energi og elektricitet. Vi plejede at have et reguleret elektricitetssystem her i Sverige med en meget billig og sikker strømforsyning. Det kan vi vende tilbage til. Vi kan vende tilbage til regler for fødevareforsyningen, for landbruget og industrien, der er forbundet med fødevareproduktionen, og for energien, faktisk for hele økonomien.

Det vigtige er princippet om, at mennesket kommer først, at beskytte produktionen og boligerne. I denne krise vil mange mennesker miste deres job, fordi virksomheder vil gå konkurs. Mange mennesker vil miste deres hus, fordi de vil få problemer med at betale deres renter i en galopperende inflation. Det, vi har brug for, er en fastfrysning af huslejer og gældsbetalinger. Det er nødvendigt for at beskytte befolkningen og produktionen. Vi er nødt til at investere i den mest avancerede teknologi med høj energitæthed for at øge produktiviteten. Dette er at bekæmpe inflationen på den rigtige måde.

Vi har nu en situation i Sverige, hvor halvdelen af den svenske befolkning er vred over det svenske etablissementets og regeringens forræderi. Der afholdes et valg den 11. september. Der bør ske store forandringer her, som må og kan blokere for Nato-medlemskabet og modstå krigsfremstødet mod Rusland og Kina!

Vi har denne mulighed nu for at udnytte den opstandelse i befolkningen, der skyldes den økonomiske krise, til at stoppe ansøgningen om Nato-medlemskab. Så dette er vores store chance nu.

Vi bør stræbe efter at arbejde for dette, og Sverige og Finland bør stræbe efter ikke at være bedst i Nato-klassen for krig og økonomisk plyndring, men bedst i klassen for fred og udvikling!

Tak! Det var det, jeg ønskede at sige.

English:

Presentation to the seminar ”We Need a New Security & Development Architecture, Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs”. (https://youtu.be/G5Xkq-xfFgQ?t=8779 )

Thank you,

On behalf of the Schiller Institute in Sweden, being the co-host of this seminar, I would like to welcome everyone and especially thank the speakers ahead of me for their excellent presentations.

I will try to answer the question: “Why Sweden and Finland should not join Nato?”

Actually, the applications to join Nato were unnecessary, reckless and insane. They were applications unnecessary because there was no threat to Sweden or Finland. Russia was busy on other fronts and there was no intention to attack our countries.

They were reckless because they are increasing the threats to Russia in violation of OSCE treaty, especially the principle of inclusive security which means that you are not allowed to increase your security at the cost of other´s security according to the treaty, actually this is also according to the UN treaty. It was also reckless, because we now have established a line of confrontation in the North of Europe. There used to be in the Cold War a very strong confrontation line on the Continent with big armies standing against each other in Germany and so on. Now we will have the same confrontation line in the North making it an area of instability. The whole Baltic Sea will be blocked with an American policy called 2A/AD, the “Area Denial”-policy, which is now discussed in the Swedish Royal Academy of War Sciencies.

The applications were insane because what we have now is an absolute, immense nuclear provocation possibly a Cuban missile crisis in reverse with Sweden and Finland positioned so close to Russia and especially their bases for the nuclear submarines in the Arctic. Already now B-52 strategic bombers are allowed into Swedish airspace according to the Host Nation Agreement with Nato. I would like to share this picture from February 18th

showing U.S. a B-52 Stratofortress from the Bomber Task Force being escorted by Swedish fighter planes over Sweden. On this occasion there was not only one B-52, but two. Each one of them can carry 12 Tomahawk missiles that could have nuclear war heads. It means, that these B-52 flying from Great Britain into Swedish airspace could, from Swedish territory within minutes, extinguish 24 Russian cities. It was a huge provocation. It was actually the same time, as the increase of the shelling by thirty times in Donbass by the Ukrainian army.

As Jan Öberg suspected, it was a planned attack to bring Sweden into Nato. It was like an ambush. The Swedish former Minister of Defense, Sven Tolgfors, has written in a book (2016) that a security crisis could be expected to shift the Swedish Nato policy. In a security crisis we must be prepared to make it really swift.

We can also see how it came about. Just in few weeks out fear and hysteria Finland and Sweden shifted. This sudden shift is still a shock to especially the Swedish people. What was true two months ago, is now false. Two months ago, Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said: “A Swedish Nato membership would destabilize the region”. Now the Swedes are supposed to be reprogrammed by the mass media pressure.

As the habit of the Swedes are to be “the best in the class” as master the type of “Group think”, which Jan Öberg also mentioned. Now it is expected that Sweden will be “the best in the class” for war against Russia and China. We are in a huge identity crisis among Swedes and especially among the social democratic voters.

Turkey`s opposition to allow membership to the new applicants, sets an example of the lack of sovereignty in Nato. The US is now supposed to “fix” the problem. Where is the so much heralded freedom and sovereignty, which Nato is supposed to defend? The Swedes are shocked to see the treatment of Turkey now, when the US is supposed to put pressure on their decision.

Actually, Turkey is now defending the Swedish and Finnish sovereignty more than our governments. Hopefully, more Nato member nations will join Turkey. It will at least give us more time here to stop this insanity. By blocking our Nato-application, Turkey is defending all of Nato and the world against a huge nuclear weapons crisis. Turkey is actually the grown up in the room, in its organizing the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, something Sweden and Finland should have concentrated its diplomatic efforts on, instead of joining Nato!

However, Sweden and Finland should take our destiny in our own hands. We must reestablish our former common mission for peace and economic development. We should take part in the establishing a new architecture for security and development for all nations, replacing geopolitics and the robbery by high finance against our nations. Nato has run us over. Together with other nations in the world, now we can make Nato obsolete and bury it.

The first step for Sweden and Finland should be to team up with Italy´s Prime Minster, Mario Draghi, who has just put forward a peace proposal for Ukraine. This kind of international cooperation could also pull in Turkey to put pressure for peace instead of war.

Secondly, we need to bring in the economic dimension because this could decide the whole process of Sweden and Finland not to join Nato. All of Europe need to counter the sanction economic shock wawe. It is a neoliberal shock therapy on steroids, throwing the peoples directly into misery. The sanctions are [not there to help Ukraine but are] an evil looting to unload the financial debt bubbles on to the back of the population, industry, middle class making millions in the West poor, bringing massive starvation to developing nations.

Actually, the war-time looting they will do, by unloading the financial bubble, will be much bigger than the looting being done by the Military Industrial Complex, and as unproductive.

What we have, are the Four laws proposed by Lyndon LaRouche to halt this shock therapy. We should stop the Central Bank money printing for bailing out the failing financial system. We should implement a Glass Steagall bank separation to be able to refuse paying the speculation bubbles. With bank separation we will be able to reestablish banks as banks for productive credit. Then we can establish a National bank for development, issuing productive credit.

Helga pointed already to this policy. I want to point to it again because this could be the absolute center of the resistance to the war policy and the Nato applications. What we need now are regulations to address emergencies of food, energy, electricity. We used to have a regulated electricity system here in Sweden with a very low cost and secure power supply. We can go back to that. We can go back to regulations for the supply of food, for farming and the industry hat is connected to the food production and for the energy, actually for the whole economy.

What is important is the people first principle, to protect production, protect housing. In this crisis many people will lose their jobs because businesses will go out of business. Many people will lose their houses because they will have difficulties to pay their interest in a run-away inflation. What we need, are the freezing of rents and debt payments. This is necessary to protect the people and the production. We need to invest in the most advanced technology with high energy density to increase productivity. This is to fight inflation the real way.

We have a situation now in Sweden where half the Swedish population are angry over the betrayal by their establishment and government. There is an election coming on September 11. There should be huge changes here that can and must block the Nato membership and resist the war drive against Russia and China!

We have this opportunity now to use the uproar in the population because of the economic crisis, to stop the Nato membership application. So this is our big chance now.

We should strive to work for this and Sweden and Finland should strive for not being best in the Nato class for war and financial looting, but the best in class for peace and development!

Thank you! That is what I wanted to say.




Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Baggrunden for krigen mellem Ukraine-NATO og Rusland. Background of the war between Ukraine-NATO and Russia.
Speech at the Schiller Institute’s seminar May 25, 2022.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er uddannet i idé- og kommunikationshistorie, Moskva-korrespondent for dagbladet Politiken i slutningen af 1990’erne, forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af organisationen Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturforskelle ved Niels Brock Handelshøjskole i København.
 
Mange tak for invitationen. Jeg synes, at denne konference er meget aktuel og yderst relevant, for jeg har levet i mange år – man kan se på farven på mit hår – og man kan være sikker på, at jeg har levet i flere årtier. Jeg kan ikke huske, at vi i alle disse år efter Anden Verdenskrig har befundet os i en situation, som den vi befinder os i nu. Jeg var en lille dreng under Cuba-krisen i 1962 og vidste ikke særlig meget om den, men erindrer, at mine forældre og alle voksne var meget nervøse over situationen. Men alligevel vil jeg sige, at jeg nogle gange ser tilbage på denne tid under Den kolde Krig, og finder at tingene var meget bedre på dette tidspunkt. Jeg havde aldrig troet, at det skulle komme til dette punkt. Nogle gange vågner jeg op om morgenen og håber, at alting var et mareridt, men er bange for, at det ikke er tilfældet. Er bange for at være i live, og sover ikke, drømmer ikke; det er virkeligheden lige nu. Jeg vil blot sige om Cuba-krisen, at Khrusjtjov og Kennedy fandt et fælles sprog, som man siger på russisk [sætning på russisk 57:01], og de kom godt ud af det sammen, og de fandt en løsning ret hurtigt. De respekterede på en eller anden måde hinanden. Tænk på Nixon og Brezhnev; deres forhold var – selvfølgelig var de modstandere, konkurrenter – selvfølgelig var de det, men de havde en vis respekt for hinanden. Det samme gælder for Reagan og Gorbatjov osv. Så derfor mener jeg, at tiden lige nu er forfærdelig, fordi vi ikke har denne respekt. Hvis man ser på, hvordan de beskriver Putin i alle medierne, og det har de gjort i de 15, næsten 20 år, så er det som nedgørelse, åbent had, foragt og den slags ting. Jeg synes, det er et meget dårligt varsel, det er et meget dårligt tegn på, at vi går nogle meget besværlige tider i møde.
 
Jeg vil gerne tale lidt om to spørgsmål, som meget sjældent bliver stillet, og som meget sjældent bliver besvaret. Det første spørgsmål, som jeg vil tale lidt mere udførligt om, er: “Hvordan er vi endt der? Hvordan er det sket, at vi nu, 30 år efter Sovjetunionens opløsning, er endt i denne situation, hvor vi faktisk er tættere end nogensinde før på menneskehedens udslettelse?” Jeg synes, det er et meget grundlæggende spørgsmål. Det andet spørgsmål er naturligvis: “Hvad gør vi? Hvordan skal vi komme ud af dette? Hvordan kommer vi til forhandlingsbordet for at forhandle om fredsbetingelser og den slags forhold?” Og måske et tredje spørgsmål er naturligvis: “Hvordan opbygger vi en ny verden? Det er ikke lige nu, for nu handler det om, hvordan vi forhindrer en atomkrig?”
 
Jeg vil behandle disse to spørgsmål. Hvordan nåede vi dertil? Jeg tror, Jan Øberg vil tale lidt mere om, hvad vi skal gøre, eller måske snarere, hvad vi ikke skal gøre. Jeg har været med i næsten 30 år, faktisk også i denne årrække hvor jeg arbejdede i Rusland, jeg arbejdede på nogle ambassader i de tidligere sovjetrepublikker, og begyndte at lære det russiske sprog allerede før det. For det andet blev jeg gift med en russer for 30 år siden, i 1992. Vi havde håb om en ny verden, vi havde lige forladt Den kolde Krig, og vi havde håb om, at vi skulle leve i en fredelig verden. Og her er vi så, 30 år senere. Men der er noget håb; vi er ikke blevet skilt, vi har ikke planer om at blive skilt, så der er lidt håb, vil jeg mene.
 
Tilbage til det, der er sket. I 1991, da Sovjetunionen blev opløst, og Warszawa-pagten blev opløst, rejste jeg meget i Rusland. Jeg var meget i Rusland, og jeg havde russiske venner. De var alle entusiastiske, de var alle optimistiske. “Nu går vi ind i en ny verden. Nu har vi en harmonisk verden præget af harmoni og fred og udvikling og den slags ting.” De sagde, at de udtrykkeligt ønskede at være en del af Vesten; de ønskede at dele vores værdier og den slags ting. Hvis man har dette billede i begyndelsen af 1990’erne, var det meget svært at leve i Rusland, fordi alt brød sammen, og der var kaos. Men de ønskede at være en del af Vesten. Så det interessante spørgsmål er, hvad skete der egentlig? Hvorfor gik det ikke sådan? Der er flere trædesten i dette, vil jeg sige, for allerede i begyndelsen af 1990’erne kom Bill Clinton til magten i USA. Han støttede først en plan om, at de østeuropæiske lande skulle blive en del af NATO og lade Rusland stå udenfor. På den måde vil jeg påstå, at han afviste Gorbatjovs forslag om at opbygge et europæisk hus. Der var faktisk en plan om at opbygge et europæisk hus, men det var et europæisk hus baseret på militæret, og Rusland stod udenfor. På dette tidspunkt advarede mange folk i FN, selv i Europa, om, at det ikke ville fungere; det ville helt sikkert ikke fungere, for selv de liberale i Rusland, og mange af disse pro-vestlige liberale sagde: “Det er en meget dårlig idé”.
 
Men det fungerede på denne måde, fordi Clinton insisterede ihærdigt på dette. Det startede på dette tidspunkt. Så havde de, jeg ved ikke, om det var uheld, måske var det med vilje, at de godkendte Polen, Ungarn og Tjekkiet, samtidig med at man begyndte at bombe i Serbien. Serbien er en meget tæt historisk allieret for Rusland.
 
Så på dette tidspunkt var jeg journalist. Jeg talte med en masse mennesker. Jeg talte med Sakharovs enke, Jelena Bonner; jeg talte med alle de liberale – hvem talte jeg ikke med på dette tidspunkt? Og alle var meget skarpt imod dette. På dette tidspunkt, jeg tror, hvis man skal sætte et årstal, var det 1999, et år hvor splittelsen faktisk begyndte; måske begyndte den lidt tidligere, men på dette tidspunkt var den åbenlys. Så kom Putin ind i billedet; han skabte ikke denne situation. Mange mennesker tror, at russerne var liberale, og at den onde Putin kom til. Nej! Det er den anden vej rundt. Faktisk fulgte Putin det russiske folks dagsorden, og endda ikke kun det, for sjovt nok var Putin meget ivrig efter at komme med i NATO. Det er meget interessant at tale om dette i dag. Han ønskede, at Rusland skulle tilslutte sig NATO, det sagde han i hvert fald i et interview med BBC i 2000, da han først blev præsident.
 
Men selv i Afghanistan støttede Putin Vesten. Han hjalp Vesten i Afghanistan. Han gjorde alt for at opnå venskab. Han holdt en tale i Forbundsdagen i Berlin, og han gjorde alt, hvad han kunne. Men han fandt ud af, at det var forgæves, fordi Rusland var dømt til at blive udelukket fra denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur, fordi den europæiske sikkerhed bestod af NATO uden Rusland.
 
Jeg tror, at alt begyndte at forværres fra dette tidspunkt. Man kunne foretage nogle tiltag. Jeg vil blot nævne nogle få. Man kan sige, at der i 2008 var et NATO-topmøde i Bukarest i Rumænien. På dette tidspunkt var George W. Bush præsident, og han inviterede Georgien og Ukraine til at blive en del af NATO. Frankrig og Tyskland var ikke så begejstrede for dette, så de afviste det faktisk. Men det blev holdt på dagsordenen, at disse to lande fik en invitation. Putin var til stede på denne konference, og han var meget, meget vred. Men der skete ikke rigtig noget. Man kan sige, at løsningen på NATO-topmødet var den værst tænkelige løsning, fordi man for det første fik ukrainerne og georgierne til at tro, at de ville få opbakning fra NATO, hvis de angreb Rusland, eller som Saakashvili i Georgien gjorde i 2008. For det andet øgede den russernes mistanke, og det løste ikke noget. Ud fra det blev det endnu værre. I Ukraine havde man selv på dette tidspunkt en meget russofobisk regering. I Ukraine er der ca. 50 % russisktalende personer, som ikke ønskede at tilslutte sig Rusland, men at have venskabelige forbindelser med Rusland og i det mindste være neutrale som en stat. Mange mennesker i de vestlige dele af Ukraine mente noget andet, nemlig at de skulle tilslutte sig NATO og EU. Så det er på mange måder et splittet land.
 
I det mindste blev Ukraine på dette tidspunkt i 2008 inviteret [til at blive medlem af NATO]. Det er interessant nok, at 17 % af den ukrainske befolkning ønskede at tilslutte sig NATO, mens 66 % ikke ønskede at tilslutte sig NATO. Jeg synes, at det er meget interessante tal, for det siger alt om, hvordan USA havde en dagsorden om at trække Ukraine ud af den russiske sfære, og de skjulte det ikke engang. Zbigniew Brzezinski, som var national sikkerhedsrådgiver, skrev en bog om ”det store skakbræt” {Grand Chessboard}: han skrev åbent, ja, vi ønsker at rive Ukraine ud af Ruslands område. Så hvor meget stabilitet kan man opbygge der? Og tingene blev endnu værre.
 
Interessant nok blev Viktor Janukovitj fra Regionernes Parti i 2010 valgt til præsident, og i 2012 havde hans parti og nogle andre partier flertal. De gik ind for, at Ukraine fortsat skulle være et neutralt land, og for det andet gik de ind for et tæt samarbejde med Rusland med hensyn til gasleverancer og leje af flådebasen i Sevastopol og på Krim osv. Derefter havde de en diskussion – Helga har allerede nævnt det – om associeringsaftalen med EU. Janukovitj læste den meget omhyggeligt og fandt ud af, at den ikke var særlig velgørende for Ukraine, og han afviste at underskrive den.
 
Så kom Maidan og alle den slags ting, og i februar 2014 var der faktisk, hvad jeg ville kalde et kup. Efter min mening kan man ikke kalde det andet end et kup. Det var ikke i parlamentet. Der var ikke nok stemmer i parlamentet, og det var et militærkup, intet mindre end det, vil jeg påstå.
 
Derefter kom ødelæggelsen af Ukraine, for i den østlige del havde de stemt i byer som Lugansk, hvor næsten 90 % havde stemt på Regionernes Parti, i Donetsk var det 85 %, og det samme på Krim, 85 % havde stemt på dette parti, som netop var blevet smidt ud af regeringen. Så de reagerede naturligvis på dette. Og på Krim skete der en løsrivelse fra Ukraine, og de blev i sidste ende en del af Rusland.
 
Herefter startede krigen: Den ukrainske hær begyndte at angribe de republikker, der havde erklæret sig uafhængige. For man kan sige ud fra et juridisk synspunkt, at hvis man kan lave et kup i Kiev, kan man også lave et kup i Donetsk. I Donetsk og Lugansk havde de i det mindste folkeafstemninger. De valgte nye regeringspartier i disse to republikker. Så, sanktionsregimet begyndte allerede der, og der skete en endnu kraftigere forværring af forholdet mellem NATO og Rusland, meget voldsommere. På dette tidspunkt var der faktisk en reel krig i gang i Donbass, den østlige del af Donbass, som er en region i Ukraine.
 
Mange mennesker i Danmark, – jeg diskuterede på nuværende tidspunkt disse ting med mine danske landsmænd, og jeg sagde: “Måske ved du, at 14.000 mennesker er blevet dræbt i denne krig?” “Hvad? Nej, det er russisk propaganda.” Jamen, det er det bestemt ikke, for det er en vurdering fra OSCE, Organisationen for Sikkerhed og Samarbejde i Europa, som jeg vil mene nok er den eneste kilde, vi har til den slags tal. Mindst nogle tusinde af disse 14.000 er civile mennesker, og blandt disse er der mange børn. Men russerne kan også se, at vi ikke græder over disse børn, og vi hejser ikke russiske flag for disse børn i vores lande i Vesten. Så mange russere har en tendens til at tænke “OK, så hvis vi ønsker at sikre de russisk talendes sikkerhed, bør det være Rusland, for EU er slet ikke interesseret.” Den ukrainske regering er bestemt ikke interesseret i at beskytte menneskerettighederne for de mennesker, der ønskede at bevare deres sprog eller have nogle normale forbindelser med Rusland.
 
Dette er altså noget, der foregår i Rusland og i det mindste i en del af det opdelte land, Ukraine. I februar 2015 var der en meget interessant konference i Minsk, og Lukashenko var vært. Der blev indgået en aftale mellem Frankrig, Tyskland, Rusland og Ukraine og også disse to republikker. De underskrev en aftale, ifølge hvilken Ukraine skulle have direkte forhandlinger med lederne af de to republikker – Donetsk og Lugansk – med disse to republikker. Ideen var, at Ukraine skulle ændre sin forfatning for at tillade autonome enheder i Ukraine. Tanken var, at Donetsk og Lugansk skulle være autonome enheder i Ukraine, der skulle bestemme, hvilket sprog der skulle være, og som også skulle bestemme, om de skulle have vetoret i spørgsmål om militærpolitik og lignende forhold. Jeg tror faktisk, at det var det bedste, man kunne opnå, og jeg vil gerne rose Merkel, fordi hun indgik denne aftale uden USA’s umiddelbare støtte. Hun gjorde det på egen hånd; hun tog Hollande fra Frankrig med sig og indgik denne aftale, som var det bedste, man kunne opnå på det tidspunkt.
 
Men meget hurtigt blev det klart, at den ukrainske præsident Petro Porosjenko ikke var herre i eget hus, som vi siger, fordi han ønskede at få det igennem i parlamentet. Hvad skete der? Nogle af disse højrefløjsgrupper, som Helga også omtalte, eksploderede. Medlemmer af parlamentet, tre mennesker blev dræbt på dette tidspunkt. De truede Porosjenko, og sagde at hvis han overhovedet ville fortsætte med at gennemføre disse bestemmelser i Minsk II-aftalen, ville han blive dræbt i en kælder. Han ønskede ikke at blive myrdet i en kælder, så han stoppede det. Senere, Zelenskij, gjaldt det samme for ham. Han sagde, da han stillede op til præsidentvalget, at han ønskede at skabe fred. Han ønskede også at opfylde Minsk II-aftalerne, og hvad skete der? Han blev også truet, og der skete ikke noget. Både Porosjenko og senere Zelenskij sagde, at vi ikke vil opfylde denne aftale. Det er klar tale, kan man kalde det.
 
Men på dette tidspunkt sagde Tyskland og Frankrig ikke noget. Man kunne have forestillet sig, at de ville have sagt til den ukrainske regering: “Vær nu venlige, I har underskrevet en aftale. Vi forventer, at I vil opfylde aftalens bestemmelser.” Så meget mere, så denne Minsk II blev en del af FN’s politik. Sikkerhedsrådet har vedtaget den som officiel FN-politik, men den ukrainske regering var ligeglad med den, og intet vestligt land ville nogensinde nævne, at de skulle opfylde denne aftale.
 
Nu kan jeg se, at jeg er ved at løbe tør for tid. Jeg vil blot sige, at hvis man går lidt længere frem, kom Zelenskij til magten – 70 % af den ukrainske befolkning støttede ham. Hvorfor? Fordi han sagde, at han var for fred; han ville gerne have en aftale med Rusland; han vil løse deres problemer med forhandlinger i Donbass, med Lugansk og Donetsk. Men han blev også truet, og han veg tilbage fra denne politik. I stedet inviterede han endnu mere [militær støtte fra USA] fra 2017-18, det var under Donald Trump. Ukraine blev bevæbnet mere og mere, og de begyndte at have fælles militærøvelser. De installerede også militær teknik i den østlige del, og også i Ukraine. Så man kan sige, at selv om Ukraine ikke var en del af NATO, så var NATO selvfølgelig i Ukraine. Jeg vil gå endnu længere og sige, at der sidste år, i 2021, var flere interessante ting. For et år siden, eller endnu tidligere, det var i marts sidste år, hævdede Zelenskij, at han var nødt til at erklære krig. Han sagde, at han gerne ville tage Krim og Donbass tilbage med militæret og støttet af NATO, ikke med NATO-soldater, men med NATO-udstyr, NATO-træning og lignende ting.
 
I 2021 var der en flådeøvelse i Sortehavet med deltagelse af 32 lande. Yderligere kan man sige, at i februar 2022, den 16. februar, hvis man ser på OSCE’s vurdering af, hvad der skete, hvor de tæller hvor mange eksplosioner, hvor mange skyderier, hvor mange drab, hvor mange dette og hint – det er deres job at gøre dette. De udtalte, at der fra den 16. februar var en stigning på næsten 30 gange flere eksplosioner. Hvad betyder det? Det betyder, at den ukrainske hær på dette tidspunkt allerede havde startet en krig! 110.000 ukrainske soldater var klar i Donbass og klar til at gå ind i Donbass. Desuden havde de som sagt hævdet, at de gerne ville indtage Krim.
 
Så nu er vi nået frem til den 24. februar. Putin var nødt til at forholde sig til situationen. Jeg billiger ikke Putins beslutning. Jeg er ikke sikker på, at det er rigtigt; jeg siger ikke, at det er rigtigt. Men han stod i en meget, meget vanskelig situation. Så denne situation kom ikke bare ud af det blå, ud af ingenting: Der er naturligvis en sammenhæng, der er en historie forud for dette. Hvis vi gerne vil løse problemet, bør vi finde måder at finde fredelige løsninger på. Jeg mener, at vi bør begynde her. Vi bør starte med “Hvorfor er vi endt her?” Vi er også nødt til på en eller anden måde at undersøge “Hvorfor endte vi her?” Måske har vi begået nogle fejltagelser, måske har vi gjort nogle ting her i vores del af verden. Måske har vi gjort noget, der kunne få Putin til at tro, at vi havde onde hensigter. For meget ofte siger vi, at NATO er en defensiv organisation, som ikke kunne drømme om at forstyrre noget som helst. Men hvis man ser på, hvad der sker i Ukraine i det sidste år, i hvert fald fra marts 2021 til februar 2022, hvis man ser på, hvad der skete der, hvis man sidder i Rusland og ser på, hvad der sker der, er det meget, meget tydeligt, at der er intentioner om at tage det tilbage.
 
Dette er en rød linje for Rusland. Det har de sagt. Der er ingen tvivl om, at Rusland har en rød linje, og på en eller anden måde er man nødt til at agere på den. Jeg siger ikke, at det er det rigtige at gøre, men at sige at Putin er en galning, at han bare er blevet skør eller noget, det synes jeg ikke er relevant. Jeg siger ikke, at han har truffet den rigtige beslutning, men han er ikke gal. Han ser faktisk på verden fra en anden vinkel.

English: Jens Jørgen Nielsen, degrees in the history of ideas and communication, a Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, author of several books about Russia and Ukraine, a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark.
English:

Thank you very much for the invitation. I think this conference is both very timely and very relevant, because I have lived for many years — you can look at the color of my hair — you can be sure that I have lived for several decades. I don’t remember during all these years after the Second World War, we are in a situation like we are in now. I was a small boy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I didn’t know very much about it, but I remember my parents and all adults were very nervous about it. But still, I would say now I sometimes look back at this time of the Cold War, and I think things were much better at this time. I never thought I should come to this point. Sometimes I wake up in the morning and hope everything was a nightmare, but I’m afraid it is not. I’m afraid I’m alive and I’m not sleeping, I’m not dreaming; it is reality right now. I’ll just say about the Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev and Kennedy, they found common language like they say in Russian [phrase in Russian 57:01], and they got along and they found a solution pretty quickly. They somehow respected each other. Think of Nixon and Brezhnev; their relationship was — of course they were opponents, competitors — of course they were, but they had some respect for each other. Same goes for Reagan and Gorbachev and so on. So, that’s why I think that the time right now is awful, because we don’t have this respect. If you look at how they describe Putin in all the media, and have been doing so for I would say 15, almost 20 years, it’s like denigration, open hatred, scorn and such kinds of things. I think it’s a very bad omen, it’s a very bad sign that we are in for some very troublesome times.I would like to talk a little about two questions which very seldom are being asked, and very seldom being answered. The first question, which I will talk a little bit more about at length is, “How did we end up there? How did it come to be that now, 30 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, we ended up in this situation where we are actually closer than ever to the annihilation of the human race?” I think it’s a very basic question. Of course, the second question is “What do we do? How shall we get out of this? How do we get to the negotiation table to negotiate peace terms, things like that?” And maybe a third question, of course, “How do we build a new world? It’s not right now, because now is about how do we prevent a nuclear war?”I will handle these two questions. How did we get there? I think Jan Øberg will talk a little bit more about what we should do, or maybe even more, what we should not do. Well, I can say that I’ve been around for almost 30 years, actually also this time I was working in Russia, I worked at some embassies in the former Soviet Republics, and started to learn the Russian language even before that. Secondly, I was married to a Russian, 30 years back, in 1992. We had hopes for a new world, we had just left the Cold War, and we had hopes that we should live in a peaceful world. And here we are, 30 years later. But there is some hope; we are not divorced, we are not planning to do so, so there’s a little hope there I would say.Back to what has happened. In 1991, when the Soviet Union was dissolved, and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, I travelled a lot in Russia. I was very much in Russia, I had Russian friends. They were all enthusiastic, they were all optimistic. “Now we are entering a new world. Now we have a harmonious world marked by harmony and peace and development, and things like that.” They said they emphatically wanted to be part of the West; they wanted to share our values and things like that. If you have this picture in the beginning of the 1990s, it was very difficult to live in Russia because everything broke down and there was chaos. But they wanted to be part of the West. So, the good question is, what actually happened? Why didn’t it turn out this way? There are several step stones in this, I would say, because already in the beginning of the 1990s, Bill Clinton came to power in the United States. He first endorsed a plan of the Eastern European countries becoming part of NATO, leaving Russia outside. In this way, I would say he declined the proposal of Mr. Gorbachev to build a European house. There was actually a plan to build a European house, but it was a European house based on military, and with Russia being outside. At this time in the United Nations, even in Europe, many people warned that it would not work; it definitely would not work, because even the liberals in Russia, and many of those pro-Western liberals said, “It’s a very bad idea.”But it worked this way, because Clinton was very much insisting on this. And it started at this time. Then they had, I don’t know if it was bad luck, maybe intentionally, that they adopted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, at the same time as it started to bomb in Serbia. And Serbia is a very close historical ally for Russia.So, at this time, I was a journalist. I talked to a lot of people. I talked to Sakharov’s widow, Yelena Bonner; I talked to all the liberals—who didn’t I talk to at this time? And everyone was very sharply opposed to this. At this time, I think if you should put a year, it was 1999, a year when the split actually began; maybe it started a little earlier, but at this time it was obvious. And then, Putin came into this situation; he didn’t create this situation. Many people think that the Russians were liberals and that the evil Putin came along. No! It’s the other way around. Actually, Putin took the agenda of the Russian people, and even not that, because funny enough, Putin was very eager to join NATO. It’s very interesting to talk about this today. He wanted Russia to join NATO, at least he said so in an interview with BBC in 2000, when he first became President.But even in Afghanistan, Putin supported the West. He helped the West in Afghanistan. He did everything to become friends. He made a speech in the Bundestag in Berlin, and he did everything he could. But he found out that it was in vain, because Russia was doomed to be left out of this new security architecture, because European security was NATO without Russia.I think everything started to deteriorate from this. You could make some stepping stones. I’ll just mention a very few. You can say that in 2008 there was a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania. At this point, George W. Bush was President, and he invited Georgia and Ukraine to become part of NATO. Well, France and Germany were not that enthusiastic about this, so they actually turned it down. But it was kept on the agenda, that these two countries had an invitation. And Putin was present at this conference, and he was very, very angry. But nothing happened really. And you can say the solution at the NATO summit was the worst conceivable resolution, because first, they made the Ukrainians and Georgians think that they would have the backing of NATO if they attacked Russia, or like Saakashvili in Georgia did in 2008. And secondly, it raised the suspicion of the Russians, and it didn’t solve anything. From that, it became even worse. In Ukraine, even at this time, you had a very Russophobic government. In Ukraine, you have approximately 50% Russian speakers, who wanted not to join Russia, but to have friendly relations with Russia and at least be neutral as a state. Many of the western parts of Ukraine, many people there thought otherwise, that they should join NATO and the European Union. So, it’s a divided country in many ways.But at least at this point in 2008, Ukraine was invited [to join NATO]. Interestingly enough, 17% of the Ukrainian population wanted to join NATO; 66% did not want to join NATO. I think those are very interesting figures, because it says everything about how America had an agenda to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit, and they didn’t even hide it. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Advisor, wrote a book about the {Grand Chessboard}: he openly wrote, yes, we want to tear Ukraine out of the orbit of Russia. So, how much stability could you build there? And things got even in worse.And interestingly, in 2010, Viktor Yanukovych from the Party of Regions, was elected President, and in 2012 his party and some other parties had the majority. And they were in favor of Ukraine continuing to be a neutral country, and secondly, they were in favor of close cooperation with Russia in terms of gas deliveries and the rent of the naval base of Sevastopol and Crimea, and so on. Then, you had a discussion — Helga already mentioned it — about the Association Agreement with the European Union. And Yanukovych read it very carefully, and found out that it was not very benevolent for Ukraine, and he declined to sign it.Then, came the Maidan, and all this kind of things, and in February 2014 there was actually what I would call a coup. In my opinion, you cannot call it anything but a coup. It was not in the Parliament. There were not enough votes in the Parliament, and it was a military coup, nothing short of it, I would say.Then came the destruction of Ukraine, because in the eastern part they had voted in towns like Lugansk, almost 90% had voted for the Party of Regions; in Donetsk it was 85%; Crimea the same, 85% had voted for this party, which had just been kicked out of the government. So, of course, they reacted to this. And in Crimea, there was a secession from Ukraine, and they eventually became a part of Russia.So, then the war started: The Ukrainian Army started to attack the republics that had declared themselves independent. Because you can say from a legal point of view, if you can make a coup in Kyiv, you can also make a coup in Donetsk. At least in Donetsk and Lugansk they had referendums. They elected new government parties in these two republics. So, at least there, the sanctions regime started and even much more deterioration between NATO and Russia, much more. At this time, it was actually a real war going on in Donbass, which is the eastern part of Donbass, which is a region of Ukraine.Many people in Denmark, I would now discuss these matters with my fellow Danes, and I say “maybe you know that 14,000 people have been killed in this war?” “What? No, it’s Russian propaganda.” Well, it’s definitely not, because it’s the assessment of the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which I think is probably the only source we have for these kinds of figures. At least some thousands of this 14,000 are civilian people, and among those, many children. But the Russians can also see we don’t cry for these children, we don’t raise Russian flags for these children in our countries in the West. So, many Russians tend to think “OK, then, if we want to secure the security of Russian speakers, it should be Russia because the European Union is not at all interested.“ The Ukrainian government is certainly not interested in protecting human rights for those people who wanted to keep their language or have some normal relations to Russia.So, this is something which is going on in Russia, and at least in part of the divided country of Ukraine. In February 2015, there was a very interesting conference in Minsk, and Lukashenko was the host there. It was an agreement between France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine, and also those two republics. They signed an agreement according to which Ukraine was supposed to have direct negotiations with the leaders of those two republics — Donetsk and Lugansk. The idea was that Ukraine was supposed to amend its constitution to allow for autonomous entities in Ukraine. The thought being that Donetsk and Lugansk would be autonomous entities in Ukraine, deciding about which language there would be and deciding also about having veto in questions about military policy, and things like that. And I think it was actually the best you could achieve, and I think at this point I would commend Merkel, because she made this agreement without the immediate support of the U.S.A. She did it on her own; she brought Hollande from France with her, and made this agreement, which is the best you could achieve at the time.But, very soon, it became clear that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was not the master in his own house, as we say, because he wanted to get it through in the Parliament. What happened? Some of these right-wing groups that Helga also talked about, exploded. Members of the Parliament, three people were killed at this point. They threatened Poroshenko, and said that if he would even go on and realize these provisions in the Minsk II Agreement, he would be killed in a basement. He didn’t want to be killed in a basement, so he stopped it. Later on, Zelenskyy, the same goes for him. He said when he ran for President that he wanted to make peace. He wanted also to fulfill the agreements of Minsk II, and what happened? He was threatened too, and nothing happened. Both Poroshenko and later Zelenskyy said that we will not fulfill this agreement. It’s clear speech, you would say.But at this point, Germany and France didn’t say anything. You could have imagined that they would have told the Ukrainian government, “Please, you signed an agreement. We expect that you will fulfill the provisions of the agreement.” So much more that this Minsk II became part of the United Nations policy. The Security Council has adopted it as official UN policy, but the Ukrainian government didn’t care about it, and no Western country would ever mention that they should fulfill this agreement.Now, I see that I am running out of time. I’ll just say that if you go a little further, Zelenskyy came to power — 70% of the Ukrainian population supported him. Why? Because he said he was for peace; he would like to have an agreement with Russia; he will solve their problems with negotiations in Donbass, with Lugansk and Donetsk. But he was threatened also, and he went back from this policy. Instead, he invited even more [military aid from the U.S.] from 2017-18, it was during the reign of Donald Trump, Ukraine was armed more and more, and they started to have common military exercises. They installed military technique also in the Eastern part, and also in Ukraine. So, you could say that even though Ukraine was not part of NATO, NATO was in Ukraine, of course. I would go even further, and say that last year, in 2021, there were several interesting things. One year ago, or even more, it was in March last year, Zelenskyy claimed that he had to declare war. He said he would like to take back Crimea and Donbass with the military, and supported by NATO, not with NATO soldiers, but NATO equipment, NATO training, and things like that.And in 2021, there was a naval exercise in the Black Sea with 32 countries participating in this. And further on, you could say that in February 2022, on Feb. 16, if you look at what the OSCE assessment is of what happened, where they count how many explosions, how many shootings, how many killings, how many this and that—it’s their job to do this. They said that from Feb. 16th, there was an increase of almost 30 times more explosions. What does that mean? It means that the Ukrainian Army at this point already had started a war! 110,000 Ukrainian soldiers were ready in Donbass and ready to enter Donbass. Also, they had claimed, as I said, that they would like to take Crimea.So, now we go to Feb. 24th. Putin had to deal with the situation. I’m not endorsing Putin’s decision. I’m not sure it’s right; I’m not saying it’s right. But he had a very, very difficult situation. So, this situation did not just come out of the blue, out of nothing: Of course, there’s a context, there’s a history before that. And if we would like to solve the problem, we should find ways to find peaceful solutions. I think we should start here. We should start with “Why did we end up here?” And also, we need to somehow look into “Why did we end up here?” Maybe we made some mistakes, maybe we did some things here in our part of the world. Maybe we did something that could make Putin think that we had evil intentions. Because very often we say NATO is a defensive organization that couldn’t dream of upsetting anything. But if you look at what is happening in Ukraine in the last year, at least from March 2021 to February 2022, if you look at what happened there, if you sit in Russia and watch what’s happening there, it’s very, very obvious, that there is the intention of taking this back.This is a red line for Russia. They said so. There’s no doubt that Russia has a red line, and somehow you have to act on it. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but to say that Putin is a madman, that he just became crazy or something, I think it’s not relevant. I’m not saying he made the right decision, but he’s not a madman. He looks at the world from another angle, actually.RASMUSSEN: Thank you very much, Jens Jørgen.



English transcript: Introduction and Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote speech
at the Schiller Institute’s Danish-Swedish seminar
We Need a New Security And Development Architecture for All Nations,
Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs,
May 25, 2022

May 25, 2022 (EIRNS)—Michelle Rasmussen, vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, opened the online seminar this afternoon:

Your Excellencies and diplomats from many countries on four continents, guest speakers, members and friends of the Schiller Institute, ladies and gentlemen,

Welcome to this seminar sponsored by the Schiller Institutes in Denmark and Sweden, which is also being live streamed on YouTube. The title is, “We Need a New International Security and Development Architecture, Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs. NO in the Danish June 1 referendum about abolishing the EU Defense opt-out, and NO to Sweden and Finland joining NATO.” I am Michelle Rasmussen, vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, and I will be the moderator today.

After the start of the war in Ukraine, a dramatic shift in defense policy has been proposed in three of the Nordic countries. Denmark is having a referendum on June 1 about joining the EU’s military activities, and Sweden’s and Finland’s governments want to join NATO. We think that it is necessary to discuss these issues from a higher standpoint.

Our keynote speaker, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and international chairwoman of the Schiller Institute stated on May 19, that this is the most dangerous moment in world history. There is war in Europe, and many experts are warning that if the war were not ended soon, and a diplomatic solution crafted, and if those advocating increasing the geopolitical confrontation were not politically defeated, the war could escalate to, even, nuclear war. At the same time, the world economy is in crisis.

While the dangers are great, there is hope, because there are solutions in the form of a new security and development architecture, including proposals by the late Lyndon LaRouche, the founder of our political movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute,for a security agreement modeled on the Peace of Westphalia, combined with increased economic development cooperation between countries.

We have called this meeting to discuss:

• What caused the current extremely dangerous military, and economic crisis.

• Why strengthening the EU military arm with Danish participation, and Sweden and Finland joining NATO would only exacerbate geopolitical conflict, and

• What are the principles upon which we can create a new security and development architecture, for the benefit of all nations and people.

We want to ensure that both the dangers and solutions are known, and that an effective movement is built to stop a further escalation of this war and its economic effects, and prevent future wars and economic destruction. Somehow, humanity must create the conditions where war is not an option, in this era of nuclear weapons.

————–
Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynote

May 25, 2022 (EIRNS)—Here is the Keynote of Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche: We Need a New Security And Development Architecture for All Nations, Not a Strengthening of Geopolitical Blocs: Why Sweden and Finland Should Not Join NATO, and ‘No’ in the Referendum in Denmark to Join EU’s Military,” the online seminar in Denmark and Sweden today. She was introduced by Schiller Institute in Denmark Vice President Michelle Rasmussen, who moderated the seminar.

The video is available here: 
On the international Schiller Institute YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/8Dt9D_D_U4U

On the Danish YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/1Pji0vjD9Kg

Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
 Hello, good day, Ladies and Gentlemen: As Michelle just said, I have stated that we are facing the most dangerous crisis in the history of mankind. Now, why am I am saying that? Obviously, that includes two world wars in the 20th century, the Cuban Missile Crisis, so it’s a big order. Well, the first reason is the most obvious, for the very first time, we are facing the real danger of a global nuclear war, and if it would ever come to that, it for sure would mean the annihilation of the human species.

In the recent period, the illusion has developed that a limited nuclear war can be fought, and won, or that protracted, hybrid nuclear/conventional war can take place. This was the subject of a maneuver in January of this year, called “Global Lightning,” which had the idea that you have some nuclear bombs, neutron bombs, space war, cyberwar, and this would go on for weeks. Now, the famous nuclear arms specialist, former MIT Prof. Ted Postol has developed all the arguments why this is completely ludicrous, that why, if one uses only one single nuclear weapon, it is the logic of nuclear war, that all will be used.

In the recent months, since the war in Ukraine started, you hear from all kinds of politicians and journalists and who knows who else making reckless talk, saying things like “even if there is the risk of nuclear war, we have to send heavy weapons to Ukraine. We can’t be blackmailed.” Or, “it won’t happen, because nobody would be so foolish to do this.” Well, I don’t think that that is a convincing argument.

The second reason why I am saying we are in the worst crisis ever, is that we experience a civilizational breakdown, the end of an entire system. Now, this has many elements. We have an immediate danger of an escalation of the war, as a result of the present chicken-game policies conducted by NATO against Russia. We are facing a hyperinflationary blowout of the Western neoliberal financial system, which was long in process, even before the war in Ukraine started. We are looking at a world famine, which according to the United Nations is threatening 1.7 billion people with starvation. That is 20% of the entire human species. The pandemic is not over, and all of this is threatening social chaos as a result, and that chaos, all by itself, could threaten to plunge the world into a war.

If one listens to the Western media, and all kinds of politicians, it is naturally all to be blamed on Putin. He is being given all possible names right now, that he has caused an “unprovoked war of aggression”; that he responsible for world famine; that he is the cause of inflation; and so forth and so on. If you say any argument for the real causes of the present situation, you are immediately accused of fake news, you are called a “Putin agent,” it is denounced as Russia propaganda.

Well, it has very little to do with Ukraine. In reality, this present confrontation is about the world order. It is a fight between an unipolar world, which is really a world empire based on the “U.S.-British special relationship,” whereby the Anglo-American hegemon insists that only the so-called “rules-based order” which they have defined is valid; versus a world in which the rise of China and countries associated with Russia and China insist on their own right for economic development.

We are right now at the most precarious moment: The neoliberal system is collapsing. It is not strong enough any more to enforce its will, but the new order is not yet clearly defined. Naturally, in the officially allowed discussion, it is being said that this is a fight between the “democracies” and the “autocratic regimes.” Well, right now, if you listen to what certain politicians and people like Stoltenberg are saying, we are heading toward a potential total decoupling between the West, plus the Five Eyes, plus Japan, Australia, and South Korea, versus a part of the world which includes Russia, China, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, plus many countries that are now trying to become part of the BRICS, which is most of the Global South.

In frantic trips, Blinken is running around the world, trying to convince people to join the faction of the “democracies.” President Biden right now is in Asia, doing the same thing. Chancellor Scholz just went to Africa, von der Leyen to India, all in an effort to isolate Russia and China, but it’s not working: Because India, Indonesia, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, and many others do not want to be pulled into a geopolitical confrontation between the two sides. And what we are actually experiencing is a real renaissance of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Well, we should not overlook, given the American policies, the role of the British, which is “Global Britain,” which is really a new word for the British Empire, which contrary to the views of many, has only changed its shape, but not its essence. Take, for example, an article by Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which happens to be the oldest official think tank associated with the Royal household, and the British military. They describe themselves as the “world’s oldest and leading U.K. defense and security think tank.” They’re proposing a “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids,” which could result over the Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea, which would make it easier, in their view, to settle the Ukraine-Russia war. And this is the stunning proposition in this article, which has the headline, “This War Still Presents Nuclear Risks—Especially in Relation to Crimea,” which was published on May 20 by the RUSI think tank. [https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crimea]

Chalmers discusses how Russia could be forced into a nuclear confrontation, by sending evermore sophisticated weapons to Ukraine, from which it would ultimately back down. Chalmers describes NATO’s strategy over the last three months as that of “boiling the Russian frog.” You all remember the picture—according to the story, I don’t think it’s actually true—but according to the story, if you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog it will jump out; but if you put the frog into the water pot, when the water is cold, and then you slowly increase the temperature, the frog ends up being boiled without noticing. So he talks about “boiling the Russian frog” by progressively increasing “size and sophistication of the weapons they have been prepared to supply to Ukraine.” Because of those weapons, “the next period will see Ukraine reversing most of Russia’s recent territorial gains, including Kherson and even Mariupol.” That, however, would not occasion a nuclear threat, nor would Ukraine, using those weapons and territorial gains to destroy bridges, railheads, storage sites, and airbases inside Russia. But should Ukraine move to retake Crimea, strike a “tempting target,” of the Kerch Bridge for example, now, that could lead to a “Crimea Missile Crisis,” Chalmbers argues. “A specific threat to use nuclear weapons in relation to Crimea … might be viewed by Putin as a way to restore some of his coercive power, even if he (and the U.S.) doubted whether he would deliver on such a threat…. If a red line were not accepted by Ukraine, Russia might then feel that it had to consider a series of further escalatory options, such as putting its nuclear forces on higher alert.” They are already on alert. “Faced with the alternative of the likely loss of Crimea, Putin might believe that Ukraine (with U.S. encouragement) would be likely to blink first. It would be a moment of extreme peril, with all the parties seeking to understand the intent of each other even as they looked to pursue their national interests.

“Precisely because of the peril inherent in such a situation, a nuclear crisis of this sort could make it easier for leaders to make difficult compromises. Provided that the war was ended and the blockade of Odesa lifted, Ukraine’s leaders might be willing to postpone a settlement of the Crimea question. For Putin, the failure of the invasion, and the subsequent success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, would have been a massive humiliation. But he would at least be able to argue that the might of the Russian strategic arsenal had, at a moment of great national weakness, successfully deterred NATO’s designs for dismembering Russia. This could be enough for both sides to avoid the worst outcome of all.”

I mean, this is complete insanity, you know! Saying that one has to threaten to retake Crimea, and then get all the nuclear weapons on the highest alert, and then we can sit down and settle. So he calls that a Crimea Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids.

Now, that policy of “boiling the Russian frog,” that has not started three months ago, but that has been the method since 1990, when on Feb. 9, 1990, James Baker III promise to Gorbachev, that NATO would not move one inch eastward. In the entire Yeltsin period, there was a policy to reduce the former superpower into a raw materials exporting nation, with the “shock therapy” of Jeffrey Sachs, and between 1991-1994, the industrial potential of Russia was reduced to only 30%. There is a very important book by Sergei Glazyev, which describes the 1990s, with the title Genocide: Russia and the New World Order, because that is what was imposed on Russia at that time.

Now, the crime of Putin is that he tried to reverse that, and had some success with it. The answer was color revolutions, regime change, humanitarian wars, like the 20 years in Afghanistan, where as a result of the hasty retreat of NATO and the U.S. in August, now, there are 24 million people at starvation levels in Afghanistan, exposed to COVID, measles, polio, without adequate medicine. So, if one would have equally detailed TV coverage of Afghanistan for 20 years, like we see it now with Ukraine every day, maybe the world would have been equally upset—or, maybe not, because the Afghanis are not white.

Then you had the Iraq War in 2003, about which Nancy Pelosi admitted publicly that all responsible people knew ahead of time that there were no weapons of mass destruction. You had Libya. Hillary Clinton, during the Durham investigation in the United States, had to admit that the entire basis of Russiagate were all lies. Did one see anything about that in the mainstream media? Absolutely not! At least not in Europe. Then there was Syria. Then you had the 2014 Maidan coup, about which Victoria Nuland bragged, $5 billion were spent by the State Department on NGOs, and, let’s not forget, the Azov Battalion, which media in the West are now saying, there are no Nazis in Ukraine—but it is a documented fact that there are.

Now, Putin, as a result of this “boiling the Russian frog,” over almost 30 years, on Dec. 15 demanded legally binding security guarantees from the United States and NATO. He has not received an answer from the U.S. or NATO on the core demands, only on arms control, but that was not the essence of what he was demanding. The head of the Russian Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, said that Russia had no other way, because they were threatened in the existence of the statehood of Russia, when they made what they call the “special military operation” in Ukraine. And one can absolutely argue that Russia was in a situation, according to UN Charter Article 51, which is a question of self-defense and not of aggression.

Now, we are facing with Finland and Sweden, the sixth expansion of NATO. That is the answer, which Stoltenberg even brags about. He says, “Putin wanted less NATO, now he gets more NATO.” So the boiling temperature is just being increased.

One has to take this insane policy of causing a Crimea Cuban Missile Crisis, together with another British policy, which was exposed in a paper by the Henry Jackson Society in 2020, which they put again on the front page of the Henry Jackson Society website, which means it’s ongoing policy of that think tank. It is a report outlining a strategy to use the infamous “Five Eyes” alliance—U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand—as the instrument to force through the decoupling of the West from China. This rabidly anti-Russia, anti-China neocon think tank is run by British intelligence, through among others, the former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove, who is the main brain of Russiagate, which was completely discredited as a lie; and he was one of the founders of the Henry Jackson Society and is one of its principals today.

So, even the attempt to decouple China from the international system, before consummated, could detonate an economic nuclear bomb upon the entire world economy. China is not just the world’s largest trading power: It’s currently generating the highest rate of scientific and technological development on the planet, a productive power which the developing sector nations and the collapsing Western nations urgently require if they want to survive. But actual nuclear warfare could also be the result, because part of the Henry Jackson Society strategy is to build up ties with Taiwan leading to its separation from China. China has made abundantly clear that it will respond with overwhelming military force to any attempt to split Taiwan off from the rest of the nation of China. This is as dangerous a proposition as a NATO-backed Ukraine moving to retake Crimea. So, when President Biden made a gaffe in answer to a reporter on his recent trip to Japan, “Would the United States defend Taiwan militarily?” Biden said, again, “Yes.” And he had to be correct, again, by the White House.

Now, the Chinese already had editorials where they said, this is not a “gaffe,” this is a signal of what is the real intention of the United States. And Chas Freeman, who was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and he was the official translator for President Nixon in his 1972 trip to China, and a career diplomat, he warned, and called it a colossal mistake for Biden to have made such a stupid statement.

President Biden is currently championing these precisely British strategies on his current trip to Asia. Fresh from celebrating the expansion of NATO, Biden is to unveil a grandiose Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) during his stop in Japan as the highlight of the trip. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated bluntly on Wednesday, May 18, that the message of the IPEF is that “democracies and open societies of the world stand together to shape the rules of the road. We think that message will be heard everywhere. We think it will be heard in Beijing.”

Fifty-two U.S. Senators sent Biden off on his trip with instructions that Taiwan be incorporated as one of the “countries” participating in the IPEF, which is clearly not acceptable from the standpoint of China, because it is a violation of the One China policy.

Now, just today, if you open the media, if you look at the TV, if you look at TV or newspapers, a huge scandal story about pictures from the supposed labor camps in Xinjiang, were “investigated” by a group of international media, that 1 million Uighurs would have been tortured, beaten in labor camps, forced labor, and so forth. Naturally, our so-called Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock immediately had an outcry demanding a transparent clearing up of the accusations. Calls that all relations with China should be cut—after cutting relations with Russia—and that all trade with China should be stopped, now, let’s look at it realistically: China in 2021 was the third largest partner for the EU export of goods, 10.2%, and the largest partner for the EU import of goods, 22.4%; for Germany, it was the largest trading partner for goods in 2021, with a volume of trade of over €245 million. To cut that would mean total economic suicide, which is already happening with the relations with Russia.

What is the source of this incredible story? The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of the leading newspapers in Germany, says, all the photos and data have been made available through Adrian Zenz, a German anthropologist, and longtime Xinjiang observer. Now, this Mr. Adrian Zenz claims that he got all of that from an “unnamed source” who had access to cyber, cyberwar spying and whatnot. Well, that’s a very dubious observation. But Adrian Zenz is not an unknown entity: The blog, The Grayzone, and the very respected investigative journalist Ajit Singh and Max Blumenthal already wrote articles in 2019, after he had come up with a similar story about genocide in Xinjiang, that Mr. Zenz is a “far-right fundamentalist Christian who opposes homosexuality and gender equality, supports ’scriptural spanking”’ of children, and believes he is ‘led by God’ on a ‘mission’ against China.,” because the end-times are near and the rise of the anti-Christ is also coming. He is on a complete rampage, saying that [there is genocide in] Xinjiang because of a collapse of the demographic curve of the Uighurs, and Lyle Goldstein, who is professor at the Naval War College in the United States, says that such a statement is “ridiculous to the point of being inciting to those who lost relatives in the Holocaust.”

There is ample evidence that there is no “demographic collapse” of the Uighurs in Xinjiang: Just the opposite. There is a 2019 study in the British medical journal Lancet, which talks about a massive improvement of life expectancy among the Uighurs, a demographic growth rate which is much higher than that of the Han Chinese, an improvement in maternal health, in infant mortality, and all of this represents “a remarkable success story.”

Zenz’s so-called testimony comes from Uighur exiles who are cultivated by the U.S. State Department. Zenz served as a fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, D.C., which is a right-wing lobbying group born out of the National Captive Nations Committee. Now, that is a very, very interesting connection, because that was founded by Ukrainian nationalist Lev Dobriansky, who is heading this institution whose co-chairman was Yaroslav Stetsko, who was a leader of the OUN-B militia, which is the Nazi group that fought along with German Nazis during the occupation of Ukraine in World War II. Stetsko and his wife had a residence in Munich during the entire postwar period, and led from there the “Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations.” After he died, Mrs. Stetsko went to Ukraine and rebuilt the OUN-B, the Bandera organization, in the tradition of the ideas of Stepan Bandera. Now, that is a direct connection to that apparatus, which was heavily led by the Western secret services—Bandera himself joined the MI6 in 1947, and the BND in Munich had a close, at least “knowledge” about these people (to say the least).

Zenz was also deployed by the Jamestown Foundation, a neocon think tank in D.C., which was founded by CIA director William Casey as an extra-governmental channel to pay Soviet dissidents.

If Germany or other European nations fall for this intelligence operation, which is exactly what the Henry Jackson Society talked about, namely the “Five Eyes” at work, if they follow this, it would be complete economic suicide. Now, even Henry Kissinger, at the age of 99 years, is more reasonable, and at Davos, he said the world has at maximum a window of two months to end the Ukraine war through negotiations, and he appealed to Ukraine that they should agree to a territorial compromise to get peace.

At the Schiller conference on April 9, we presented a completely different approach: There is an alternative to the complete decoupling between the so-called “democracies” and the Global South on the other side. The new system is already emerging rapidly. There are many countries which at the recent foreign ministers’ meeting of the BRICS, want to be part of: Argentina, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and many others. You have the BRICS enlarged, you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, almost all organizations of the Global South that want to be part of a new international security and development architecture, which basically is the combination of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, together with two other proposals by President Xi Jinping: The Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, which is actively being implemented.

Now, what we need is such a conference, for a new international security and development architecture, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia. Now, the Peace of Westphalia was the recognition of all war parties that if they would continue the war, no one would be left to enjoy the victory, because they would all be dead. And that is why they developed the principle that any peace must be based on the interest of the other. The security interest of every country on the planet, which today would mean a security architecture emphatically involving Russia and China. And such a conference, must address the causes for such a war danger: Because it is not enough at this point to be against the war. You have to solve the problem that the collapse of the neoliberal financial system is in progress.

Lyndon LaRouche has a unique record that he foresaw what is happening today, the present crisis, already in August 1971, when Nixon ended the old Bretton Woods system, by replacing the fixed-exchange-rate system, with a floating exchange-rate system, and LaRouche predicted at that time, that if you would continue on that road, it would lead to a new depression, the danger of a new war, and fascism. And that is exactly where we are today.

LaRouche proposed Four Laws to solve the crisis. The first step, a global Glass-Steagall banking separation system, must end the casino economy. There must be capital and exchange controls to prevent the speculative manipulation of currencies, which we see right now in much of the world.

Every country must have a National Bank to make credit generation again the question of the sovereign government, and not that of private bankers, in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton. Then, these National Banks must be connected through a credit system which provides long-term, low-interest credit for real investment in the physical economy.

Also, the Fourth Law is that we must have a crash program for fusion technology, which in the recent period has made tremendous progress, and the commercial use of it is visibly on the horizon. Because we need a massive increase in the productivity of the world economy because just the fact that 1.7 billion people are threatened with starvation, that 2 billion have no clean water, is the proof that the present level of productivity has fallen way below the level of maintaining the present world population of 8 billion people.

And there must be international cooperation, not only for fusion technology, but also for space technology and space travel, because that is the vanguard of scientific and technological realm today.

So we are right now confronted with a situation where the leading governments and institutions are challenged: Are we able to solve the problems of the world, are we able to address the problems which threaten the very existence of mankind, or not? Now, the Schiller Institute has proposed for more than 30 years, first, the Eurasian Land-Bridge; the New Silk Road, and in 2013, we proposed the “New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” Please show the slide: Now, this is a blueprint how we can overcome world poverty, how we can eradicate underdevelopment forever, and how can we create a new, modern world health system for every country in the world, which is the only way how we can overcome old and new diseases, this pandemic and threatening new pandemics.

This is absolutely possible, and this is the vision of how the world will look in a few years, anyway, if we avoid the present danger of nuclear war. The development of infrastructure connecting all continents is the natural way how infrastructure development will continue, provided there is peace. So I think that is something we need to put on the agenda for discussion, and the reason why, despite the incredible danger, one can be optimistic, is because we are the human species, we are capable of reason, and we are not barbarians.

Thank you.

Rasmussen: OK, we have 10 minutes now questions to Helga. … We have a question from Elena. While we’re waiting for Elena, we have a question from Jens Jørgen Nielsen, one of our speakers.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Thank you for a very good presentation. I essentially agree with you. I have one question. As you may know, I live in Denmark, where we will have a referendum in a week’s time, about the European Union: We are discussing in our country for the time being, the role of the European Union and whether it should have an army, how should we have security. I would like a few words: How do you think about the European Union in this context? Because I am somehow skeptical, but I would like to hear your opinion on the European Union and the development right now of the European Union in this context? And also specifically the question of the European military arm, which is the subject of referendum? And the policy toward Ukraine and Russia?

Zepp-LaRouche: When there was a referendum about the EU Constitution in France and Holland 2005, which was defeated, because the majority voted against it. And then they shifted it to the Lisbon Treaty, because by not calling it a “constitution” but by calling it a “treaty,” it did not require a vote. So this was decided in great secrecy, but we were extremely closely watching it at the time. And if you look at the Charter of the EU as it was agreed upon in Lisbon in December 2007, it is practically interwoven with NATO, in such a degree that the Article 5 of NATO practically also involves the EU. In other words, when you join the EU, you are practically also part of whatever NATO does. And the character of NATO has also dramatically changed, in the last 30 years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In the time of the Soviet Union, it was a defensive apparatus against the Warsaw Pact. But in the recent period, it has turned into a completely anti-Russian Russophobe alliance, and therefore, when, in November 2013, when the Ukraine government under Viktor Yanukovych refused to join the EU Association Agreement, it was clear that if Ukraine would join the EU, it would give NATO access to the Black Sea, and that is why he opted out in the last moment.

So, I think that that is an important thing to keep in mind. And the fact that Ursula von der Leyen is at the forefront of all of the policies which I described as British, in my various examples, such as the fight of so-called democracies and so-called autocratic regimes, when she is talking about that every day: She went to India talking like that.

I think the present EU has completely lost touch with the interest of its member-states. I think they have become a gigantic waterhead of a bureaucracy in Brussels which makes for the most part completely ridiculous decisions and orders and rules which are absolutely contrary to the interest of the member countries. And I actually have called for Germany to move out of the EU, because we don’t need a bureaucracy to have a unified Europe! We could have a Europe of the Fatherlands, in the spirit of Charles de Gaulle! We could work together for a join mission to contribute to shaping a new world order in a positive way: We could do that by having national sovereign governments just working together. You don’t need this bureaucracy. That is my view, and I would just advise anybody who has an interest in their own sovereignty to not join this colossus.

Rasmussen: Elena, why don’t you ask your question now?

Elena: Thank you so much. I find everything that Madam Helga said very, very interesting. And of course, at the moment, as I am very interested in the situation between Ukraine and Russia, my optimistic feeling is that Russia is going to come to a solution with Ukraine. Because as I have heard today, Putin has been somehow winning in the territories. So most likely something good will happen.

However, I think what Madam said is so beautiful, I would like to have something to read if possible. Because my connection was not very good, and I was not able to hear well. However, I would be very grateful if Madam could let me have what she said in a written form, that I can read and study. And I can write an article about what she has said, what are the goals of this new architecture and let other people to know about it.

Rasmussen: Elena we will have a transcript of Helga’s comments, and we can send those to you and all the participants. And also the video of this conference will be available to send around.

We have one more questioner, Kwame. We can take a short question.

Kwame: I’m a Swede. Thank you for a nice presentation. My question, because I don’t know: Would you say that China is united and in full control of the Chinese Communist Party? Or, are there some Chinese oligarchs that have good connections with their American counterparts? As for they send some money into the [inaud 51:09] laboratory, maybe to somehow get them connected to the globalists in the Western hemisphere. So, my question is, does the Chinese Communist Party have full control of the country?

Zepp-LaRouche: I would say, absolutely yes. And I just should say something, because right now, when you say “Communist,” some people fall completely into a coma and have hysterical outbursts. I mean, the Communist Party of China is, in my view—and I don’t even think that they would agree with that—but I think they’re 90% Confucian, in the tradition of the ancient Chinese traditions and philosophy, which influenced Chinese policy for more than two millennia. And naturally, there is an element of Marxism and communism, but it’s a meritocracy.

The way people look at the CPC in the West is completely uninformed, and I can only—my best way of answering is that I was in China for the first time, in 1971, in the middle of the Cultural Revolution, and I could travel around in Shanghai, Tientsin, Qingdao, Beijing, I could visit the countryside: And I saw a country which was really distraught! People were poor, the conditions were very terrible. The beautiful garden of the Summer Palace had been painted all red by the Revolutionary Guards. In any case, this was 51 years ago, and when you go to China now, it is so developed! They have 40,000 km of fast train system, of which nobody in the United States or Europe can even dream, because we have nothing like that! China has made an incredible development: 850 million people have been lifted out of poverty. And I could say many, many more things.

Deng Xiaoping coined the term “judging truth from facts.” And if you look at the facts of the gigantic development of China in the last 40 years, in particular, then this Communist Party has done something right. And if you travel to China, and study Chinese history, and meet people in all ranks of life, professors, students, people living in the countryside, other professions, you go to restaurants, and you see how people live, you find a population which is primarily content. They’re optimistic: They’re not like the Europeans and they’re for sure not like the Germans, who are completely pessimistic, and think nothing can function and you can’t do anything anyway. No. That is not the view in China. They are optimistic; they have, to a very large extent, trust in the government. And I think that the Chinese model, which the West is now regarding as a big competitor and threat, the Chinese model is doing something right, which the West is not doing right! And rather than opposing it, we should go to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and say: We should respect each other, even if the other one has a different social system, and even if the other one has a different way of doing things, according to their history, and their tradition. And I think then, we can absolutely peacefully live together. And that is my stated view, and I think all the slanders about China are really absolutely unfounded, and in particular, this present campaign by this very dubious Adrian Zenz, we should squash before it really takes hold.

Rasmussen: All right, thank you very much Helga! We really appreciate your very in-depth discussion.




EIR spørger forsvarsministre fra Danmark, Storbritannien og Sverige om en
ny sikkerheds- og økonomisk arkitektur på TV2 live

København, 4. marts (EIRNS) — {EIR} stillede et spørgsmål om Schiller Instituttets forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklings arkitektur på et pressemøde i dag med forsvarsministrene fra Danmark, Storbritannien og Sverige, om bord på den danske fregat Niels Juel, ved lanceringen af den militære øvelse Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) i Østersøen.

Storbritannien har ledelsen af JEF, og denne øvelse med udgangspunkt i Danmark omfatter også Sverige og de tre baltiske lande, Estland, Letland og Litauen. 

Den danske forsvarsminister Morten Bødskov besvarede {EIR}s spørgsmål, i selskab med den britiske forsvarsminister Ben Wallace og den svenske forsvarsminister Peter Hultqvist. 

Pressekonferencen blev transmitteret direkte og er arkiveret på dansk TV2. Der var filmhold og reportere fra andre danske medier, Sverige, Storbritannien (BBC), Agence France-Presse (AFP) og muligvis også andre lande, hvor det muligvis er blevet transmitteret. 

Her er endnu en video, som også inkluderer TV2’s spørgsmål, om Danmark og Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) optrapper krisen med deres militære øvelser i Østersøen.

Hele pressekonferencen kan stadigvæk ses på TV2News den 4. marts 2022: Find “Nordeuropæiske forsvarsministre briefer om samarbejde” her.

 “EIR: Michelle Rasmussen fra {Executive Intelligence Review} i USA. I betragtning af alvoren af krigen i Ukraine og faren for optrapning, ligefrem indtil atomkrig, har formanden for Schiller Instituttet Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordret til en international konference om en ny sikkerhedsmæssig og økonomisk arkitektur, der skal tage hensyn til alle landes fælles interesser. Har De en kommentarer til dette – nogen af ministrene?

“Den danske forsvarsminister Morten Bødskov: Der er kun én kommentar, nemlig at det JEF-samarbejde, som vi har indgået her, er vejen frem. Vi står sammen her i dag, for at bekræfte vores værdier, vores samarbejde, og det er vejen frem for den region, som vi befinder os i nu, og jeg er glad for, at vores britiske kollega og min svenske kollega er til stede her i dag.” 

Under den korte pressekonference om morgenen, rejste BBC spørgsmålet om atomkrig, da der blev spurgt, om Rusland i lyset af det russiske angreb på et ukrainsk atomkraftværk, ville være indstillet på at bruge atomvåben. Den britiske forsvarsminister Ben Wallace, nedtonede faren ved den nuværende situation med atomkraftværket. Han advarede Rusland mod at ramme atomkraftværker ved et uheld eller med vilje, og erklærede, at Putins tankegang synes at være, at der ikke er nogen grænser. Putin bør mindes om, at NATO er en konventionel og nuklear alliance. 

Under eftermiddagens pressekonference var {EIR} den anden journalist i rækken, der stillede et spørgsmål, forud for en national dansk TV2-journalist, der sendte direkte, og som stillede fire spørgsmål om, hvorvidt denne Joint Expeditionary Force-øvelse risikerer at eskalere den nuværende krise. Svaret fra den danske minister var bl.a., at vi er nødt til at trække en streg i sandet over for Putin og sikre friheden i Østersøområdet. {EIR} vil udsende endnu en video med denne udveksling på dansk, efterfulgt af {EIR}s spørgsmål og svar.

English:

COPENHAGEN, March 4 (ERINS) — EIR asked the question at a press conference with the ministers of defense from Denmark, Great Britain and Sweden, aboard the Danish frigate Niels Juel, on the occasion of the start of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) military exercise in the Baltic Sea. The JEF is led by Great Britain, and this exercise, with the starting point in Denmark, also includes Sweden, and the three Baltic countries.

Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov answered EIR’s question, alongside British Defense Minister Ben Wallace and Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.

The press conference was broadcast live and is archived on Danish TV2, and there were film crews and reporters from other Danish media, Sweden, Great Britain (BBC), Agence France Press, and maybe other countries, so it might also have been covered live in other countries.

“EIR: Michelle Rasmussen from Executive Intelligence Review in the United States. Given the seriousness of war in Ukraine and the danger of escalation, even up to nuclear war, the president of the Schiller Institute Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for an international conference for a new security and economic architecture to address the interests of all countries. Do you have any comments to that — any of the ministers?

Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov: There is only one comment, that the JEF (Joint Expeditionary Force) cooperation that we have made here is the way forward. We stand together here, today, to confirm our values, our cooperation, and that’s the way forward for the region that we are in now, and I’m glad that our British colleague and my Swedish colleague are here today.”

During the morning short press conference, the BBC reporter brought the nuclear war question up when he asked if, in light of the Russian attack on a Ukrainian nuclear plant, Russia would be in the mindset to use nuclear weapons. British Defense Minister Ben Wallace played down the danger of the current nuclear plant situation, warned Russia against hitting nuclear plants by accident or intention, said that Putin’s mindset seemed to be that there are no limits, and Putin should be reminded that NATO is a conventional and nuclear alliance.

During the afternoon press conference EIR was the second journalist to ask a question, preceded by a national Danish TV2 journalist, broadcasting live, who asked four questions about if this Joint Expeditionary Force exercise can escalate the current crisis. The answer from the Danish minister included that we have to draw a line in the sand for Putin, and ensure freedom in the Baltic region. EIR will release another video with this exchange in Danish and followed by the EIR question and answer.




Interview med freds- og fremtidsforsker Jan Øberg:
Om Ukraine-Rusland-USA-NATO krisen,
Danmarks forhandlinger om amerikanske soldater i Danmark, og
Xinjiang spørgsmålet, den 21. februar 2022

Jan Øberg, ph.d., er freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf,
Direktør, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF, Sverige, https://transnational.live

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

Interviewet er på engelsk p.g.a. international deling.

Lydfil: 

Afskrift: 1. del om Ukraine-Rusland-U.S.-NATO krisen:

Michelle Rasmussen: Hello. Today is February 21st, 2022. I am Michele Rasmussen, the vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. And I’m very happy that peace researcher Jan Oberg agreed to this interview. Jan Oberg was born in Denmark and lives in Sweden. He has a PhD in sociology and has been a visiting professor in peace and conflict studies in Japan, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, part time over the years. Jan Oberg has written thousands of pages of published articles and several books. He is the co-founder and director of the Independent TFF, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden since 1985, and has been nominated over several years for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Our interview today will have three parts. The danger of war between Russia and Ukraine, which could lead to war between the United States and NATO and Russia, and how to stop it.

Secondly, your criticism of Denmark starting negotiations with the United States on a bilateral security agreement, which could mean permanent stationing of U.S. soldiers and armaments on Danish soil.

And thirdly, your criticism of a major report which alleged that China is committing genocide in Xinjiang province.

A Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some in the West said would start last Wednesday has not occurred. But as we speak, tensions are still very high. You wrote an article, Jan Oberg, on January 19th, called Ukraine The West has paved the road to war with lies, specifying three lies concerning the Ukraine crisis. Let’s take them one by one.

You defined lie number one: “The Western leaders never promised Mikhail Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, not to expand NATO eastwards. They also did not state that they would take serious Soviet or Russian security interests around its borders, and, therefore, each of the former Warsaw Pact countries has a right to join NATO, if they decide to freely.” Can you please explain more to our viewers about this lie?

Jan Oberg: Yes, and thank you very much for your very kind and long and detailed introduction of me. I would just say about that point that I’m amazed that this is now a kind of repeated truth in Western media, that Gorbachev was not given such promises. And it rests with a few words taken out of a longer article written years ago by a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who says that Gorbachev did not say so. That article was published by Brookings Institution. Now the truth is, and there’s a difference between truth and non truths, and we have to make that more and more clear when we deal with the West at the moment. The truth is, if you go to the National Security Archives in the U.S., if I remember correctly, the George Washington University that is well documented, their own formulation is that there are cascades of documentation. However, this was not written down in a treaty, or signed by the Western leaders, who one after the other came to Gorbachev’s dacha outside Moscow or visited him in Kremlin, and therefore some people would say it’s not valid. Now that is not true in politics. If we can’t rely on what was said and what was written down by people personally in their notebooks, etc.

George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, James Baker, you can almost mention any important Western leader were unanimous in saying to Gorbachev, we understand that the Warsaw Pact has gone, the Soviet Union has gone, and therefore, we are not going to take advantage of your weakness. James Baker’s formulation, according to all these sources, is we’re not going to expand nature one inch. And that was said in 89, 90. That is 30 years ago. And Gorbachev, because of those assurances also accepted, which he’s been blamed very much for since then, the reunification of Germany. Some sources say that was a kind of deal made that if Germany should be united, which it was very quickly after, it should be a neutral country. But the interpretation in the West was it could remain a member of NATO, but would then include what was at that time the German Democratic Republic, GDR [East Germany] into one Germany. You can go to Gorbachev’s Foundation home page and you will find several interviews, videos, whatever, in which he says these things, and you can go to the Danish leading expert in this, Jens Jørgen Nielsen, who has also written that he personally interviewed Gorbachev, in which Gorbachev, with sadness in his eyes, said that he was cheated, or that these promises were broken, whatever the formulation is.

And I fail to understand why this being one of the most important reasons behind the present crisis, namely Russia’s putting down its foot, saying “You can’t continue this expansion up to the border, with your troops and your long-range missiles, up to the border of Russia. And we will not accept Ukraine [as a member of NATO]. You have gotten ten former Warsaw Pact countries which are now members of NATO, NATO has 30 members. We are here with a military budget, which is eight percent of NATO’s, and you keep up with this expansion. We are not accepting that expansion to include Ukraine.

Now, this is so fundamental that, of course, it has to be denied by those who are hardliners, or hawks, or cannot live without enemies, or want a new Cold War, which we already have, in my view, and have had for some years. But that’s a long story. The way the West, and the U.S. in particular — but NATO’s secretary general’s behavior is outrageous to me, because it’s built on omission of one of the most important historical facts of modern Europe.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yes. In your article, you actually quote from the head of NATO, the general secretary of NATO, back in 1990, one year before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Manfred Wörner, where you say that in these documents released by the U.S. National Security Archive, that you just referred to, “Manfred Wörner gave a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990, in which he argued ‘The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system.’ And the next year, in the middle of 1991, according to a memorandum from the Russian delegation who met with Wörner. He responded to the Russians by saying that he personally and the NATO council, were both against expansion “13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view,” and “Wörner said that he would speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries leaders, as he had already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And he emphasized that we should not allow the isolation of USSR from the European community,” and this was even while the U.S.S.R. was still alive. So it must have been even more the case after the U.S.S.R. collapsed, and Russia emerged.

Jan Oberg: Well, if I may put in a little point here, you see, with that quotation of a former NATO secretary general, compare that with the present secretary general of NATO. Wörner was a man of intellect. The leaders around him at the time in Europe were too. I mean, those were the days when you had people like Willy Brandt in Germany and östpolitik [East policy], and you had Olof Palme in Sweden with common security thinking. We cannot in the West be sure, feel safe and secure in the West, if it’s against Russia. Which does not mean at all to give into everything Russia does, but just says we cannot be safe if the others don’t feel safe from us. And that was an intellectualism. That was an empathy, not a necessarily a sympathy, but it was an empathy for those over there, that we have to take into account, when we act. Today that intellectualism is gone completely.

And it is very interesting, as you point out, that 13 out of 16 NATO countries, at that time, were at that level, but in came in 1990 Bill Clinton. And he basically said, well, he didn’t state it. He acted as though he had stated it, I don’t care about those promises, and then he started expanding NATO. And the first office of NATO was set up in Kiev in 1994. That was the year when he did that. And that was a year when I sat in Tbilisi, Georgia, and interviewed the U.S. representative there, who, through a two-hour long conversation, basically talked about Georgia as “our country.”

So, you know, it’s sad to say it’s human to make mistakes, but to be so anti-intellectual, so anti-empathetic, so imbued with your own thinking and worldview, you’re not able to take the other side into account, is much more dangerous than it was at that time, because the leaders we have in the western world today are not up to it. They were earlier, but these are not.

Michelle Rasmussen: Lie number two that you pointed out, “The Ukraine conflict started by Putin’s out-of-the-blue aggression on Ukraine and then annexation of Crimea.” What’s the rest of the story here?

Jan Oberg: Well, it’s not the rest, it’s the beginning of the story. You see, people who write about these things, and it’s particularly those who are Western media and Western politicians and foreign ministers, et cetera, they say that it all started with this out-of-the-blue invasion in the Donbass, and then the taking, annexing or aggression on, or whatever the word is, Crimea. Well, they all forget, very conveniently, and very deliberately — I mean, this is not a longer time ago than people who write about it today would know — that there was a clearly western assisted, if not orchestrated, coup d’état in Kiev in 2014. After, I won’t go into that long story, after some negotiations about an economic agreement between Ukraine and the EU, in which the president then jumped off, allegedly under pressure from Putin, or whatever, but there were a series of violent events in Kiev.

And it’s well known from one of those who were there, and participated, namely the assistant secretary of State for European Affairs, Mrs. Nuland, and she’s given a speech in the U.S. where, if I remember correctly, she says that the US has pumped $5 billion into Ukraine over the years, to support democracy and human rights, et cetera, and training courses for young NGOs, et cetera. And it’s obvious that that operation, that ousting of the president, he had to flee to Russia, and the taking over, partly by neo-Nazis and fascists who were present and who probably did the beginning of the shooting and the killing of people, that all this had to do with the promise that was given to Ukraine years before that it would be integrated into the Euro-Atlantic framework. And then it was kind of stopping and saying, we don’t want that anyhow. We will negotiate something else, and we will look into what Putin has to offer, etc.

But that that, in Putin’s mind, in Russia’s mind, meant that NATO would be the future of Ukraine. And Russia had, still has, a huge military base in Crimea, which it had a lease on for, at the time, I think it was 30 plus years, meaning should Ukraine, which was clearly signalled by the western NATO member’s leadership, enter and become a full member of Ukraine, then he would look at a Russian base, either being lost or you would have a Russian military naval base in a NATO country.

Now I’m not saying that that was a smart move. I’m not saying it was a legal move, but it’s very difficult for the western world to blame Russia for annexing Crimea. If you look at the opinion polls and the votes for that, if you will, voting ourselves back to Russia — you know, the whole thing was Russia until 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and he was from Ukraine himself. And so this happened three weeks before. And I’m amazed that it should not again be intellectually possible for people who witnessed this — The other thing we talked about with 30 years ago. There might be some young fools who would not read history books.

But what I’m talking about was something that happened in 2014, and there’s no excuse for not mentioning that there’s a connection between that coup d’état, and the influence of the West in Ukraine in a very substantial way, and what happened in Donbas and Crimea.

So I’m just saying, if I put it on a more general level, if we look at today’s ability to understand, describe, analyze issues as conflicts, we are heading for zero understanding. There is nobody in the press, and nobody in politics who are able, intellectually, to see these things as conflicts, that is, as a problem standing between two or more parties that has to be analyzed. And conflict resolution is about finding solutions that the parties we have defined as parties, and there certainly are many more than two in this very complex conflict, can live with in the future. What we are down to in banalization is that there is no conflict. There’s only one party, Russia, that does everything bad and evil and terrible, while we are sitting in the receiving end, being the good guys who’ve done nothing wrong in history. Who could never rethink what we did or say, we’re sorry, or change our policies, because we are right. There’s only one problem. That’s them. We’re down now to the level in which these things, also the last three months, the accusations about Russia invading Ukraine, has nothing to do with conflict analysis. It is purely focusing on one party, and one party, by definition, is not a conflict.

We are not party to a relationship anymore, and that makes a huge difference, again, from the leaders and the way of thinking and the intellectual approach that existed 20-30 years ago. And one reason for all of this is, of course, that the West is on his way down. Secondly, and they feel threatened by anything that happens around the world. And secondly, when you have been number one in a system for a long time, you become lazy. You don’t study. You don’t have as good education as you should have. You bring up people to high levels who have not read books, because we can get away with everything. We are so strong militarily. And when that happens, you know, it’s a slippery slope and you are actually on board the Titanic.

This is not a defense of everything Russia does. What I’m trying to say is there is a partner over there, by the way they call us partners in the West. We call them anything else but partners. We don’t even see them. We don’t listen to their interests. We didn’t listen to Putin when he spoke at the Munich conference in 2007 and said, ‘You have cheated us.’ And of course, when Gorbachev, 90 years old, says, you have cheated us, he’s not even quoted in the Western world, because there’s no space anymore for other views than our own. You know, this autism that is now classical in the Western security policy elite is damn dangerous.

Michelle Rasmussen: I want to just ask you shortly about the third lie, and then we’ll get into what you see as the solution. The third lie you, you pointed out, was that “NATO always has an open door to new members. It never tries to invite or drag them in does not seek expansion. It just happens because Eastern European countries since 1989 to 1990 have wanted to join without any pressure from NATO’s side, and this also applies to Ukraine.” And in this section, you also document that Putin actually asked for Russia to join NATO. Can you shortly, please explain your most important point about this third lie?

Jan Oberg: Yeah, well, it’s already there since you quoted my text, but the fascinating thing is that you have not had a referendum in any of these new member states. The fascinating thing is, in 2014, when this whole NATO membership came to its first conflictual situation in the case of Ukraine, there was not a majority, according to any opinion poll in Ukraine. There was not a majority. And I would say it’s not a matter of 51%. If a country is going to join NATO, it should be at least 75 or 80% of the people saying yes to that. Third, and it’s not something I’ve invented, it is NATO’s former secretary general Robertson, who has told the story. I think it was first released in the Guardian, but it’s also in a long podcast from a place I don’t remember, which the Guardian quotes. He says that he was asked by Putin whether, or at what time, or whatever the formulation was, NATO would accept Russia as a member.

This probably goes back to what you had already quoted Wörner, the NATO secretary general for having said, namely that a new security structure in Europe would, by necessity, have some kind of involvement, in a direct sense, of Russia, because Russia is also Europe.

And that was what Gorbachev had as an idea that the new [common] European home, something like a security structure where we could deal with our conflicts or differences or misunderstandings, and we could still be friends in the larger Europe.

And that was why I argued at the time thirty years ago that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the only reasonable thing was to close down NATO. And instead, as I said with Clinton and onwards, the whole interpretation was we have won. The Western system, the neoliberal democratic NATO system has won. We have nothing to learn from that. There’s nothing to change now. We just expand even more.

And the first thing NATO did, as you know, was a completely illegal. Also, according to its own charter, the invasion, involvement and bombing in Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia was not a member. Had never been a member of NATO, and NATO’s only mission is paragraph five, which says that we are one for all and all for one. We are going to support some member, if the member is attacked. Now, it had nothing to do in Yugoslavia. That happened in 1991 and onwards, all the nineties. And you remember the bombings and 72 two days of bombings in Kosovo and Serbia. And it’s nothing to do — and there was no UN mandate for it. But it was a triumphalist interpretation. We can now get away with everything, anything we want. We can do it because there’s no Russia to take into account. Russia could not do anything about it. China could not do anything about it at the time.

And so, you get into hubris and an inability to see your own limitations, and that is what we are coming up to now. We are seeing the boomerang coming back to NATO, the western world for these things. And then, of course, some idiots will sit somewhere and say, Jan Oberg is pro-Russia. No, I’m trying to stick to what I happen to remember happened at the time. I’m old enough to remember what was said to Gorbachev in those days when the Wall came down and all these things changed fundamentally.

I was not optimistic that NATO would adapt to that situation, but there was hope at that time. There’s no hope today for this, because if you could change, you would have changed long ago. So the prediction I make is the United States empire, NATO, will fall apart at some point. The question is how, how dangerous, and how violent that process will be, because it’s not able to conduct reforms or change itself fundamentally into something else, such as a common security organization for Europe.

Michelle Rasmussen: Well, I actually wanted to ask you now about the solutions, because you’ve been a peace researcher for many decades. What what would it take to peacefully resolve the immediate crisis? And secondly, how can we create the basis for peaceful world in the future? You mentioned the idea that you had 30 years ago for dismembering NATO and the founder and international chairman of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has now called for establishing a new security architecture, which would take the interests of all countries, including Russia, into account. So how could we solve the immediate crisis? If there were the political will, what would have to change among the parties? And secondly, what needs to be done in terms of long term peaceful cooperation?

Jan Oberg: Well, first of all, the question you are raising is a little bit like the seventh doctor who is trying to operate on a patient who is bleeding to death and then saying, “What should we do now?” What I have suggested over 30 years is something that should have been done to avoid the situation today, and nobody listened, as is clear, because you don’t listen to researchers anymore who say something else that state-financed researchers do. So it’s not an easy question you are raising, of course. I would say, of course, in the immediate situation, the Minsk agreements, which have not been upheld, particularly by Ukraine in establishing some kind of autonomy for the Donbass area. Now that is something we could work with, autonomous solutions. We could work with confederations, we could work with cantonization, if you will. Lots of what happened, and happens, in the eastern republics of Ukraine. It reminds me of a country I know very well, and partly educated in and worked in during the dissolution, namely Yugoslavia. So much so that it resembles Granica. Ukraine and Granica in Croatia, both mean border areas. Granica means border, and there’s so much that could have been a transfered of knowledge and wisdom and lessons learned, had we had a United Nations mission in that part. A peacekeeping mission, a monitoring mission. UN police and U.N. civil affairs in the Donbas region.

If I remember correctly, Putin is the only one who suggested that at some point. I don’t think he presented it as a big proposal to the world, but in an interview he said that was something he could think of. I wrote in 2014, why on earth has nobody even suggested that the United Nations, the world’s most competent organization in handling conflicts, and, if you will, put a lid on the military affairs, for instance, by disarming the parties on all sides, which they did in eastern and western Slovonia, in Croatia. Why has that not been suggested? Because the western world has driven the United Nations out to the periphery of international politics..

I’ve said Minsk. I’ve said the UN. I’ve said some kind of internal reforms in Ukraine. I have said, and I would insist on it, NATO must stop its expansion. NATO cannot take the risk, on behalf of Europe, and the world, to say we insist on continuing with giving weapons to, and finally making Ukraine a NATO member. You can ask Kissinger, you can ask Brzezinski, you can take the most, if you will, right wing hawkish politicians in the West. They’ve all said neutrality like Finland or Switzerland, or something like that, is the only viable option.

And is that to be pro-Russian? No, that needs to be pro-Western. Because I am just looking like so many others, fortunately, have done at the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would the United States — how would it have reacted, if Russia had a huge military alliance and tried to get Canada or Mexico to become members with long-range weapons standing a few kilometers from the U.S. border?

Do you think the US would have said, “Oh, they were all freely deciding to, so we think it’s OK.” Look at what they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They could not accept weapon stations in Cuba.

So, one of the things you have to ask yourself about is there one rule and one set of interests for the Western world that does not apply to other actors? If you want to avoid Russia invading Ukraine, which all this nonsense is about repeatedly now for two or three months. Look into a new status where the East and the West and Ukraine, all of it, can sit down and discuss security guarantees for Ukraine.

President Zelensky has said it quite nicely, I must say. If you don’t want us to become members of NATO, and he says that to the West, because he feels that it has taken a long time for the West to act, and he last said that at the Munich Security Conference, I think yesterday or two days ago, by the way, interestingly a man whose country is going to be invaded any moment, leaves the country and goes to a conference to speak which he could have done on Zoom.

I mean, the whole thing doesn’t make sense, like it didn’t make sense, was it on the 18th or 17th when all the West said that they’re going to invade Ukraine, and the Russian defense minister was sitting in Damascus and Putin was receiving Bolsonaro. I mean, don’t they have intelligence anymore in NATO and Washington?

So long story short, sit down and give Ukraine the guarantees and non-aggression pact with both sides or all sides, clearly limited non-nuclear defensive defense measures along the borders, or whatever, integration in whatever eastern and Western economic organizations.

And I would be happy to see them as part of the Belt and Road Initiative with economic opportunities. There is so much Ukraine could do if it could get out of the role of being a victim, and squeezed between the two sides all the time. And that can only be done if you elevate the issue to a higher level, in which Ukraine’s different peoples and different parts and parties are allowed to speak up about what future they want to have in their very specific situation that Ukraine is in. It is not any country in in Europe. It’s a poor country. It’s a country that has a specific history. It’s a country which is very complex, complex ethnically, language wise, historically, etc.

And that’s why I started out saying confederation. I said something like a Switzerland model, something like Cantonization, or whatever, but for Christ’s sake, give that country and its people a security, a good feeling that nobody’s going to encroach upon you..

And that is to me, the the schwerpunkt [main emphasis], the absolutely essential, that is to give the Ukraine people a feeling of security and safety and stability and peace so that they can develop. I find it very interesting that President Zelensky, in this very long interview to the international press a couple of weeks ago, say I’m paraphrasing it. But he says “I’m tired of all these people who say that we are going to be invaded because it destroys our economy. People are leaving. No business is coming in, right?”

Who are we to do this damage to Ukraine and then want it to become a member of NATO? You know, the whole thing is recklessly irresponsible, in my view, particularly with a view of Ukraine and its peoples and their needs.

So I would put that in focus, and then put in a huge UN peacekeeping mission and continue and expand the excellent OSCE mission. Put the international communit, good hearted, neutral people down there and diffuse those who have only one eyesight, only one view of all this. They are the dangerous people.

Michelle Rasmussen: And what about the more long-term idea of a new security architecture in general?

Jan Oberg: Oh, I would build a kind of, I wouldn’t say copy of, but I would I would build something inspired by the United Nations Security Council. All Europe, representatives for all countries, including NGOs, and not just government representatives. I would have an early warning mechanism where the moment there is something like a conflict coming up, we would have reporters and we would have investigations we would look into, not conflict prevention.

My goodness, people don’t read books. There’s nothing about conflict prevention. We should prevent violence. We should prevent violent conflict, but preventing conflicts is nonsense, life is getting richer. There’s not a family, there’s not a school, there’s not a workplace, there’s not a political party, there’s not a parliament in which there are no conflicts. Conflict is what life is made of. Conflict is terribly important because it makes us change and reflect. I’m all for conflicts, and I’m one hundred and ten percent against violence. But people will say “Conflict prevention is something we should work, on and educate people in.” Nonsense from people who never read books, as I said.

So I would look for something like common security. The good old Palme Commission from the eighties, which built on defensive defense. The idea that we all have a right, according to Article 51, in the UN Charter. Everybody has a right to self-defense.

But we do not have a right to missiles that can go 4,000 km or 8,000 kilometres and kill millions of people far away. Get rid of nuclear weapons and all these things. It has nothing to do with defensiveness and common security, and I say that wherever I go and whoever I speak to. Get rid of nuclear weapons and offensive long range weapons.

The only legitimate weapons there are in this world are defensive ones, and they are defined by two things. Short distance, ability to go only over a short distance, such as helicopters instead of fighter airplanes or missiles.

And second, limited destructive capacity because they’re going to be used on your own territory in case somebody encroaches or invades you. But nobody wants to have nuclear weapons or totally super destructive weapons on their own territory because they don’t want them to be used to there. So just ask yourself, what would you like in Country X, Y and Z to be defended with? And that’s a definition of a defensive weapons. If we all had only defensive military structures, there would be very few wars, but they would also not be a military-industrial-media-academic complex that earns the money on this.

The whole thing here that the big elephant in the room we are talking about is, well, there are two of them, is NATO expansion, which we should never have done this way. And secondly, it’s the interest of the military-industrial-media-academic complex, as I call it, that earns a hell of a lot of money on people’s suffering, and millions of people who, at this moment while we speak, are living in fear and despair because of what they see in the media is going to happen. None of what we see at this moment was necessary. It’s all made up by elites who have an interest in these kinds of things happening or the threat of the Cold War. And even if we avoid a big war now, and I hope, I don’t pray to anything, but I hope very much that we do, thanks to some people’s wisdom, and it’s going to be very cold in Europe in the future after this.

Look at the demonization that the West has done again against Russia, and to a certain extent, of Ukraine. This is not psychologically something that will be repaired in two weeks.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yeah, and also, as you mentioned at the beginning, it has also something to do with the unwillingness in part of certain of the Western elites to accept that we do not have an Anglo-American unipolar world, but that there are other countries that need to be listened to and respected.

Jan Oberg: Yeah, and you might add, what the West gets out of this is that Russia and China will get closer and closer. You are already seeing the common declaration. We will have friendship eternally. And that’s between two countries who up to the sixties at some point were very strong enemies. And the same will go with Iran, and there would be other countries like Serbia which are turning away from the West. We’re going to sit and be isolating ourselves because, one, we cannot bully the world anymore, as we could before in the West. And secondly, nobody wants to be bullied anymore. We have to live in a world in which there are different systems. This Christian missionary idea that everybody must become like us. We opened up to China because then we hope they would become liberal democracies with many parties, and the parliament is awfully naïve. And time is over for that kind of thinking.

Michelle Rasmussen: I want to go into the other two subjects. Firstly, the question of the negotiations between Denmark and the United States in the context of the political, military and media statements of recent years alleging that Russia has aggressive intentions against Europe and the U.S. the Danish Social Democratic government announced on February 10th that a year ago, the U.S. requested negotiations on a Defense Cooperation Agreement, and that Denmark was now ready to start these negotiations. The government announced that it could mean permanent stationing of U.S. troops and armaments on Danish soil. And if so, this would be against the decades-long policy of the Danish government not to allow foreign troops or armaments permanently stationed in Denmark. And you wrote an article two days later criticizing these negotiations. Why are you against this?

Jan Oberg: I’m against it because it’s a break of 70 years of sensible policies. We do not accept foreign weapons and we do not accept foreign troops, and we do not accept nuclear weapons stationed on Danish soil. I sat, for ten years, all throughout the 1980s, in the Danish Governments Commission for Security and Disarmament as an expert. Nobody in the 80s would have mentioned anything like this. I guess the whole thing is something that had begun to go mad around 20 years ago, when Denmark engaged and became a bomber nation for the first time in Yugoslavia. And then Afghanistan and Iraq, and it means that you cannot say no. This is an offer you can’t refuse. You can’t refuse it, among other things, it’s my interpretation, because you remember the story where President Trump suggested that he or the U.S. could buy Greenland, and the prime minister Mette Frederiksen said, ‘Well, that is not something to be discussed. The question is absurd,’ after which he got very angry. He got personally very angry, and he said, ‘It’s not a matter of speaking to me. You’re speaking to the United States of America.’ And I think this offer to begin negotiations must have come relatively shortly after that, as ‘This offer is not something you should call absurd once again.’ I’ve no evidence for that. But if these negotiations started more than a year ago, we are back in the Trump administration.

And secondly, what kind of democracy is that? We do not know what that letter in which the Americans asked to have negotiations about this, when it was written and what the content of it was. But what we hear is that a little more than a year ago, we began some negotiations about this whole thing, that is behind the back of the parliament, and behind the back of the people, and then is presented more or less as a fait accompli. There will be an agreement. The question is only nitty-gritty, what will be in it.

In terms of substance, there is no doubt that any place where there would be American facilities based in sites, so whenever you’d call it, weapon stored will be the first targets in a war, seen as such in a war, under the best circumstances, seen by Russia. Russia’s first targets will be to eliminate the Americans everywhere they can in Europe, because those are the strongest and most dangerous forces.

Secondly, it is not true that there is a no to nuclear weapons in other senses than Denmark will keep up the principle that we will not have them stationed permanently. But with such an agreement where the Air Force, Navy and soldiers, military, shall more frequently work with, come in to visit, etc., there’s no doubt that there will be more nuclear weapons coming into, for instance, on American vessels than before, because the cooperation would be closer and closer.

Jan Oberg: And there the only thing the Danish government will do is, since they know that the “neither confirm nor deny policy” of the U.S., they would not even ask the question. If they are asked by journalists, they would say, “Well, we take for granted that the Americans honor or understand and respect that we will not have nuclear weapons on Danish territory, sea territory, or whatever. Now the Americans are violating that in Japan even. So, this is this is nonsense. There would be more nuclear weapons. I’m not saying they would go off or anything like that. I’m just saying there would be more undermining of Danish principles.

And then the whole thing, of course, has to do with the fact that Denmark is placing itself — and that was something the present government under Mette Frederiksen’s leadership did before this was made public — is to put 110 percent of your eggs in the U.S. basket. This is the most foolish thing you can do, given the world change. The best thing a small country can do is to uphold international law and the UN. Denmark doesn’t. It speaks like the U.S. for an international rules-based order, which is the opposite of, or very far away from the international law.

And secondly, in a world where you are going to want multipolarity, a stronger Asia, stronger Africa, another Russia from the one we have known the last 30 years, etc., and a United States that is, on all indicators except the military, declining and will fall as the world leader. This is, in my view, be careful with my words, the most foolish thing you can do at the moment, if you are a leader of Denmark, or if you leading the Danish security politics. You should be open — I wrote an article about that in a small Danish book some six or seven years ago, and said “Walk on two legs.” Remain friendly with the United States and NATO, and all that, but develop your other leg, so you can walk on two legs in the next 20, 30, 40 years. But there’s nobody that thinks so long term in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and there’s nobody who thinks independently anymore in research institutes or ministries. It’s basically adapting to everything we think, or are told by Washington we should do. And that’s not foreign policy to me. There’s nothing to do with it.

Jan Oberg: A good foreign policy is one where you have a good capacity to analyze the world, do scenarios, discuss which way to go, pros and contras, and different types of futures, and then make this decision in your parliament based on a public discussion. That was what we did early, 60s, 70s and 80s. And then also when you become a bomber nation, when you become a militaristic one, when active foreign policy means nothing but militarily active, then, of course, you are getting closer and closer and closer down into the into the darkness of the hole, where suddenly you fall so deeply you cannot see the daylight, where the hole is. I think it’s very sad. I find it tragic. I find it very dangerous. I find that Denmark will be a much less free country in the future by doing these kinds of things. And, don’t look at the basis of this agreement as an isolated thing. It comes with all the things we’ve done, all the wars Denmark has participated in. Sorry, I said we, I don’t feel Danish anymore, so I should say Denmark or the Danes. And finally, I have a problem with democratically elected leaders who seem to be more loyal to a foreign government, than with their own people’s needs.

China and Xinjiang

Michelle Rasmussen: The last question is that, you just mentioned the lack of independence of analysis, and there’s not only an enemy image being painted against Russia, but also against China, with allegations of central government genocide against the Muslim Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province as a major point of contention. And on March 8th, 2021, the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington published a report The Uyghur Genocide, an examination of China’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention in cooperation with the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights in Montreal, and the next month, April 27, last year, you and two others issued a report which criticized this report. What is the basis of your criticism and what do you think should be done to lessen tension with China?

And also as a wrap-up question in the end, if you wanted to say anything else about what has to be done to make a change from looking at Russia and China as the autocratic enemies of the West, and to, instead, shift to a world in which there is cooperation between the major powers, which would give us the possibility of concentrating on such great task as economic development of the poorer parts of the world?

Jan Oberg: Well, of course, that’s something we could speak another hour about, but what we did in our in our tiny think tank here, which, by the way, is totally independent and people-financed and all volunteer. That’s why we can say and do what we think should be said and done and not politically in anybody’s hands or pockets, is that those reports, including the Newlines Institute’s report, does not hold water, would not pass as a paper for a master’s degree in social science or political science. We say that if you look into not only that report, but several other reports and researchers who were contributing to this genocide discussion, if you look into their work, they are very often related to the military-industrial-media-academic complex. And they are paid for, have formerly had positions somewhere else in that system, or are known for having hawkish views on China, Russia and everybody else outside the western sphere.

So when we began to look into this, we also began to see a trend. And that’s why we published shortly after a 150 page report about the new Cold War on China, and Xinjiang is part of a much larger orchestrated — and I’m not a conspiracy theorist. It’s all documented, in contrast to media and other research reports. It’s documented. You can see where we get our knowledge from, and on which basis we draw conclusions.

Whereas now, significantly, for Western scholarship and media, they don’t deal with, are not interested in sources. I’ll come back to that. It’s part of a much larger, only tell negative stories about China. Don’t be interested in China’s new social model. Don’t be interested in how they, in 30 to 40 years did what nobody else in humankind has ever done. Uplifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and creating a society that I can see the difference from, because I visited China in 1983, and I know what it looked like back then when they had just opened up, so to speak.

And what we are saying is not that we know what happened and happens in Xinjiang, because we’ve not been there and we are not a human rights organization. We are conflict resolution and peace proposal making policy think tank. But what we do say is, if you cannot come up with better arguments and more decent documentation, then probably you are not honest. If there’s nothing more you can show us to prove that there’s a genocide going on at Xinjiang, you should perhaps do your homework before you make these assertions and accusations.

That’s what we are saying, and we are also saying that it is peculiar that the last thing Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, did in his office, I think on the 19th of January last year, was to say I hereby declare that Xinjiang is a genocide, and the State Department has still not published as much as one A4 page with the documentation.

So, I feel sad on a completely different level, and that is, Western scholarship is disappearing in this field. And those who may really have different views, analyses and question what we hear or uphold a plurality of viewpoints and interpretations of the world, we’re not listened to. I mean, I’m listening to elsewhere, but I’m not listened to in Western media, although I have forty five years of experience in these things and I’ve traveled quite a lot and worked in quite a lot of conflict and war zones. I can live with that, but I think it’s a pity for the Western world that we are now so far down the drain, that good scholarship is not what politics built on anymore. If it, I think it was at a point in time.

So what is also striking to me is, very quickly, the uniformity of the press. They have all written the day that the Newsline report that you referred to, was published, it was all over the place, including front pages of the leading Western newspapers, including the Danish Broadcasting’s website, etc., all saying the same thing, quoting the same bits of parts from it.

The uniformity of this is just mind boggling. How come that nobody said, “Hey, what is this Newlines Institute, by the way, that nobody had heard about before? Who are these people behind it? Who are the authors?” Anybody can sit on their chair and do quite a lot of research, which was impossible to do 20 years ago. If you are curious, if you are asked to be curious, if you are permitted to be curious, and do research in the media, in the editorial office where you are sitting, then you would find out lots of this here is B.S. Sorry to say so, intellectually, it’s B.S.

And so I made a little pastime, I wrote a very diplomatic letter to people at CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. Danish and Norwegian, and Swedish media, those who write this opinion journalism about Xinjiang, and a couple of other things, and I sent the all our report, which is online, so it’s just a link, and I said kindly read this one, and I look forward to hearing from you. I’ve done this in about 50 or 60 cases, individually dug up their email addresses, et cetera. There is not one who has responded with anything. The strategy when you lie, or when you deceive, or when you have a political man, is don’t go into any dialogue with somebody who knows more or it’s critical of what you do.

That’s very sad. Our TFF Pressinfo goes to 20 people in BBC. They know everything we write about Ukraine, about China, about Xinjiang, et cetera. Not one has ever called.

These are the kinds of things that make me scared as an intellectual. One thing is what happens out in the world. That’s bad enough. But when I begin to find out how this is going on, how it is manipulated internally in editorial offices, close to foreign ministries, etc. or defense ministries is then I say, we are approaching the Pravda moment. The Pravda moment is not the present Pravda [newspaper], but the Pravda that went down with the Soviet Union. When I visited Russia, the Soviet Union at a time for conferences, et cetera, and I found out that very few people believed anything they saw in the media. Now, to me, it’s a question of whether the Western media, so-called free media want to save themselves or they want to become totally irrelevant, because at some point, as someone once said, you cannot lie all the time to all of the people, you may get away with lying to some, to some people, for some of the time.

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

Jan Oberg: Yeah. So the long story short is this is not good. This deceives people. And of course, some people, at some point, people will be very upset about that. They have been lied to. And also don’t make this reference anymore to free and state media. Viewers may like to hear that may not like it, but should know it, the US has just passed a law — They have three laws against China — How to intervene in all kinds of Chinese things, such as, for instance, trying to influence who will become the successor to Dalai Lama, and things like that. They are not finished at all about how to influence Taiwan, and all that, things they have nothing to do with, and which they decided between Nixon and Zhou Enlai that America accepted the One-China policy and would not mix themselves into Taiwanese issues. But that is another broken promise. These media are state media in the U.S. If you take Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, they are those, particularly the latter, who have disseminated most of these Xinjiang genocide stories, which then bounce back to BBC, etc. These are state media. As an agency for that in in Washington, it’s financed by millions of dollars, of course, and it has the mandate to make American foreign policy more understood, and promote U.S. foreign policy goals and views. Anybody can go to a website and see this. Again, I’m back to this, everybody can do what I’ve done. And that law that has just been passed says the U.S. sets aside 15 hundred million dollars, that’s one point five billion dollars in the next five years, to support education, training courses, whatever, for media people to write negative stories about China, particularly the Belt and Road Initiative. Now I look forward to Politiken [Danish newspaper] or Dagens Nyheter [Swedish newspaper] or whatever newspapers in the allied countries who would say, “This comes from a state U.S. media” when it does.

And so, my my view is there is a reason for calling it the military-industrial-media-academic complex, because it’s one cluster of elites who are now running the deception, but also the wars that are built on deception. And that is very sad where, instead, we should cooperate. I would not even say we should morally cooperate. I would say we have no choice on this Earth but to cooperate, because if we have a new Cold War between China and the West, we cannot solve humanity’s problems, whether it’s the climate issue, environmental issues, it’s poverty, it’s justice, income differences or cleavages, or modern technological problems or whatever. You take all these things, they are, by definition, global. And if we have one former empire, soon former empire, that does nothing but disseminate negative energy, criticize, demonize, running cold wars, basically isolating itself and going down.

We lack America to do good things. I’ve never been anti-American, I want to say that very clearly. I’ve never, ever been anti-American. I’m anti empire and militarism. And we need the United States, with its creativity, with its possibilities, with what it already has given the world, to also contribute constructively to a better world, together with the Russians, together with Europe, together with Africa, together with everybody else, and China, and stop this idea that we can only work with those who are like us, because if that’s what you want to do, you will have fewer and fewer to work with.

The world is going towards diversity. And we have other cultures coming up who have other ways of doing things, and we may like it or not. But the beauty of conflict resolution and peace is to do it with those who are different from you. It is not to make peace with those who already love, or are already completely identical with. This whole thing is, unfortunately, a conflict and peace illiteracy that has now completely overtaken the western world. Whereas I see people thinking about peace. I hear people mentioning the word peace. I do not hear Western politicians or media anymore mention the word peace. And when that word is not, and the discussion and the discourse has disappeared about peace, we are very far out.

Combine that with lack of intellectualism and an analytical capacity, and you will end up in militarism and war. You cannot forget these things, and then avoid a war. So in my view, there are other reasons than Russia, if you will, that we’re in a dangerous situation, and that the danger has to do with the West operating, itself, at the moment. Nobody in the world is threatening the United States or the West. If it goes down, it’s all of its own making. And I think that’s an important thing to say in these days when we always blame somebody else for our problems. That is not the truth.

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.




Ny forsvarsalliance med USA: Mette Frederiksens ultimative magtarrogance.
Udtalelse af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Institut i Danmark den 11. Februar 2022

Når Mette Frederiksen i sin rolle som statsminister inden for få dage har afholdt hele to pressekonferencer, hvor hun flankeret af udenrigsministeren og forsvarsministeren har talt i forherligende toner om kampen for frihed og suverænitet, så er det nok et tegn på, at det er netop de erklærede principper, som hun i en studehandel er blevet pålagt at ofre for fortsat opbakning til hendes fremadrettede personlige karriere. Da Anders Fogh Rasmussen brugte sin platform som dansk statsminister til at støtte Storbritanniens og USA’s ulovlige krig imod Irak, der blev legitimeret med løgnen om at Irak havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, endte det som bekendt med, at han blev belønnet med posten som generalsekretær for Nato og en international rolle som arrangør af konferencer til støtte for den britisk-amerikanske kampagne for at nedbryde suveræniteten hos de lande, der formaster sig til ikke blindt at følge de diktater, der kommer fra London og Washington.

Hvad har Mette Fredriksen gang i? At give USA ret til at udstationere militærpersonel og udstyr på dansk jord under amerikansk suverænitet afskaffer Danmarks nationale suverænitet og vil i stedet afsløre Danmark som en ren amerikansk vasalstat. Selv i de mørkeste stunder under den kolde krig, da Danmark var truet af sovjetiske planer om en besættelse af Danmark, var det noget, som danskere med respekt for både nationen og sig selv ikke ville tillade. Det ville have reduceret Danmark fra en nation til blot at være kanonføde i supermagternes stedfortræderkrig (Afghanistan er et skoleeksempel på, hvordan den slags typisk ender).

Forslaget til en ny forsvarsalliance mellem Danmark og USA har som sin grundantagelse, at vi skal forberede os på krig med Rusland, noget som bliver underbygget af mediernes svulstige krigspropaganda. Men siden den kolde krigs afslutning har Rusland på intet tidspunkt truet Danmark eller andre dele af Nato, men har tværtimod passivt set til, mens stadig flere dele af det tidligere Sovjetunionen og dets interessesfære blev indlemmet i Nato. Da turen så kom til Ukraine, sagde Rusland fra, og kræver nu aftaler, der kan garantere Ruslands fremtidige sikkerhed. Det burde være en kærkommen anledning til at diskutere en inkluderende sikkerhedsarkitektur for Europa, som det faktisk blev lovet Rusland, da de satte Østtyskland og de andre tidligere Warszawapagt-lande fri i lighed med de andre sovjetrepublikker. En sikkerhedsarkitektur, hvor både øst og vest kan føle sig hjemme. I stedet ser vi en mobilisering for sanktioner og krig, hvor Danmark nu skal spille en udvidet rolle, på bekostning af danske interesser.

Hvordan kan det forsvares, at Mette Frederiksen overhovedet overvejer at sige ja til et for Danmark så ufordelagtigt og potentielt ødelæggende forslag i dag? Blot fordi en ven kræver at få lov til at dele seng med din ægtefælle eller dit barn, så behøver man jo ikke takke ja. Det er tydeligt, at Mette Frederiksen har lavet en aftale med djævelen, som i dette tilfælde er den britisk-amerikanske finansielle magtelite, der kontrollerer den vestlige efterretnings- og sikkerhedspolitik. I betragtning af den berettigede foragt, som Mette Frederiksen med flere udviste for Helle Thorning-Schmidt og andre, der helt åbenlyst var villige til at ofre sine vælgeres og nationens interesser for at være en del af magten, så vil nemesis ramme dobbelt hårdt, hvis Mette Frederiksen fortsætter med dette skoleeksempel på hybris.

Om Mette Frederiksen har fået et tilbud hun ikke kunne afslå, eller hvad hun forventer at få som tak for denne ofring af danske interesser og suverænitet, ved jeg ikke. Givet er det, at det på ingen måde er i dansk interesse at indgå en sådan aftale. Det vil ikke forbedre den danske sikkerhed men kraftigt forværre den. Danmark vil flytte sig selv ind i kategorien af strategiske mål for atommagten Rusland. Danmark udstiller sig samtidigt som et land, der ikke længere frit kan handle og interagere med det voksende antal lande, der i lighed med den nylige Beijing-erklæring fra Rusland og Kina ikke længere vil acceptere en særlig vestlig ret til at bestemme de internationale spilleregler, men som mener, at vi skal have en multipolær inkluderende verdensorden, hvor alle nationer bliver respekteret og kan samarbejde uden først at skulle spørge om lov i London eller Washington.

At Mette Frederiksen foreslår dette samtidigt med at chefen for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Lars Findsen, er varetægtsfængslet under anklage for højforræderi og uden mulighed for at kommunikere med offentligheden, bør få mere end et enkelt øjenbryn til at løfte sig og få flere end blot mig til at spørge, hvad pokker der egentlig foregår? Vi må råbe vagt i gevær og få Folketingets medlemmer til at gøre op med den slappe følgagtighed, de plejer at udvise over for magtens arrogance, specielt blandt ”de gamle” partier, og sammen med modige patrioter i de danske institutioner få stoppet denne ødelæggelse af dansk suverænitet og danske interesser inden det er for sent.




NYHEDSORIENTERING den 4. februar 2022:
Mette Frederiksens problem: Arrogance + Ignorance = Katastrofe.
Video, lyd og resumé..

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Resumé:
Før åbningsceremonien ved OL i Beijing er der topmøde mellem Putin og Xi Jinping hvor Rusland og Kina vil bekræfte det tætte venskab og nok fremlægge nye økonomiske samarbejdsaftaler. Man forbereder at gøre sig uafhængige af amerikanske dollars og SWIFT-systemet. Vestens diplomatiske boykot understreger at man ikke kan regne med Vesten.

Mette Frederiksens pressemøde på Marienborg, hvor hun annoncerede at Danmark nu er i frontlinjen imod Rusland og ikke ville have en ligeværdig dialog er en farlig kurs. Arrogance + Ignorance = Katastrofe. Man er ikke dumme men dumlærde. Man fravælger med fuldt overlæg fakta, hvis de ikke passer ind i fortællingen man forsøger at sælge. Man overser de dramatiske konsekvenser af de beslutninger man træffer som i FE-sagen, Minksagen og nu korstoget imod Rusland.

Rusland havde ikke kun fået mundtlige løfter om at NATO ikke ville blive udvidet mod Øst. OSCE-aftalen fra Istanbul i 1999 garanterede ikke kun frihed for stater til at indgå alliancer for egen sikkerhed, men også at dette ikke måtte ske på bekostning af andre landes. Der har man ikke respekteret ved udvidelsen af NATO og diskussionen om at integrere Ukraine i Nato. Vi må forhandle og samarbejde med Rusland og Kina så alle kan leve trygt og sikkert.

Hvordan kan Vesten beskylde Kina for at lave (et ikke eksisterende) folkemord i Xinjiang, når man selv gennemfører et reelt folkemord i Afghanistan gennem at fastholde sanktioner og tilbageholde Afghanistans penge i vestlige banker? 20 mio. børn sulter og mange vil dø her i vinter, hvis ikke Vesten skifter kurs.

Se interview med Liu Xing fra Aalborg Universitet på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside.

Nedsmeltningen af det transatlantiske finansielle system er i gang. Siden 2008 er det blevet opbygget gigantiske finansboler under 13 år med negative renter og kvantitative lempelser. Inflationen i USA er nu 7 % og den er over 5 % i EU. Det er kun begyndelsen. Den kæmpe gæld der er opbygget skal der nu betales renter på og det er der ikke råd til. Der skal betales mere og værdierne er langt mindre værd. Det kan kun gå galt.

Eneste løsning er LaRouches fire økonomiske love. Lær af Kina. Rusland skal ikke vælge mellem Europa og Asien men være bindeled mellem Europa og Kina.

Hvedebrødsdagene er måske ovre for den danske regering. Kan ikke længere gemme sig bag COVID-19. Se på verden med friske øjne inden det er for sent. Gå med i Schiller Instituttet.

Diskussion: Den danske håndtering af COVID-19 var meget bedre end mange andre steder, men det var ikke pga. af regeringen, men fordi der var en høj grad af tillid og samfundssind blandt befolkningen. Husk at mange lande i Europa ikke som Danmark er hoppet med på briternes korstog imod Rusland.




NYHEDSORIENTERING DECEMBER 2021-JANUAR 2022:
2022 er Lyndon LaRouches år//
Kan vi undgå krig med Rusland?

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Pressemeddelelse den 6. januar 2021:
Hvorfor USA og NATO bør underskrive traktaterne foreslåede af Putin. 
Interview med rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen til Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Læs afskriftet på engelsk nedenunder.

KØBENHAVN — I lyset af den eskalerende spænding mellem USA/NATO og Rusland, som kan føre til en varm krig, ja endog atomkrig, foretog Schiller Instituttet i Danmark et timelangt engelsksproget video/lydinterview med Rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen den 30. december 2021.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er cand. mag. i idéhistorie og historie, og var i slutningen af​​ 1990’erne Politikens Moskva-korrespondent. Han er forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturelle forskelle på Niels Brock handelshøjskole. Jens Jørgen Nielsen underviser på Folkeuniversitetet og andre steder, ligesom han arbejder med danske eksportvirksomheder, der vil ind på det russiske, ukrainske og hviderussiske marked. Han har i mange år arrangeret rejser til Rusland.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen, med mange års erfaring i at analysere Rusland, Ukraine og vestlige holdninger og handlinger i forhold til Rusland, taler tydeligt om konsekvenserne, hvis ikke Vesten er villig til seriøst at forhandle en diplomatisk løsning på de “røde linjer”, som Putin og andre førende russiske talsmænd har udtalt er ved at blive krydset: Hvis Ukraine tilslutter sig NATO, og hvis NATO’s ekspansion mod øst fortsætter, og hvorfor USA og NATO burde underskrive Putins foreslåede traktater om disse spørgsmål.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen tager fat på de ændringer, der er nødvendige på den vestlige side, som vil afgøre, om de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland om disse “røde linjer” den 10.-13. januar vil lykkes med at trække verden tilbage fra randen af krig.

Interviewet er endnu vigtigere efter bekendtgørelsen den 3. januar 2022 for første gang af en fælles erklæring fra stats- og regeringscheferne for de fem atomvåbenstater, som også er de permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om, at “atomkrig ikke kan vindes og aldrig må udkæmpes”, og dermed anerkendelsen af hvad der er på spil under den nuværende krise.

—————————————-

 Nogle højdepunkter:

Et højdepunkt er Jens Jørgen Nielsens personlige diskussion i 1989 med Mikail Gorbatjov om NATO-udvidelse mod øst:

“Faktisk havde jeg en lang snak med Mikhail Gorbatjov, den tidligere leder af Sovjetunionen, i 1989, lige da NATO begyndte at bombe Serbien, og da de indlemmede Polen, Tjekkiet og Ungarn i NATO. Man bør huske på at Gorbatjov er en meget rar person. Han er en meget livlig person, med godt humør og en erfaren person. Men da vi begyndte at snakke, spurgte jeg ham om NATO-udvidelsen, som foregik præcis den dag, hvor vi snakkede. Han blev meget dyster, meget trist, fordi han sagde: Altså, jeg talte med James Baker, Helmut Kohl fra Tyskland og flere andre personer, og de lovede mig alle ikke at flytte en tomme mod øst, hvis Sovjetunionen ville lade Tyskland forene DDR (Østtyskland) og Vesttyskland, for at blive ét land, og komme til at blive medlem af NATO, men ikke bevæge sig en tomme mod øst.’… Det stod ikke skrevet, for, som han sagde, “Jeg troede på dem. Jeg kan se, at jeg var naiv.” 

Et andet vigtigt afsnit er, hvad Jens Jørgen Nielsen ville sige til Biden, og andre NATO-statschefer, i en privat diskussion før de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA/NATO og Rusland. “Jeg ville sige, ’Se, Joe, jeg forstår dine bekymringer. Jeg forstår, at du ser dig selv som en forkæmper for frihed i verden, … men ser du, det spil, du nu spiller med Rusland, er et meget, meget farligt spil. Og russerne, som et meget stolt folk, man kan ikke tvinge dem’, angående USA’s og nogle europæiske landes politik, til at skifte Putin ud med en anden præsident. “Jeg kan forsikre dig, Joe Biden, vær sikker på, at hvis det lykkes, eller hvis Putin dør i morgen, eller de på en eller anden måde får en ny præsident, kan jeg forsikre dig om, at den nye præsident vil være lige så hård som Putin, måske endda hårdere… Jeg tror,​​det ville være klogt for dig, lige nu, at støtte Putin, eller at handle med Putin, engagere sig med Putin og lave noget diplomati, fordi alternativet er en mulighed for krig, og du burde ikke gå over i historien som den amerikanske præsident, der sikrede menneskehedens udryddelse. Det ville være et dårligt, meget dårligt eftermæle for dig.’ 

Han forholder sig til den reelle mulighed for, at vi søvngængeragtigt går ind i atomkrig, som før 1. Verdenskrig, som svar på Schiller Instituttets memorandum Er vi søvngængeragtigt på vej til atomar 3. verdenskrig? den 24. december 2021.

“[Man] kan forestille sig, hvad der vil ske, hvis Kina, Iran og Rusland havde en militær alliance, der gik ind i Mexico, Canada, Cuba, måske også opstillede missiler dér… [T]anken om en atomkrig er forfærdelig for os alle, og det er derfor jeg synes, at politikere må komme til fornuft… for milliarder vil dø i dette. Og det er et spørgsmål, om menneskeheden vil overleve. Så det er et meget, meget alvorligt spørgsmål. Og jeg tror vi bør spørge om Ukraines ret til at have NATO-medlemskab, som dets egen befolkning egentlig ikke ønsker, er det virkelig værd at risikere en atomkrig for? Sådan vil jeg sige det.”

——————————

Interviewet har andre afgørende afsnit: 

Baggrund om NATO’s udvidelse mod øst.

Fuld støtte til seriøse forhandlinger med Rusland og underskrivelse af de to foreslåede traktater, som opfordret af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Forkerte forestillinger i vesten om Rusland og Putin, og manglen på vilje til at håndtere andre kulturer som ligeværdige, medmindre de er ligesom os.

Hvordan pro-vestlige holdninger i Rusland, herunder af Jeltsin og Putin, blev afvist, og Rusland derefter vendte sig mod Kina.

Hvordan Ukraine-krisen ikke startede med “annekteringen” af Krim, men med det han kalder “et kup” mod den ukrainske præsident Janukovitj, som ønskede økonomiske forbindelser både med EU og Rusland; plus baggrunden for Krim-spørgsmålet.

Vigtigheden af​​ en dialog mellem kulturer, herunder “Musikalsk dialog mellem Kulturer”-koncerterne i København, arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog og Det kinesiske Kulturcenter i København. 

Jens Jørgen Nielsens opbakning til mange af Schiller Instituttets idéer og indsatser.

Mere information, eller for at aftale et nyt interview, kontakt:

Michelle Rasmussen fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark: 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk, www.schillerinstitute.comwww.schillerinstitut.dk

Afskrift på engelsk: (Kortet på side 15 viser NATO, hvis Ukraine og Georgien bliver medlemmer.)

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Interview med Rusland ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen:
Hvorfor USA og NATO bør underskrive traktaterne foreslået af Putin.
Interview with Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen:
Why the U.S. and NATO should sign the treaties proposed by Putin?

Udgivet på Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) tidsskrift bind 49, række 2 den 14. januar 2022. Her er en pdf-version:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Kortet på side 15 viser NATO udvidelse, hvis Ukraine og Georgien bliver medlemmer.

The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen, by Michelle Rasmussen, Vice President of the Schiller Institute in Demark, conducted December 30, 2021. Mr. Nielsen has degrees in the history of ideas and communication. He is a former Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s. He is the author of several books about Russia and the Ukraine, and a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization. In addition, he is an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark.

Michelle Rasmussen: Hello, viewers. I am Michelle Rasmussen, the Vice President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. This is an interview with Jens Jørgen Nielsen from Denmark.

The Schiller Institute released a [[memorandum]][[/]] December 24 titled “Are We Sleepwalking into Thermonuclear World War III.” In the beginning, it states, “Ukraine is being used by geopolitical forces in the West that answer to the bankrupt speculative financial system, as the flashpoint to trigger a strategic showdown with Russia, a showdown which is already more dangerous than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and which could easily end up in a thermonuclear war which no one would win, and none would survive.”

Jens Jørgen, in the past days, Russian President Putin and other high-level spokesmen have stated that Russia’s red lines are about to be crossed, and they have called for treaty negotiations to come back from the brink. What are these red lines and how dangerous is the current situation?

%%Russian ‘Red Lines’

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Thank you for inviting me. First, I would like to say that I think that the question you have raised here about red lines, and the question also about are we sleepwalking into a new war, is very relevant. Because, as an historian, I know what happened in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War—a kind of sleepwalking. No one really wanted the war, actually, but it ended up with war, and tens of million people were killed, and then the whole world disappeared at this time, and the world has never been the same. So, I think it’s a very, very relevant question that you are asking here.

You asked me specifically about Putin, and the red lines. I heard that the Clintons, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, and many other American politicians, claim that we don’t have things like red lines anymore. We don’t have zones of influence anymore, because we have a new world. We have a new liberal world, and we do not have these kinds of things. It belongs to another century and another age. But you could ask the question, “What actually are the Americans doing in Ukraine, if not defending their own red lines?”

Because I think it’s like, if you have a power, a superpower, a big power like Russia, I think it’s very, very natural that any superpower would have some kind of red lines. You can imagine what would happen if China, Iran, and Russia had a military alliance, going into Mexico, Canada, Cuba, maybe also putting missiles up there. I don’t think anyone would doubt what would happen. The United States would never accept it, of course. So, the Russians would normally ask, “Why should we accept that Americans are dealing with Ukraine and preparing, maybe, to put up some military hardware in Ukraine? Why should we? And I think it’s a very relevant question. Basically, the Russians see it today as a question of power, because the Russians, actually, have tried for, I would say, 30 years. They have tried.

I was in Russia 30 years ago. I speak Russian. I’m quite sure that the Russians, at that time, dreamt of being a part of the Western community, and they had very, very high thoughts about the Western countries, and Americans were extremely popular at this time. Eighty percent of the Russian population in 1990 had a very positive view of the United States. Later on, today, and even for several years already, 80%, the same percentage, have a negative view of Americans. So, something happened, not very positively, because 30 years ago, there were some prospects of a new world.

There really were some ideas, but something actually was screwed up in the 90s. I have some idea about that. Maybe we can go in detail about it. But things were screwed up, and normally, today, many people in the West, in universities, politicians, etc. think that it’s all the fault of Putin. It’s Putin’s fault. Whatever happened is Putin’s fault. Now, we are in a situation which is very close to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which you also mentioned. But I don’t think it is that way. I think it takes two to tango. We know that, of course, but I think many Western politicians have failed to see the compliance of the western part in this, because there are many things which play a role that we envisage in a situation like that now.

The basic thing, if you look at it from a Russian point of view, it’s the extension to the east of NATO. I think that’s a real bad thing, because Russia was against it from the very beginning. Even Boris Yeltsin, who was considered to be the man of the West, the democratic Russia, he was very, very opposed to this NATO alliance going to the East, up to the borders of Russia.

And we can see it now, because recently, some new material has been released in America, an exchange of letters between Yeltsin and Clinton at this time. So, we know exactly that Yeltsin, and Andrei Kozyrev, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs at this time, were very much opposed to it. And then Putin came along. Putin came along not to impose his will on the Russian people. He came along because there was, in Russia, a will to oppose this NATO extension to the East. So, I think things began at this point.

And later on, we had the Georgian crisis in 2008, and we had, of course, the Ukraine crisis in 2014, and, also, with Crimea and Donbass, etc.

And now we are very, very close to—I don’t think it’s very likely we will have a war, but we are very close to it, because wars often begin by some kind of mistake, some accident, someone accidentally pulls the trigger, or presses a button somewhere, and suddenly, something happens. Exactly what happened in 1914, at the beginning of World War I. Actually, there was one who was shot in Sarajevo. Everyone knows about that, and things like that could happen. And for us, living in Europe, it’s awful to think about having a war.

We can hate Putin. We can think whatever we like. But the thought of a nuclear war is horrible for all of us, and that’s why I think that politicians could come to their senses.

And I think also this demonization of Russia, and demonization of Putin, is very bad, of course, for the Russians. But it’s very bad for us here in the West, for us, in Europe, and also in America. I don’t think it’s very good for our democracy. I don’t think it’s very good. I don’t see very many healthy perspectives in this. I don’t see any at all.

I see some other prospects, because we could cooperate in another way. There are possibilities, of course, which are not being used, or put into practice, which certainly could be.

So, yes, your question is very, very relevant and we can talk at length about it. I’m very happy that you ask this question, because if you ask these questions today in the Danish and Western media at all—everyone thinks it’s enough just to say that Putin is a scoundrel, Putin is a crook, and everything is good. No, we have to get along. We have to find some ways to cooperate, because otherwise it will be the demise of all of us.

%%NATO Expansion Eastward

Michelle Rasmussen: Can you just go through a little bit more of the history of the NATO expansion towards the East? And what we’re speaking about in terms of the treaties that Russia has proposed, first, to prevent Ukraine from becoming a formal member of NATO, and second, to prevent the general expansion of NATO, both in terms of soldiers and military equipment towards the East. Can you speak about this, also in terms of the broken promises from the Western side?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Actually, the story goes back to the beginning of the nineties. I had a long talk with Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, in 1989, just when NATO started to bomb Serbia, and when they adopted Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO. You should bear in mind that Gorbachev is a very nice person. He’s a very lively person, with good humor, and an experienced person.

But when we started to talk, I asked him about the NATO expansion, which was going on exactly the day when we were talking. He became very gloomy, very sad, because he said,

[[[begin quote indent]]]

Well, I talked to James Baker, Helmut Kohl from Germany, and several other persons, and they all promised me not to move an inch to the East, if Soviet Union would let Germany unite the GDR (East Germany) and West Germany, to become one country, and come to be a member of NATO, but not move an inch to the East.

[[[end quote indent]]]

I think, also, some of the new material which has been released—I have read some of it, some on WikiLeaks, and some can be found. It’s declassified. It’s very interesting. There’s no doubt at all. There were some oral, spoken promises to Mikhail Gorbachev. It was not written, because, as he said, “I believed them. I can see I was naive.”

I think this is a key to Putin today, to understand why Putin wants not only sweet words. He wants something based on a treaty, because, basically, he doesn’t really believe the West. The level of trust between Russia and NATO countries is very, very low today. And it’s a problem, of course, and I don’t think we can overcome it in a few years. It takes time to build trust, but the trust is not there for the time being.

But then, the nature of the NATO expansion has gone step, by step, by step. First, it was the three countries—Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic—and then, in 2004, six years later, came, among other things—the Baltic republics, and Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. And the others came later on—Albania, Croatia, etc. And then in 2008, there was a NATO Summit in Bucharest, where George Bush, President of the United States, promised Georgia and Ukraine membership of NATO. Putin was present. He was not President at this time. He was Prime Minister in Russia, because the President was [Dmitry] Medvedev, but he was very angry at this time. But what could he do? But he said, at this point, very, very clearly, “We will not accept it, because our red lines would be crossed here. We have accepted the Baltic states. We have retreated. We’ve gone back. We’ve been going back for several years,” but still, it was not off the table.

It was all because Germany and France did not accept it, because [Chancellor Angela] Merkel and [President François] Hollande, at this time, did not accept Ukraine and Georgia becoming a member of NATO. But the United States pressed for it, and it is still on the agenda of the United States, that Georgia and Ukraine should be a member of NATO.

So, there was a small war in August, the same year, a few months after this NATO Summit, where, actually, it was Georgia which attacked South Ossetia, which used to be a self-governing part of Georgia. The incumbent Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili did not want to accept the autonomous status of South Ossetia, so Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Russian soldiers were deployed in South Ossetia, and 14 of them were killed by the Georgian army. And you could say that George W. Bush promised Georgian President Saakashvili that the Americans would support the Georgians, in case Russia should retaliate, which they did.

The Russian army was, of course, much bigger than the Georgian army, and it smashed the Georgian army in five days, and retreated. There was no help from the United States to the Georgians. And, I think, that from a moral point of view, I don’t think it’s a very wise policy, because you can’t say “You just go on. We will help you”—and not help at all when it gets serious. I think, from a moral point of view, it’s not very fair.

%%A Coup in Ukraine

But, actually, it’s the same which seems to be happening now in Ukraine, even though there was, what I would call a coup, an orchestrated state coup, in 2014. I know there are very, very different opinions about this, but my opinion is that there was a kind of coup to oust the sitting incumbent President, Viktor Yanukovych, and replace him with one who was very, very keen on getting into NATO. Yanukovych was not very keen on going into NATO, but he still had the majority of the population. And it’s interesting. In Ukraine, there’s been a lot of opinion polls conducted by Germans, Americans, French, Europeans, Russians and Ukrainians. And all these opinion polls show that a majority of Ukrainian people did not want to join NATO.

After that, of course, things moved very quickly, because Crimea was a very, very sensitive question for Russia, for many reasons. First, it was a contested area because it was, from the very beginning, from 1991, when Ukraine was independent—there was no unanimity about Crimea and it´s status, because the majority of Crimea was Russian-speaking, and is very culturally close to Russia, in terms of history. It’s very close to Russia. It’s one of the most patriotic parts of Russia, actually. So, it’s a very odd part of Ukraine. It always was a very odd part of Ukraine.

The first thing the new government did in February 2014, was to forbid the Russian language, as a language which had been used in local administration, and things like that. It was one of the stupidest things you could do in such a very tense situation. Ukraine, basically, is a very cleft society. The eastern southern part is very close to Russia. They speak Russian and are very close to Russian culture. The western part, the westernmost part around Lviv, is very close to Poland and Austria, and places like that. So, it’s a cleft society, and in such a society you have some options. One option is to embrace all the parts of society, different parts of society. Or you can, also, one part could impose its will on the other part, against its will. And that was actually what happened.

So, there are several crises. There is the crisis in Ukraine, with two approximately equally sized parts of Ukraine. But you also have, on the other hand, the Russian-NATO question. So, you had two crises, and they stumbled together, and they were pressed together in 2014. So, you had a very explosive situation which has not been solved to this day.

And for Ukraine, I say that as long as you have this conflict between Russia and NATO, it’s impossible to solve, because it’s one of the most corrupt societies, one of the poorest societies in Europe right now. A lot of people come to Denmark, where we are now, to Germany and also to Russia. Millions of Ukrainians have gone abroad to work, because there are really many, many social problems, economic problems, things like that.

And that’s why Putin—if we remember what Gorbachev told me about having things on paper, on treaties, which are signed—and that’s why Putin said, what he actually said to the West, “I don’t really believe you, because when you can, you cheat.” He didn’t put it that way, but that was actually what he meant: “So now I tell you very, very, very, very clearly what our points of view are. We have red lines, like you have red lines. Don’t try to cross them.”

And I think many people in the West do not like it. I think it’s very clear, because I think the red lines, if you compare them historically, are very reasonable. If you compare them with the United States and the Monroe Doctrine, which is still in effect in the USA, they are very, very reasonable red lines. I would say that many of the Ukrainians, are very close to Russia. I have many Ukrainian friends. I sometimes forget that they are Ukrainians, because their language, their first language, is actually Russian, and Ukrainian is close to Russian.

So, those countries being part of an anti-Russian military pact, it’s simply madness. It cannot work. It will not work. Such a country would never be a normal country for many, many years, forever.

I think much of the blame could be put on the NATO expansion and those politicians who have been pressing for that for several years. First and foremost, Bill Clinton was the first one, Madeline Albright, from 1993. At this time, they adopted the policy of major extension to the East. And George W. Bush also pressed for Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO.

And for every step, there was, in Russia, people rallying around the flag. You could put it that way, because you have pressure. And the more we pressure with NATO, the more the Russians will rally around the flag, and the more authoritarian Russia will be. So, we are in this situation. Things are now happening in Russia, which I can admit I do not like, closing some offices, closing some media. I do not like it at all. But in a time of confrontation, I think it’s quite reasonable, understandable, even though I would not defend it. But it’s understandable. Because the United States, after 9/11, also adopted a lot of defensive measures, and a kind of censorship, and things like that. It’s what happens when you have such tense situations.

We should just also bear in mind that Russia and the United States are the two countries which possess 90% of the world’s nuclear armament. Alone, the mere thought of them using some of this, is a doomsday perspective, because it will not be a small, tiny war, like World War II, but it will dwarf World War II, because billions will die in this. And it’s a question, if humanity will survive. So, it’s a very, very grave question.

I think we should ask if the right of Ukraine to have NATO membership—which its own population does not really want— “Is it really worth the risk of a nuclear war?” That’s how I would put it.

I will not take all blame away from Russia. That’s not my point here. My point is that this question is too important. It’s very relevant. It’s very important that we establish a kind of modus vivendi. It’s a problem for the West. I also think it’s very important that we learn, in the West, how to cope with people who are not like us. We tend to think that people should become democrats like we are democrats, and only then will we deal with them. If they are not democrats, like we are democrats, we will do everything we can to make them democrats. We will support people who want to make a revolution in their country, so they become like us. It’s a very, very dangerous, dangerous way of thinking, and a destructive way of thinking.

I think that we in the West should study, maybe, a little more what is happening in other organizations not dominated by the West. I’m thinking about the BRICS, as one organization. I’m also thinking about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in which Asian countries are cooperating, and they are not changing each other. The Chinese are not demanding that we should all be Confucians. And the Russians are not demanding that all people in the world should be Orthodox Christians, etc. I think it’s very, very important that we bear in mind that we should cope with each other like we are, and not demand changes. I think it’s a really dangerous and stupid game to play. I think the European Union is also very active in this game, which I think is very, very—Well, this way of thinking, in my point of view, has no perspective, no positive perspective at all.

%%Diplomacy to Avert Catastrophe

Michelle Rasmussen: Today, Presidents Biden and Putin will speak on the phone, and important diplomatic meetings are scheduled for the middle of January. What is going to determine if diplomacy can avoid a disaster, as during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just called this a “reverse missile crisis.” Or, if Russia will feel that they have no alternative to having a military response, as they have openly stated. What changes on the Western side are necessary? If you had President Biden alone in a room, or other heads of state of NATO countries, what would you say to them?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: I would say, “Look, Joe, I understand your concerns. I understand that you see yourself as a champion of freedom in the world, and things like that. I understand the positive things about it. But, you see, the game you now are playing with Russia is a very, very dangerous game. And the Russians, are a very proud people; you cannot force them. It’s not an option. I mean, you cannot, because it has been American, and to some degree, also European Union policy, to change Russia, to very much like to change, so that they’ll have another president, and exchange Putin for another president.”

But I can assure you, if I were to speak to Joe Biden, I’d say, “Be sure that if you succeed, or if Putin dies tomorrow, or somehow they’ll have a new President, I can assure you that the new President will be just as tough as Putin, maybe even tougher. Because in Russia, you have much tougher people. I would say even most people in Russia who blame Putin, blame him because he’s not tough enough on the West, because he was soft on the West, too liberal toward the West, and many people have blamed him for not taking the eastern southern part of Ukraine yet—that he should have done it.

“So, I would say to Biden, “I think it would be wise for you, right now, to support Putin, or to deal with Putin, engage with Putin, and do some diplomacy, because the alternative is a possibility of war, and you should not go down into history as the American president who secured the extinction of humanity. It would be a bad, very bad record for you. And there are possibilities, because I don’t think Putin is unreasonable. Russia has not been unreasonable. I think they have turned back. Because in 1991, it was the Russians themselves, who disbanded the Soviet Union. It was the Russians, Moscow, which disbanded the Warsaw Pact. The Russians, who gave liberty to the Baltic countries, and all other Soviet Republics. And with hardly any shots, and returned half a million Soviet soldiers back to Russia. No shot was fired at all. I think it’s extraordinary.

“If you compare what happened to the dismemberment of the French and the British colonial empires after World War II, the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact was very, very civilized, in many ways. So, stop thinking about Russia as uncivilized, stupid people, who don’t understand anything but mere power. Russians are an educated people. They understand a lot of arguments, and they are interested in cooperating. There will be a lot of advantages for the United States, for the West, and also the European Union, to establish a kind of more productive, more pragmatic relationship, cooperation. There are a lot of things in terms of energy, climate, of course, and terrorism, and many other things, where it’s a win-win situation to cooperate with them.

“The only thing Russia is asking for is not to put your military hardware in their backyard. I don’t think it should be hard for us to accept, certainly not to understand why the Russians think this way.”

And we in the West should think back to the history, where armies from the West have attacked Russia. So, they have it in their genes. I don’t think that there is any person in Russia who has forgot, or is not aware of, the huge losses the Soviet Union suffered from Nazi Germany in the 1940s during World War II. And you had Napoleon also trying to—You have a lot of that experience with armies from the West going into Russia. So, it’s very, very large, very, very deep.

Michelle Rasmussen: Was it around 20 million people who died during World War II?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: In the Soviet Union. There were also Ukrainians, and other nationalities, but it was around 18 million Russians, if you can count it, because it was the Soviet Union, but twenty-seven million people in all. It’s a huge part, because Russia has experience with war. So, the Russians would certainly not like war. I think the Russians have experience with war, that also the Europeans, to some extent, have, that the United States does not have.

Because the attack I remember in recent times is the 9/11 attack, the twin towers in New York. Otherwise, the United States does not have these experiences. It tends to think more in ideological terms, where the Russians, certainly, but also to some extent, some people in Europe, think more pragmatically, more that we should, at any cost, avoid war, because war creates more problems than it solves. So, have some pragmatic cooperation. It will not be very much a love affair. Of course not. But it will be on a very pragmatic—

%%The Basis for Cooperation

Michelle Rasmussen: Also, in terms of dealing with this horrible humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and cooperating on the pandemic.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Of course, there are possibilities. Right now, it’s like we can’t even cooperate in terms of vaccines, and there are so many things going on, from both sides, actually, because we have very, very little contact between—

I had some plans to have some cooperation between Danish and Russian universities in terms of business development, things like that, but it turned out there was not one crown, as our currency is called. You could have projects in southern America, Africa, all other countries. But not Russia, which is stupid.

Michelle Rasmussen: You wrote two recent books about Russia. One is called, On His Own Terms: Putin and the New Russia, and the latest one, just from September, Russia Against the Grain. Many people in the West portray Russia as the enemy, which is solely responsible for the current situation, and Putin as a dictator who is threatening his neighbors militarily and threatening the democracy of the free world. Over and above what you have already said, is this true, or do you have a different viewpoint?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Of course, I have a different point of view. Russia for me, is not a perfect country, because such a country does not exist, not even Denmark! Some suppose it is. But there’s no such thing as a perfect society. Because societies are always developing from somewhere, to somewhere, and Russia, likewise. Russia is a very, very big country. So, you can definitely find things which are not very likable in Russia. Definitely. That’s not my point here.

But I think that in the West, actually for centuries, we have—if you look back, I have tried in my latest book, to find out how Western philosophers, how church people, how they look at Russia, from centuries back. And there has been kind of a red thread. There’s been a kind of continuation. Because Russia has very, very, very often been characterized as our adversary, as a country against basic European values. Five hundred years back, it was against the Roman Catholic Church, and in the 17th and 18th Centuries it was against the Enlightenment philosophers, and in the 20th century, it was about communism—it’s also split people in the West, and it was also considered to be a threat. But it is also considered to be a threat today, even though Putin is not a communist. He is not a communist. He is a conservative, a moderate conservative, I would say.

Even during the time of Yeltsin, he was also considered liberal and progressive, and he loved the West and followed the West in all, almost all things they proposed.

But still, there’s something with Russia—which I think from a philosophical point of view is very important to find out—that we have some very deep-rooted prejudices about Russia, and I think they play a role. When I speak to people who say, “Russia is an awful country, and Putin is simply a very, very evil person, is a dictator,” I say, “Have you been in Russia? Do you know any Russians?” “No, not really.” “Ok. But what do you base your points of view on?” “Well, what I read in the newspapers, of course, what they tell me on the television.”

Well, I think that’s not good enough. I understand why the Russians—I very often talk to Russian politicians, and other people, and what they are sick and tired of, is this notion that the West is better: “We are on a higher level. And if Russians should be accepted by the West, they should become like us. Or at least they should admit that they are on a lower level, in relation to our very high level.”

And that is why, when they deal with China, or deal with India, and when they deal with African countries, and even Latin American countries, they don’t meet such attitudes, because they are on more equal terms. They’re different, yes, but one does not consider each other to be on a higher level.

And that’s why I think that cooperation in BRICS, which we talked about, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, I think it’s quite successful. I don’t know about the future, but I have a feeling that if you were talking about Afghanistan, I think if Afghanistan could be integrated into this kind of organization, one way or another, I have a feeling it probably would be more successful than the 20 years that the NATO countries have been there.

I think that cultural attitudes play a role when we’re talking about politics, because a lot of the policy from the American, European side, is actually very emotional. It’s very much like, “We have some feelings—We fear Russia. We don’t like it,” or “We think that it’s awful.” And “Our ideas, we know how to run a society much better than the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Indians, and the Muslims,” and things like that. It’s a part of the problem. It’s a part of our problem in the West. It’s a part of our way of thinking, our philosophy, which I think we should have a closer look at and criticize. But it’s difficult, because it’s very deeply rooted.

When I discuss with people at universities and in the media, and other places, I encounter this. That is why I wrote the latest book, because it’s very much about our way of thinking about Russia. The book is about Russia, of course, but it’s also about us, our glasses, how we perceive Russia, how we perceive not only Russia, but it also goes for China, because it’s more or less the same. But there are many similarities between how we look upon Russia, and how we look upon and perceive China, and other countries.

I think this is a very, very important thing we have to deal with. We have to do it, because otherwise, if we decide, if America and Russia decide to use all the fireworks they have of nuclear [armament] power, then it’s the end.

You can put it very sharply, to put it like that, and people will not like it. But basically, we are facing these two alternatives: Either we find ways to cooperate with people who are not like us, and will not be, certainly not in my lifetime, like us, and accept them, that they are not like us, and get on as best we can, and keep our differences, but respect each other. I think that’s what we need from the Western countries. I think it’s the basic problem today dealing with other countries.

And the same goes, from what I have said, for China. I do not know the Chinese language. I have been in China. I know a little about China. Russia, I know very well. I speak Russian, so I know how Russians are thinking about this, what their feelings are about this. And I think it’s important to deal with these questions.

%%‘A Way to Live Together’

Michelle Rasmussen: You also pointed out, that in 2001, after the attack against the World Trade Center, Putin was the first one to call George Bush, and he offered cooperation about dealing with terrorism. You’ve written that he had a pro-Western worldview, but that this was not reciprocated.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, yes. Afterwards, Putin was criticized by the military, and also by politicians in the beginning of his first term in 2000, 2001, 2002, he was criticized because he was too happy for America. He even said, in an interview in the BBC, that he would like Russia to become a member of NATO. It did not happen, because—there are many reasons for that. But he was very, very keen—that’s also why he felt very betrayed afterward. In 2007, at the Munich Conference on Security in February in Germany, he said he was very frustrated, and it was very clear that he felt betrayed by the West. He thought that they had a common agenda. He thought that Russia should become a member. But Russia probably is too big.

If you consider Russia becoming a member of the European Union, the European Union would change thoroughly, but they failed. Russia did not become a member. It’s understandable. But then I think the European Union should have found, again, a modus vivendi.

Michelle Rasmussen: A way of living together.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, how to live together It was actually a parallel development of the European Union and NATO, against Russia. In 2009, the European Union invited Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, to become members of the European Union, but not Russia. Even though they knew that there was really a lot of trade between Ukraine, also Georgia, and Russia. And it would interfere with that trade. But they did not pay attention to Russia.

So, Russia was left out at this time. And so eventually, you could say, understandably, very understandably, Russia turned to China. And in China, with cooperation with China, they became stronger. They became much more self-confident, and they also cooperated with people who respected them much more. I think that’s interesting, that the Chinese understood how to deal with other people with respect, but the Europeans and Americans did not.

%%Ukraine, Again

Michelle Rasmussen: Just before we go to our last questions. I want to go back to Ukraine, because it’s so important. You said that the problem did not start with the so-called annexation of Crimea, but with what you called a coup against the sitting president. Can you just explain more about that? Because in the West, everybody says, “Oh, the problem started when Russia annexed Crimea.”

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Well, if you take Ukraine, in 2010 there was a presidential election, and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] monitored the election, and said that it was very good, and the majority voted for Viktor Yanukovych. Viktor Yanukovych did not want Ukraine to become a member of NATO. He wanted to cooperate with the European Union. But he also wanted to keep cooperating with Russia. Basically, that’s what he was like. But it’s very often claimed that he was corrupt. Yes, I don’t doubt it, but name me one president who has not been corrupt. That’s not the big difference, it’s not the big thing, I would say. But then in 2012, there was also a parliamentary election in Ukraine, and Yanukovych’s party also gained a majority with some other parties. There was a coalition which supported Yanukovych’s policy not to become a member of NATO.

And then there was a development where the European Union and Ukraine were supposed to sign a treaty of cooperation. But he found out that the treaty would be very costly for Ukraine, because they would open the borders for European Union firms, and the Ukrainian firms would not be able to compete with the Western firms.

Secondly, and this is the most important thing, basic industrial export from Ukraine was to Russia, and it was industrial products from the eastern part, from Dniepropetrovsk or Dniepro as it is called today, from Donetsk, from Luhansk and from Kryvyj Rih (Krivoj Rog), from some other parts, basically in the eastern part, which is the industrial part of Ukraine.

And they made some calculations that showed that, well, if you join this agreement, Russia said, “We will have to put some taxes on the export, because you will have some free import from the European Union. We don’t have an agreement with the European Union, so, of course, anything which comes from you, there would be some taxes imposed on it.” And then Yanukovych said, “Well, well, well, it doesn’t sound good,” and he wanted Russia, the European Union and Ukraine to go together, and the three form what we call a triangular agreement.

But the European Union was very much opposed to it. The eastern part of Ukraine was economically a part of Russia. Part of the Russian weapons industry was actually in the eastern part of Ukraine, and there were Russian speakers there. But the European Union said, “No, we should not cooperate with Russia about this,” because Yanukovych wanted to have cooperation between the European Union, Ukraine, and Russia, which sounds very sensible to me. Of course, it should be like that. It would be to the advantage of all three parts. But the European Union had a very ideological approach to this. So, they were very much against Russia. It also increased the Russian’s suspicion that the European Union was only a stepping-stone to NATO membership.

And then what happened was that there was a conflict, there were demonstrations every day on the Maidan Square in Kiev. There were many thousands of people there, and there were also shootings, because many of the demonstrators were armed people. They had stolen weapons from some barracks in the West. And at this point, when 100 people had been killed, the European Union foreign ministers from France, Germany and Poland met, and there was also a representative from Russia, and there was Yanukovych, a representative from his government, and from the opposition. And they made an agreement. Ok. You should have elections this year, in half a year, and you should have some sharing of power. People from the opposition should become members of the government, and things like that.

All of a sudden, things broke down, and Yanukovych left, because you should remember, and very often in the West, they tend to forget that the demonstrators were armed. And they killed police also. They killed people from Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions, and things like that. So, it’s always been portrayed as innocent, peace-loving demonstrators. They were not at all. And some of them had very dubious points of view, with Nazi swastikas, and things like that. And Yanukovych fled.

Then they came to power. They had no legitimate government, because many of the members of parliament from these parts of the regions which had supported Yanukovych, had fled to the East. So, the parliament was not able to make any decisions. Still, there was a new president, also a new government, which was basically from the western part of Ukraine. And the first thing they did, I told you, was to get rid of the Russian language, and then they would talk about NATO membership. And Victoria Nuland was there all the time, the vice foreign minister of the United States, was there all the time. There were many people from the West also, so things broke down.

%%Crimea

Michelle Rasmussen: There have actually been accusations since then, that there were provocateurs who were killing people on both sides.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that there’s been no investigation whatsoever about it, because a new government did not want to conduct an investigation as to who killed them. So, it was orchestrated. There’s no doubt in my mind it was an orchestrated coup. No doubt about it.

That’s the basic context for the decision of Putin to accept Crimea as a part of Russia. In the West, it is said that Russia simply annexed Crimea. It’s not precisely what happened, because there was a local parliament, it was an autonomous part of Ukraine, and they had their own parliament, and they made the decision that they should have a referendum, which they had in March. And then they applied to become a member of the Russian Federation. It’s not a surprise, even though the Ukrainian army did not go there, because there was a Ukrainian army. There were 21,000 Ukrainian soldiers. 14,000 of these soldiers joined the Russian army.

And so, that tells a little about how things were not like a normal annexation, where one country simply occupies part of the other country. Because you have this cleft country, you have this part, especially the southern part, which was very, very pro-Russian, and it’s always been so. There’s a lot of things in terms of international law you can say about it.

But I have no doubt that you can look upon it differently, because if you look it at from the point of people who lived in Crimea, they did not want—because almost 80-90% had voted for the Party of the Regions, which was Yanukovych’s party, a pro-Russian party, you could say, almost 87%, or something like that.

They have voted for this Party. This Party had a center in a central building in Kiev, which was attacked, burned, and three people were killed. So, you could imagine that they would not be very happy. They would not be very happy with the new government, and the new development. Of course not. They hated it. And what I think is very critical about the West is that they simply accepted, they accepted these horrible things in Ukraine, just to have the prize, just to have this prey, of getting Ukraine into NATO.

And Putin was aware that he could not live, not even physically, but certainly not politically, if Sevastopol, with the harbor for the Russian fleet, became a NATO harbor. It was impossible. I know people from the military say “No, no way.” It’s impossible. Would the Chinese take San Diego in the United States? Of course not. It goes without saying that such things don’t happen.

So, what is lacking in the West is just a little bit of realism. How powers, how superpowers think, and about red lines of superpowers. Because we have an idea in the West about the new liberal world order. It sounds very nice when you’re sitting in an office in Washington. It sounds very beautiful and easy, but to go out and make this liberal world order, it’s not that simple. And you cannot do it like, certainly not do it like the way they did it in Ukraine.

Michelle Rasmussen: Regime change?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, regime change.

%%The Importance of Cultural Exchanges

Michelle Rasmussen: I have two other questions. The last questions. The Russian-Danish Dialogue organization that you are a leader of, and the Schiller Institute in Denmark, together with the China Cultural Center in Copenhagen, were co-sponsors of three very successful Musical Dialogue of Cultures Concerts, with musicians from Russia, China, and many other countries. You are actually an associate professor in cultural differences. How do you see that? How would an increase in cultural exchange improve the situation?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Well, it cannot but improve, because we have very little, as I also told you. So, I’m actually also very, very happy with this cooperation, because I think it’s very enjoyable, these musical events, they are very, very enjoyable and very interesting, also for many Danish people, because when you have the language of music, it is better than the language of weapons, if I can put it that way, of course. But I also think that when we meet each other, when we listen to each other’s music, and share culture in terms of films, literature, paintings, whatever, I think it’s also, well, it’s a natural thing, first of all, and it’s unnatural not to have it.

We do not have it, because maybe some people want it that way, if people want us to be in a kind of tense situation. They would not like to have it, because I think without this kind of, it’s just a small thing, of course, but without these cultural exchanges, well, you will be very, very bad off. We will have a world which is much, much worse, I think, and we should learn to enjoy the cultural expressions of other people.

We should learn to accept them, also, we should learn to also cooperate and also find ways—. We are different. But, also, we have a lot of things in common, and the things we have in common are very important not to forget, that even with Russians, and even the Chinese, also all other peoples, we have a lot in common, that is very important to bear in mind that we should never forget. Basically, we have the basic values we have in common, even though if you are Hindu, a Confucian, a Russian Orthodox, we have a lot of things in common.

And when you have such kind of encounters like in cultural affairs, in music, I think that you become aware of it, because suddenly it’s much easier to understand people, if you listen to their music. Maybe you need to listen a few times, but it becomes very, very interesting. You become curious about instruments, ways of singing, and whatever it is. So, I hope the corona situation will allow us, also, to make some more concerts. I think it should be, because they’re also very popular in Denmark.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yes. As Schiller wrote, it’s through beauty that we arrive at political freedom. We can also say it’s through beauty that we can arrive at peace.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, yes.

%%The Role of Schiller Institute

Michelle Rasmussen: The Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, its founder and international President, are leading an international campaign to prevent World War III, for peace through economic development, and a dialogue amongst cultures. How do you see the role of the Schiller Institute?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Well, I know it. We have been cooperating. I think your basic calls, appeals for global development, I think it’s very, very interesting, and I share the basic point of view. I think maybe it’s a little difficult. The devil is in the details, but basically, I think what you are thinking about, when I talk about the Silk Road, when I talk about these Chinese programs, Belt and Road programs, I see much more successful development that we have seen, say, in Africa and European countries developing, because I have seen how many western-dominated development programs have been distorting developments in Africa and other parts of the world. They distort development.

I’m not uncritical to China, but, of course, I can see very positive perspectives in the Belt and Road program. I can see really, really good perspectives, because just look at the railroads in China, for instance, at their fast trains. It’s much bigger than anywhere else in the world. I think there are some perspectives, really, which I think attract, first and foremost, people in Asia.

But I think, eventually, also, people in Europe, because I also think that this model is becoming more and more—it’s also beginning in the eastern part. Some countries of Eastern Europe are becoming interested. So, I think it’s very interesting. Your points of your points of view. I think they’re very relevant, also because I think we are in a dead-end alley in the West, what we are in right now, so people anyway are looking for new perspectives.

And what you come up with, I think, is very, very interesting, certainly. What it may be in the future is difficult to say because things are difficult.

But the basic things that you think about, and what I have heard about the Schiller Institute, also because I also think that you stress the importance of tolerance. You stress the importance of a multicultural society, that we should not change each other. We should cooperate on the basis of mutual interests, not changing each other. And as I have told you, this is what I see as one of the real, real big problems in the western mind, the western way of thinking, that we should decide what should happen in the world as if we still think we are colonial powers, like we have been for some one hundred years. But these times are over. There are new times ahead, and we should find new ways of thinking. We should find new perspectives.

And I think it goes for the West, that we can’t go on living like this. We can’t go on thinking like this, because it will either be war, or it’ll be dead end alleys, and there’ll be conflicts everywhere.

You can look at things as a person from the West. I think it’s sad to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and those countries, Syria to some extent also, where the West has tried to make some kind of regime change or decide what happens. They’re not successful. I think it’s obvious for all. And we need some new way of thinking. And what the Schiller Institute has come up with is very, very interesting in this perspective, I think.

Michelle Rasmussen: Actually, when you speak about not changing other people, one of our biggest points is that we actually have to challenge ourselves to change ourselves. To really strive for developing our creative potential and to make a contribution that will have, potentially, international implications.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Definitely

Michelle Rasmussen: The Schiller Institute is on full mobilization during the next couple of weeks to try to get the United States and NATO to negotiate seriously. And Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called on the U.S. and NATO to sign these treaties that Russia has proposed, and to pursue other avenues of preventing nuclear war. So, we hope that you, our viewers, will also do everything that you can, including circulating this video.

Is there anything else you would like to say to our viewers before we end, Jens Jørgen?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: No. I think we have talked a lot now. Only I think what you said about bringing the U.S. and Russia to the negotiation table, it’s obvious. I think that it should be, for any prudent, clear-thinking person in the West, it should be obvious that this is the only right thing to do. So of course, we support it 100%.

Michelle Rasmussen: Okay. Thank you so much, Jens Jørgen Nielsen

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: I thank you.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 15. december 2021:
Kun samarbejde kan besejre pandemien og forhindre atomkrig
Se også 2. del: 3 min.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

2. del: 3 min.

lyd:




Forhenværende dansk diplomat, Friis Arne Petersen,
opfordrer Europa til at slutte sig til Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet
og lære om infrastrukturøkonomi fra Kina

There is an English version below.

København, 10. november (EIRNS) – Den tidligere danske ambassadør Friis Arne Petersen holdt en yderst vigtig tale i går, hvor han opfordrede Europa til at slutte sig til Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BRI), og udfordrede Europa og USA til at lære fra Kina, hvordan man skaber økonomisk vækst ved hjælp af investeringer i storstilet, højteknologisk infrastruktur. Hans konklusion var, at vi bliver nødt til at forstå infrastrukturens rolle i at skabe økonomisk vækst. Hvis vi sørger for vandforsyning, energi og transport, så vil der være vækst, fordi mennesker er kreative.

Friis Arne Petersen var dansk ambassadør til USA, Kina og Tyskland (5 år i hvert land fra 2005 til 2020), såvel som tidligere direktør for det danske udenrigsministerium. Før dette var han direktør for udenrigsministeriets russiske og østeuropæiske afdeling. Han er også økonom.

Konferencen »Geoøkonomi eller Geopolitik«, som både fandt sted fysisk og blev live-streamet, blev afholdt på Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), den førende udenrigspolitiske tænketank som er tilknyttet det danske udenrigsministerium. Den kan ses på engelsk ovenover eller her: http://www.diis.dk/en/event/geoeconomics-or-geopolitics

En repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet uddelte konferenceindbydelser til alle deltagere og stillede to spørgsmål (ved 1 time 54 minutter). Se nedenfor.

Først forklarede Lars Erslev Andersen, en DIIS-forsker, Halford Mackinders idé om britisk geopolitik og det eurasiske kerneland (11:50 minutter inde). Han stillede spørgsmålet, hvad det betyder for Europa, at Kina investerer i det centralasiatiske kerneland – er det geopolitik eller geoøkonomi?

Her er højdepunkterne fra Friis Arne Petersens tale, som havde titlen »Er Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet geoøkonomi eller geopolitik?« (begynder 30 minutter inde).

Lær af Kina: Vi koncentrerer os ikke nok om, hvordan Kina skabte deres succesfulde økonomiske udvikling. Hvorfor er infrastruktur så vigtigt for Kina, både indenfor og udenfor landets grænser?

Finansiel udvikling: Kineserne var utilfredse med Den internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Verdensbanken, så de oprettede Den asiatiske infrastruktur- og Investeringsbank (AIIB). Til trods for opposition fra USA, efter at Storbritannien tilsluttede sig, og dernæst Frankrig og Tyskland, ringede Friis Arne Petersen til København og sagde, at vi bliver nødt til at varetage nationale interesser og tilslutte os.

Infrastruktur for en forenet nation: Udfordringen for Kina var ikke blot ulighed, men nationens samhørighed. Det vestlige Kina måtte udvikles. Det har også en global indvirkning. De opbyggede industrierne for at forsyne infrastrukturen med goder. De forsøgte at udvikle de bedste, billigste teknologier og i deres målrettethed forårsagede de en overproduktion, hvilket BRI hjælper dem af med.

Manglen på strategiske visioner indenfor infrastruktur i USA og Europa: Han kritiserede USA’s program med kvantitative lempelser, siden Obama og fremefter, for ikke at investere i de nyeste transportteknologier ligesom Kina, der byggede et højhastighedstognet på tusindvis af kilometer. Han henviste til Los Angeles’ forældede havn og transportinfrastruktur som den medvirkende årsag til den nuværende forsyningskrise.

Europa: Friis Arne Petersen fortalte en historie om den tid, da SF’s formand, transportminister Pia Olsen Dyhr, mødtes med den kinesiske transportminister, imens Friis Arne Petersen var ambassadør. Den kinesiske minister spurgte hende om den nyligt forhandlede (meget uambitiøse) danske togfond og bemærkede, »Tja, det er en begyndelse, men vi eksperimenterer allerede med tog, der kan køre 500 km/t«. De skaber forskningsbaseret innovation. Den danske ambassade i Kina begyndte gradvist at forstå transportøkonomi. Tyskland var et negativt eksempel ved at nægte at hjælpe Danmark med at bygge Femern Bælt-forbindelsen (mellem Danmark og Tyskland).

Tilbagevisningen af beskyldningen om gældsdiplomati: Friis Arne Petersen citerede en rapport fra forskere fra Johns Hopkins University og Harvard Business School, »Kinesiske banker er villige til at omstrukturere betingelserne for de eksisterende lån, og har faktisk aldrig beslaglagt et andet lands aktiver, mindst af alt havnen i Hambantota [i Sri Lanka]«. Han sagde også, at landene langs BRI har en større gæld til vestlige kreditorer, end til Kina. (Den tredje taler ved begivenheden, DIIS-forsker Yang Jiang, satte også spørgsmålstegn ved beskyldningen om gældsdiplomati.)

Den tredje tale, »Centralasien: Konkurrencen om Kernelandet«, givet af Yang Jiang, omhandlede forskellige asiatiske landes, samt Tyrkiets, investeringer i Centralasien.

Spørgerunden: Efter at have identificeret sig selv, takkede en repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet, Michelle Rasmussen, Friis Arne Petersen for hans vigtige tale og sagde, at Schiller Instituttet har kørt en kampagne for at Danmark, Europa og USA tilslutter sig BRI, frem for at betragte det som en trussel. Hun henviste til sin uddeling af flyveblade og sagde, at videokonferencen denne uge vil besvare nogle af disse spørgsmål.

Hun stillede to relaterede spørgsmål. Det første var, hvordan vi kan få USA og Europa til at holde op med at betragte Kina, og særligt BRI, som en trussel, og i stedet se fordelene ved et økonomisk samarbejde. Vores motto er Fred gennem økonomisk Udvikling, fordi fortsættelsen af at betragte Kina og Rusland som trusler, og forfølgelsen af en konfrontationspolitik, fører til faren for krig.

Det andet spørgsmål var, hvad han mente om at integrere Afghanistan med BRI – kineserne er beredte på at gøre dette. Ville det ikke være vigtigt for USA og Europa – særligt de lande der var engagerede i krigen – at håndtere denne skrækkelige økonomiske krise i Afghanistan gennem et samarbejde med Kina?

Friis Arne Petersen svarede, at der er for mange opdelinger, snak om rivalisering eller de mange usikkerheder, som findes i forbindelse med Asiens fremgang. På samme tid som der er en vækst i den vestlige handel med Asien, for eksempel USA’s køb af mange kinesiske produkter nu efter pandemien, er vi fuldstændig besat af ideen om politisk konfrontation og systemiske udfordringer.

Jeg betragter verdensordenen gennem økonomi. Fremskridtet i retningen af FN’s udviklingsmål, takket være Asiens økonomiske præstation, giver mig en optimisme mht., at disse alarmister og folk, som ønsker at politisere og se farer og militære modstandere overalt, vil tabe. Vi bliver nødt til at betragte vores nationers samlede interesser.

På den ene side har Kina, med sine 14 nabolande, en større strategisk udfordring end USA, men Kina ser altid disse nabolande som muligheder, ligesom det som BRI for eksempel kunne opnå i Afghanistan. USA og Vesten har en meget klar interesse i at Afghanistans naboer, som for eksempel Kina, Pakistan og Indien, forsøger at tage vare på deres region, fordi de muligvis kan gøre dette bedre, end vi gjorde det i løbet af de sidste 20 år.

——————————-

English:

COPENHAGEN, Nov. 10 (EIRNS) — Former Danish ambassador Friis Arne Petersen gave an extremely important speech yesterday calling for Europe to join the Belt and Road Initiative, and challenging Europe and the U.S. to learn from China how to generate economic development through large scale, high-technology infrastructure investment. His conclusion was we have to understand the role of infrastructure in growth economics. If we ensure water, power and transportation, there will be growth, because humans are creative. 

Friis Arne Petersen was the Danish ambassador to the U.S., China and Germany (5 years in each country from 2005-2020), as well as the former director of the Danish Foreign Ministry, and, before that, director for the Foreign Ministry’s Russia/Eastern Europe division. He is also an economist.

The event, "Geoeconomics or geopolitics," both on-site and streamed, was held at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), the leading foreign policy think tank, affiliated with the Danish Foreign Ministry. See it, in English, here. (www.diis.dk/en/event/geoeconomics-or-geopolitics) 

A Schiller Institute representative distributed conference invitations to all attendees, and asked two questions (at 1 hour 54 minutes), see below. 

First, Lars Erslev Andersen, a DIIS researcher, explained Halford Macinder’s idea of British geopolitics and the Eurasian heartland (at 11:50 minutes). He posed the question, what does it mean for Europe, that China is investing in the Central Asian heartland, is it geopolitics or geoeconomics? 

Here are highlights from Friis Arne Petersen’s speech, entitled, "Is the Belt and Road Initiative geoeconomics or geopolitics?," (at 30 minutes). 

Learn from China: We are not concentrating enough on how China created their successful economic development. Why is infrastructure so important for China, both inside and outside the country? 

Financing development: The Chinese were dissatisfied with the IMF and World Bank, so they created the AIIB. Despite opposition from the U.S., after the UK joined, then France and Germany, Friis Arne Petersen called Copenhagen and said that we have to take care of our national interest and join. 

Infrastructure for a unified nation: The challenge for China was not just inequality, but the cohesion of the nation. Western China had to be developed. It also has global impact. They simultaneously built up the industries to provide the products for the infrastructure, trying to develop the best, cheapest technologies, and in their zeal, causing overproduction, which the BRI helps alleviate. 

Lack of strategic infrastructure vision in the U.S. and Europe: The U.S.: He attacked the U.S. stimulus programs from Obama onwards, for not investing in the newest transportation technologies, like China, which built thousands of miles of high-speed rail. He referenced the Los Angeles port’s antiquated harbor and transportation infrastructure as the contributing cause for the current bottleneck. 

Europe: Friis Arne Petersen told an anecdote about the time SF's chairman Pia Olsen Dyhr met with the Chinese transportation minister while Friis Arne Petersen was ambassador. The Chinese minister asked her about the newly negotiated (very unambitious) Danish train plan, and he replied, “Well, that’s a beginning, but we are experimenting with trains that can run 5-600 miles per hour.” The Danish Embassy in China gradually started to understand transportation economics. Germany was a negative example for refusing to help Denmark build the Fehmarnbelt tunnel (between Denmark and Germany). 

Debunking the debt diplomacy accusation: Friis Arne Petersen cited a report from researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School, “Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota [Sri Lanka].”  He also said that BRI countries owe much more to Western lenders, than China. (The third speaker at the event, DIIS researcher Yang Jiang, also challenged the debt diplomacy accusation.)

The third speech was “Central Asia: competing for the Heartland,” about investment in Central Asia by different Asian countries and Turkey by Yang Jiang.

Q&A: After identification, Schiller Institute organizer Michelle Rasmussen thanked Friis Arne Petersen for his important speech, and said that the Schiller Institute has been campaigning for Denmark, Europe, and the U.S. to join the BRI, instead of looking at it as a threat. She referenced her leaflet distribution, and said that our video conference this weekend will answer some of these questions.

She posed two related questions. One is, how can we get the U.S. and Europe to stop looking at China, and specifically the BRI, as a threat, and to see the advantages of economic cooperation? Our slogan is peace through development, because if we continue to regard China and Russia as threats, and pursue a confrontation policy, we are threatened with war. 

The other question is what you think about integrating Afghanistan into the BRI — the Chinese are ready to do that. Wouldn’t it be important for the U.S. and Europe, especially the countries in the war, to deal with this terrible economic crisis in Afghanistan, through cooperating with China?

Friis Arne Petersen said that there are too many division lines, talk of rivalry, or the many uncertainties that lie in the advance of Asia. At the same time that there is an increase of western trade with Asia, for example, the U.S. buying so many Chinese products now after the pandemic, we are totally obsessive about political confrontation, and systemic challenges. 

I approach the world order through economy. The progress towards the UN development goals due to the economic performance of Asia makes me optimistic that these alarmists, and people who want to politicize and see danger and military adversaries everywhere, will lose. We have to look at the total interests of our nations.

On the one hand, China, with its 14 neighboring countries, is more strategically challenged than the U.S., but China always sees the  neighboring countries as opportunities, like what the BRI will do in Afghanistan. The U.S. and the West have a very clear interest in having Afghanistan’s neighbors, like China, Pakistan and India, try to manage their region, because they, possibly, can do that better than we did during the last 20 years.




NYHEDSORIENTERING SEPTEMBER-OKTOBER 2021:
Rapport fra seminaret i København:
Afghanistan: Hvad nu? Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling

Indholdsfortegnelse: 


Overbliksrapport s. 1


Tom Gillesberg: Krigsførende til fredsskabende s. 3


Hussein Askary: Gør en ende på kynismen: Imperiets grusomme »store spil« er dødt s. 4


Professor Pino Arlacchi: En succesfuld strategi til at udrydde opiumproduktionen i Afghanistan s. 9


H.E. Ambassadør Ahmad Farooq fra Pakistan: Et perspektiv på at flytte Afghanistan fremad s. 15


Udtalelse fra Kinas og Irans ambassader i Danmark s. 17-18


Opråb om menneskesyn og klimaspørgsmålet s. 18


Invitation til Schiller Instituttets internationale videokonference den 13.-14. november: bagsiden

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Afskrift, Video, lyd, rapport: Afghanistan seminar:
Afghanistan: Hvad nu? Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling.
den 11. oktober 2021 i København

(Denne opdateret video inkluderer udtalelser fra de kinesiske og iranske ambassader i Danmark og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som begynder 1 time 50 min. ind i videoen.)

(This updated video includes statements from the Chinese and Iranian embassies in Denmark and Helga Zepp-LaRouche at 1 hour 50 min.)

Lydfil af præsentationerne på engelsk (videoen inkluderer diskussionen):

Audio of the presentations in English (The video includes the discussion):

Afskriftet på engelsk findes nedenunder.

The transcript in English is below.

For English, find the flag below.

 

Afghanistan: Hvad nu?
Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling

Et seminar/webcast afholdt af Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

af Michelle Rasmussen

Afghanistan: Hvad nu?

Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling

Et seminar/webcast afholdt af Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Introduktion af Michelle Rasmussen

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark afholdt et succesfuldt, kombineret seminar og webinar under overskriften: ”Afghanistan: Hvad nu? Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling”, som fandt sted den 11. oktober 2021 i København. Videoen af begivenheden kan ses her: https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=31793

Nu, hvor krigen i Afghanistan er forbi, og mange i Vesten er rystede over hændelserne, er vi konfronteret med en enestående mulighed for at forandre en politik baseret på regimeskifte og militære interventioner til en politik for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Dette er tilfældet for Afghanistan og også resten af verden. Alle på denne klode kan nu se den massive fiasko af Vestens krige for regimeskifte siden 2001. De har kostet millioner af liv og billioner af dollars.

Dette paradigmeskifte kunne ikke være mere presserende i lyset af den humanitære krise i Afghanistan. En omfattende nødhjælpsindsats er absolut nødvendig, som kræver at den afghanske regerings finansielle midler, nu indefrosset i USA og i andre lande, bliver frigivet, og at det internationale samfund af regeringer og hjælpeorganisationer reagerer.

Men det kræver også en langsigtet indsats i opbygningen af Afghanistans interne infrastruktur og at forbinde landet med Den nye Silkevej (Bælte- og Vejinitiativet), såvel som forbedringen af landets uddannelses- og sundhedssystem. Det er ligeså en gylden mulighed for at opgive geopolitik og at etablere et samarbejde til gensidig fordel mellem USA og Europa på den ene side, og Kina, Rusland og andre nationer på den anden.

Derfor tog Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, med kort varsel, initiativet til at organisere dette seminar/webinar med særlige gæster samlet i København. Diplomater fra Sydvestasien, Nordafrika og Asien, samt medlemmer af Schiller Instituttet deltog i seminaret, der var Schiller Instituttets første fysiske møde siden starten af COVID-19. Yderligere var der deltagere fra Asien, Sydvestasien, Afrika og Europa via en live stream.

Indbydelsen indeholdt en indsigt i de afgørende spørgsmål på spil nu fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifteren og præsident af det internationale Schiller Institut.

Alle talerne har været aktivt involverede i spørgsmålet om Afghanistan. De var:

Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets Koordinator for Sydvestasien og bestyrelsesmedlem af Belt and Road Institute in Sweden, forfatter af Geoøkonomiens daggry – Udvidelsen af Bælte og Vej til Afghanistan, medforfatter af Udvidelsen af Den nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk Renæssance, og arabisk oversæter af Den nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen. Hussein Askary, oprindeligt fra Irak, har for nyligt deltaget i mange webcasts og er blevet interviewet på fjernsynet i forskellige lande.

Hussein Askary beskrev den humanitære nødsituation, som det afghanske folk er konfronteret med, og potentialet for at Schiller Instituttets og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches program for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling kunne blive en realitet for Afghanistan og for verden efter sammenbruddet af det gamle system med vedvarende krige. En vigtig pointe, som han understregede, var, at hvis de vestlige regeringer fortsætter med at indefryse Afghanistans finansielle midler og tilbageholde deres hjælp til genopbygningen af Afghanistan, blot for at bevise at Taliban var ude af stand til at lede nationen, ville det føre til katastrofale resultater. Afghanistan har været et isoleret hul i kortet i midten af den spændende økonomiske udvikling, som Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ har skabt, og nu er det på tide at bringe den udviklingsdynamik til Afghanistan. Han opfordrede Europa og USA til at samarbejde for at opnå det mål.

Prof. Pino Arlacchi, administrerende direktør for FN’s Agentur for narkotikabekæmpelse og kriminalitetsforebyggelse (1997-2002), tidligere EU-rapportør for Afghanistan og i øjeblikket sociologiprofessor ved Skolen for politikvidenskab på Sassari Universitet i Italien (Prof. Arlacchis hjemmeside). Prof. Arlacchi deltog i to af Schiller Instituttets tidligere webcasts om Afghanistan.

Seminaret havde muligheden for at høre den person, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har foreslået bliver udpeget til repræsentant for de vestlige lande i Afghanistan. Prof. Arlacchi gav deltagerne en personlig, insider-beretning om, hvordan han succesfuldt forhandlede med Taliban, hvilket resulterede i tilintetgørelsen af opiumproduktionen i Afghanistan før 2001; hvordan USA og Storbritannien besluttede at gøre en ende på den politik efter krigens påbegyndelse; hvad der nu skal gøres for at tilintetgøre opiumproduktionen; og hvad de vestlige landes rolle overfor Afghanistan burde være nu. Prof. Arlacchi understregede, at Vestens rolle burde begynde med at anerkende den nye regering, og acceptere at de har kontrollen over landet. Hvis de behandles med respekt, som vinderne i konflikten, kan alle vigtige spørgsmål blive forhandlet, begyndende med spørgsmålet om kvinders rettigheder.

H. E. Ahmad Farooq, ambassadør for Pakistan til Kongeriget Danmark siden april 2020. 2013-2016: Rådgiver/stedfortrædende permanent repræsentant for Pakistan ved Den permanente mission for Pakistan til FN-agenturer i Rom. 2010-2013: Rådgiver for Pakistans permanente mission til De forenede Nationer i New York. Medlem af Pakistans Sikkerhedsråd i løbet af Pakistans medlemskab for FN’s sikkerhedsråd fra 2012 til 2013. 2018-2020: Generaldirektør indenfor terrorbekæmpelse ved FN og andre multilaterale fora. 2016-2018 og 2008-2010: en FN-direktør indenfor FN’s generalforsamling, FN’s sikkerhedsråd, terrorbekæmpelse, FN’s fredsmissioner og andre politiske og freds- og sikkerhedsspørgsmål.

H. E. ambassadør Farooq talte om det komplekse forhold mellem Pakistan og Afghanistan og beskrev i detaljer, hvordan de sidste 40 års uro i Afghanistan har påvirket Pakistan. I lang tid var det klart, at den amerikansk ledede militære tilgang ville slå fejl. Han sagde, at vi har brug for en geoøkonomisk strategi, og, som Pakistans statsminister, Imran Khan, opfordrede til dette, at udvikle Afghanistan og forbinde det med de omkringliggende lande. H. E. ambassadør Farooq konkluderede med idéer fra Pakistans nationale digter, Muhammad Iqbal, som kaldte Afghanistan for ”Asiens hjerte”. Iqbal udtalte, at hvis der er fred i Afghanistan, er der fred i Asien, og hvis der er uro i Afghanistan, er der uro i Asien.

Ordstyrer var Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og chefen for Executive Intelligence Review i København. Tom Gillesberg afholder et webcast hver anden uge for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og er en tidligere parlaments- og byrådskandidat.

Tom Gillesberg kommenterede på den danske deltagelse i krigene for regimeskifte og opfordrede til, at Danmark og andre regeringer i koalitionen burde skifte fra krigsstiftelse til fredsbevaring.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sendte en meddelelse til seminaret, hvor hun bebudede, at Schiller Instituttet ville have en aktionsdag torsdag den 14. oktober for at stoppe indefrysningen af afghanske finansielle midler og opfordrede andre til at deltage.

Den kinesiske ambassade i Danmark sendte en udtalelse til seminaret. Den afghanske ambassade i Oslo i Norge indsendte også en udtalelse, og talerne tog nogle af de nævnte spørgsmål op. En diplomat fra Irans ambassade i Danmark præsenterede en udtalelse til seminaret om deres anstrengelser for at optage de afghanske flygtninge, hvilket er besværliggjort under de uretfærdige amerikanske sanktioner. Dermed havde seminaret deltagelse af diplomater fra Afghanistan og Afghanistans umiddelbare østlige nabo, Pakistan, den vestlige nabo, Iran, og den nordvestlige nabo Kina.

De to ugers intensive organiseringsproces inkluderede personlige besøg hos 38 ambassader, hvilket resulterede i flere spontane møder, samt henvendelsen til yderligere ambassader og danske politiske og forsvarsrelaterede institutioner. Derudover uddelte Schiller Instituttet i Danmark sin særlige nyhedsorientering om Afghanistan og indbydelsen til seminaret ved en begivenhed, som blev ledt af den danske udviklingsminister, Flemming Møller Mortensen, afholdt i Dansk institut for internationale Studier. Begivenheden var organiseret for at rådgive ministeren om det, som han beskrev som dilemmaet, der involverer Afghanistans akutte humanitære krise, nu efter at Taliban har overtaget magten.

Talerne fra seminaret, og dele fra diskussionen kommer også i Executive Intelligence Review. Vi håber at videoen og afskrifterne vil give dig en bedre indsigt i hvad vi må gøre nu, for at lette nøden for den afghanske befolkning og påbegynde en ny kurs for verdens politiske, strategiske og økonomiske fremtid.

Afskrifter:

Tom Gillesbergs introduktion til Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan-seminar den 11. oktober 2021:

Følgende afskrifter blev udgivet i Executive Intelligence Review den 22. oktober 2021. Vi er igang med at oversætte talerne og udtalelserne til dansk:

Hussein Askarys tale ved Afghanistan seminaret i København: Gør en ende på kynismen: Imperiets grusomme ”store spil” er dødt

Pino Arlaachi: En succesfuld strategi til at udrydde opiumproduktionen i Afghanistan

Udtalelse fra Den kinesiske Ambassade til Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan seminar den 11. oktober 2021

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

———————————

Invitationen:
Nu, hvor krigen i Afghanistan er forbi, og mange i vesten er rystet over begivenhederne, er der en mulighed for at udskifte den politik, der har været baseret på regimeskifte og militære interventioner, til en politik for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det gælder for Afghanistan og også for resten af verden.

Og det haster, fordi der en akut humanitær krise i Afghanistan. Der kræves både en stor nødhjælpsindsats, men også en langsigtet indsats for at opbygge Afghanistans infrastruktur i forbindelse med Den nye Silkevej (Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet), og landets uddannelsessystem og sundhedsvæsen.

Det bør være anledning til at forlade geopolitik og etablere et samarbejde mellem USA/Europe og Kina, Rusland og andre nationer.

Læs mere nedenunder.

Vi håber, at du kan deltage i seminaret.

——————

Invitation in English:

The Schiller Institute cordially invites you to attend our seminar:

Afghanistan: What Now?
Peace through economic development

Date: Monday, October 11, 2021 Time: 13:00 – 16:00

Place: In the center of Copenhagen
Free admission. Registration necessary (Lunch will not be served.)
A Corona pass is required for the protection of all participants.

For more information and to register, contact:
Michelle Rasmussen: 53 57 00 51 or
Feride Gillesberg: 25 12 50 33 or
si@schillerinstitut.dk

Speakers:
Hussein Askary: the Schiller Institute’s Southwest Asia Coordinator, board member of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden, author of Dawn of Geo-Economics – Extending the Belt and Road to Afghanistan, and co-author of Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa: A Vision of an Economic Renaissance, Arabic translator of The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge, originally from Iraq

Prof. Pino Arlacchi: Executive Director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (1997-2002) (who negotiated an almost total elimination of opium production with the Taliban before 2001), and former EU Rapporteur on Afghanistan. Currently professor of Sociology at the School of Political Science of the University of Sassari in Italy. Prof. Pino Arlacchi's homepage.

H.E. Ahmad Farooq, Ambassador of Pakistan to Kingdom of DenmarkAmbassador in Denmark since April 2020. 2013-2016: Counsellor/Alternate Permanent Representative of Pakistan at the Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the Rome-based UN Agencies, Rome. 2010-2013: Counsellor Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations, New York. Member of Pakistan’s Security Council team during Pakistan’s membership of the UN Security Council from 2012 to 2013. 2018-2020: Director General (Counter Terrorism) dealing with counter terrorism at the United Nations and other multilateral forums. 2016-2018 and 2008-2010: Director United Nations, dealing with UN General Assembly, UN Security Council, Counter Terrorism, UN Peacekeeping and other political and peace and security issues.

Moderator: Tom Gillesberg: Chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, Bureau Chief for Executive Intelligence Review in Copenhagen.

Background:
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and international chairman of the Schiller Institute stated in a webcast on August 21, just a few days after the Taliban took control of Kabul, “Exactly three weeks ago, we had a seminar here on this [Schiller Institute] channel on the situation in Afghanistan. I compared it in terms of importance to the fall of the [Berlin] Wall in 1989, which was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. I said it may not be quite as big as the collapse of the entire Soviet Union, but what is happening in Afghanistan is of the same nature, because it is the end of a system.”

The new system has to be defined by a peace through development strategy for Afghanistan and the entire region. On August 17 Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, “It’s very good that the war has ended, and I think it is, on the contrary, the real chance to integrate Afghanistan into a regional economic development perspective, which is basically defined by the Belt and Road Initiative of China. There is a very clear agreement of Russia and China to cooperate in dealing with this situation. The interest of the Central Asian republics to make sure there is stability and economic development, there is the possibility to extend the CPEC, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, into Afghanistan, into Central Asia, so I think it’s a real opportunity. But it does require a complete change in the approach….

“If the European nations and the United States would understand that this is a unique chance, if they cooperate, rather than fight Russia and China, and their influence in the region, and they join hands in the economic development there — there needs to be a perspective for the reconstruction of Afghanistan in a serious way, as it was not done in the last 20 years, for sure — then this can become a very positive turning point, not only for Afghanistan, but also for the whole world.”

Peace through economic development is a policy which the Schiller Institute has been campaigning for since its founding in 1984, and which the late Lyndon LaRouche’s political movement has been advocating since the 1970’s, by designing economic development programs for most of the world. Our efforts intensified after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, proposing a policy called the Eurasian Land-Bridge, or the New Silk Road, later extended to become the World Land-Bridge concept. There is a reflection of some of the key elements of this policy in the Belt and Road Initiative announced by Xi Jinping in 2013.

Now, after 20 years of war, Afghanistan is facing an appalling humanitarian catastrophe. Helga Zepp-La-Rouche wrote in “Can “the West” Learn?: What Afghanistan Needs Now” on September 5: ”World Food Program Director David Beasley, who visited Afghanistan last week in August, announced that 18 million Afghans are starving—more than half the population—and 4 million are at risk of starvation next winter without massive help. The WHO fears a medical disaster in view of the scarcely existing health system in the midst of the COVID pandemic, and only around 1 million people are vaccinated so far….”

The necessary economic development emphatically includes building a modern health system, as well as educational expansion, extending the Belt and Road Initiative’s infrastructure connectivity projects, industrial development projects, and agricultural programs designed to eliminate opium production.”

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche has proposed that Italian Prof. Pino Arlacchi, Executive Director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (1997-2002), and former EU Rapporteur on Afghanistan, be appointed as coordinator for the western countries’ economic development efforts in Afghanistan. He had negotiated an almost total elimination of opium production with the Taliban before 2001, which then was reversed under the ensuing years during the U.S. and NATO military operations. Arlacchi again proposed a plan in 2010, which was thwarted by the EU, Britain, and the United States.

Zepp-LaRouche: “Afghanistan is the one place where the United States and China can begin a form of cooperation that can be a baby step toward strategic cooperation putting humanity’s common goals in the foreground. Ultimately, its realization indicates the only way that the end of mankind in a nuclear Armageddon can be prevented.”

Afghanistan is the test case of whether the West is able to learn from its mistakes, and join with the rest of the world for a peace through economic development policy — the path to a new paradigm for all humanity.

We sincerely hope that you will be able to join us for this crucial discussion.

For more information and to register, contact:
Michelle Rasmussen: 53 57 00 51 or
Feride Gillesberg: 25 12 50 33 or
si@schillerinstitut.dk

Resources:
Homepages:
Danish: www.schillerinstitut.dk
English: www.schillerinstitute.org

Articles:
Nyhedsorientering August 2021: Link: Afghanistan: Hvad nu?: Fred gennem økonomisk udvikling

Hussein Askary: Dawn of Geo-Economics – Extending the Belt and Road to Afghanistan, August 18, 2021.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “Can “the West” Learn?: What Afghanistan Needs Now.”, September 5, 2021

Schiller Institute videos:
Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History After the Failed Regime-Change Era, July 31, 2021 (two weeks before the Taliban takeover of Kabul.) Link: Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan-konference:
Spred ideen om et fælles udviklingsprogram med det samme

Afghanistan: Opportunity for a new epoch, Interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on August 17, 2021, two days after the Taliban took control of Kabul by Michelle Rasmussen, vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. Link: Afghanistan: Potentiale for en ny epoke:
Interview med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 17. august 2021 af Michelle Rasmussen

Tom Gillesberg: POLITISK ORIENTERING EKSTRA den 16. august 2021:
Vil Kabuls fald skabe en ny vestlig politik?

Now, More Urgent Than Ever: Afghanistan—Opportunity for a New Epoch for Mankind, August 21, 2021 Link: Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan opfølgningskonference 21. august 2021:

Tom Gillesberg: POLITISK ORIENTERING den 6. september 2021:
Efter Afghanistan: Kollaps af Vestens vrangforestillinger
kan være begyndelsen på en bedre verden




Schiller Instituttets Venner på TV2 Lorry i serien “RUC undersøger” – De små partier

Se programet her på TV2 Lorrys hjemmeside. (17 min.)

TV2 Lorry: »Hvilke emner har de små partier fokus på, og hvad er det, der driver folkene bag«. Dokumentaren produceret af Rasmus Ahlefeldt Simonsen og Sebastian Hartmann, journaliststuderende fra Roskilde Universitets kandidatuddannelse, blev vist på TV2 Lorry den 1.-4. september 2021. Det 17 minutter lange program satte lys på Schiller Instituttets Venner og Tværpolitisk Forening i Dragør. Spidskandidat Tom Gillesberg blev interviewet, og han fremviste mange af sine berømte valgplakater. »Jeg lever og ånder for visioner, for store idéer, for noget der har betydning – at sætte en dagsorden, som har afgørende betydning for fremtiden«.

Følgende er vores rapport til vores Schiller Institut kollegaer rundt om i verden:

Documentary about the Friends of the Schiller Institute’s coming election campaign in Denmark shown on a major TV station

A very good 17-minute documentary about the Friends of the Schiller Institute (SIVE) and one other small party was, and will be, broadcast a total of four times on the local Copenhagen area affiliate of TV2, one of the two national TV programs.

Here is the link: https://www.tv2lorry.dk/ruc-undersoeger/ruc-undersoeger-de-ukendte-partier-14

The program is called “The Small Parties,” and was made by two journalist students from Roskilde University’s master’s degree program. They chose SIVE out of many small parties and lists which will run in the November municipal elections.

There are several sections of the interview they conducted with Copenhagen mayoral candidate Tom Gillesberg, as well as candidates Feride Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Another highlight is that many of our famous election posters are shown, with and without Tom’s explanation. There are also pictures of interesting political and cultural artifacts in our office, including a LaRouche presidential election poster.

A university associate professor is interviewed who describes SIVE as a “serious party,” and concludes that while some people think that voting for a small party is a waste of their vote, it can actually be an important way to support issues that voters think are important, which can influence the larger parties.

The election posters shown included: When the bubble bursts — a New Bretton Woods; Economic collapse; Glass-Steagall or chaos; Before a new financial crash — Bank separation; Win-Win with BRICS–  not collapse and war; Before the next financial crash — Copenhagen should join the Silk Road; Helium-3 from the Moon for unlimited fusion energy on Earth and Free music education – Create a new renaissance – Classical music for all children.

Here are some excerpts:

Narrator: Some parties have a great vision.

Tom Gillesberg: For us, it is about what kind of future we all will live in.

Narrator: Very big.

Gillesberg: We also want to go out into the universe…

Narrator: SIVE has issues like bank separation, and to get Helium-3 fuel from the Moon.

Narrator: Big political thoughts are thought up in their office… They have run for office since 2005….

Narrator: The amount of votes is not everything for Tom Gillesberg.

Gillesberg: The only reason I wanted to have anything to do with politics was not to get a position or popularity, but because it is about how can we make the world better. ..The level [of the big political parties] is too low. I live and breath for a vision, for great ideas, about things of great importance — to set an agenda, which has crucial meaning for the future. I have not met any party in Denmark, which is close to doing that. Yes, if there were, I would join.

Michelle Rasmussen says that Tom Gillesberg is an excellent candidate because he follows world developments and our campaign initiatives. Feride Gillesberg says that she hopes that Tom were elected, because it is in Denmark’s interest. She would like to see him becoming the prime minister’s advisor because Denmark has a patriot, a thinker who is engaged in Denmark’s future. Use him as inspiration….

Narrator: SIVE is very serious about their campaign, a seriousness that many of the other [small] parties lack. [This led to the section with the university assistant professor.]

Narrator: Just because they don’t get a lot of votes, it does not effect their large political engagement, and to try to have influence on something that is important for them.

 

 




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 31. maj 2021: Hvad er Danmarks interesser?
At være spion for NSA imod Danmarks naboer? Eller noget helt andet?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

 

 

Lyd:

Resumé:

 

Rettet:

 

COVID-19: USA hamstrer vacciner mens Rusland og Kina sender vacciner til fattige lande.

Vi kan ikke besejre pandemien, med mindre vi sikrer vacciner til alle lande uanset om de kan betale for dem. USA, Rusland, Kina og andre nationer må samarbejde om at bygge et moderne sundhedsvæsen  i alle lande.

 

NSA-FE og Operation Dunhammer:

Efter Tom Gillesberg beskrev DR’s afsløring, stillede han spørgsmålet ”Hvad er Danmarks interesser?

Er det regimeskiftepolitik, som i Afghanistan, Irak, Libyen, Syrien og Iran?

Eller Ukraine, Rusland, Kina og Hviderusland?

Er det at medvirke til at spionere mod Tyskland, Frankrig, Sverige og Norge på vegne af NSA, USA's overvågningstjeneste?

Eller skal vi arbejde for et nyt paradigme, hvor USA og Europa samarbejder med Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre nationer for at skabe økonomisk udvikling – at løse konflikterne gennem at gå op i en højere enhed/modsætningernes sammenfald, hvor vi løser problemerne gennem at finde vores fælles interesser.

Hviderusland: Aktivist Roman Pratasevich, der blev arresteret efter hans fly blev tvunget til at lande i Hviderusland, har været aktiv militært i Ukraine med den højreekstremistiske Azov-batallion. Havde møder på højt niveau i USA og fik masser af støtte derfra. En britisk-amerikansk efterretningsoperatør? 

USA-Rusland: Topmøde mellem Biden og Putin den 16. juni i Schweiz. Et skridt i den rigtige retning, hvis det ikke bliver saboteret.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches talte til Moskvas Akademiske Økonomisk Forum bla. om den blindgyde grøn omstilling og grøn New Deal er, da det er et fatalt tilbageskridt at sænke enrgikildernes og samfundets energigennemstrømningstæthed i stedt før at øge den.

Den grønne New Deal betyder en massiv sænkning af levestandarden, især i de fattige lande. Vi har brug for økonomisk udvikling i stedet for.

Finansverdenen: Centralbankernes massive pengepumpning begynder at vise sig i stigning i råstofpriserne. Hvis de hæver renten for at bekæmpe inflationen, går mange firmaer, som lever på lånte penge, konkurs. Vi har brug for LaRouches fire økonomiske love, begyndende med en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling.

Følg med i Schiller Instituttets onlinekonference den 26.-27. juni og organiserer andre til at gøre det samme. Kontakt os og bliv aktiv.

Schiller Instituttet · Hvad er Danmarks interesser? At være spion for NSA imod Danmarks naboer? Eller noget helt andet?



Dansk videokonference søndag den 8. november:
Verden efter valget i USA

Talere:

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen? (på dansk)

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (brixsweden.org):
Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika. (på engelsk)

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Beethoven 250 år. (på dansk)

Lyd:

Hussein Askarys præsentation som skærskilt video:

Hussein Askary’s presentation as a separate video in English:

Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen?

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Resumé
USA: Valgsvindel med stemmerne i svingstaterne for at få Joe Biden valgt som USA’s præsident er en del af den farvede revolution i USA for at få et regimeskifte og få afsat Donald Trump.

Dette regimeskifte har været fokus for efterretningstjenesterne og deres partnere i medierne siden Trump vandt præsidentvalget i 2016. Først med beskyldningerne om tråde til Rusland (Steel-rapporten fra britiske efterretningstjeneste, der kom med falske beskyldninger), så løgnen om Russigate, der er blevet modbevist, rigsretssagen og 4 års angreb fra medierne.

Mediernes erklæring af, at Biden har vundet valget og NATO-landes lykønskning af Biden, er et forsøg på at etablere et fait accompli og forhindre at valgsvindlen bliver afsløret.

Trump forsøger at få valgene i delstaterne undersøgt så valgsvindlen kan blive afdækket og retfærdigheden ske fyldest. Mobilisering af vælgerne for at forsvare demokratiet og beskytte Trumps valgsejr.

Massiv censur i medierne og på sociale medier for at forhindre præsident Trump i at tale til befolkningen.

Trump fik over 7 millioner flere stemmer end i 2016 selvom ikke alle stemmerne på ham er blevet tilskrevet ham.

Konkrete historier om valgsvindelen begynder at komme frem.

Tidligere NSA tekniker beskriver hvorledes programmet “Scorecard” kan bruges til at ændre stemme rapporterne fra valgstederne.

Vil USA’s befolkning lykkes med at forsvare den demokratiske proces og Trumps valgsejr?

Hvis kuppet lykkes vil demokraterne forsøge at vinde de to sidste senatspladser i Georgia så Bidens kontrollører også kan kontrollere Senatet, udvide Højesteret og få magten der.

Hvis Biden bliver præsident er der konfrontation med Rusland og Kina på dagsorden. Vil vi få krig? Atomkrig?

Oveni COVID-19 krisen i USA og dens økonomiske effekter venter en nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Med en grøn New Deal vil utilfredsheden i befolkningen blive enorm. Hvad følger efter den censur imod dissidenter, der allerede er i gang?

Topmøde i Davos 9.-11. november med blandt andet Mark Carney, den nye chef for Bank of England Andrew Bailey, Blackrocks Fink, IMF, ECB, Bill Gates etc. om at gennemtvinge kredittørke imod alle investeringer, der ikke er “grønne”. Digitale valutaer så centralbankerne får den fulde økonomiske magt.

Der er en verden uden for Vestens og NATO’s kontrol. Kina og Rusland er ikke kuede.

COVID-19 var et lille bump på vejen for Kina. Man har igen vækst og Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og international økonomisk opbygning fortsætter.

Vesten kan ikke stoppe Kina. Vil man forsøge krig? En atomkrig kan ikke vindes, men vil gale hoveder i Vesten forsøge alligevel?

Vil vi i stedet få en “Sputnik-effekt”, hvor Vesten må skifte kurs tilbage til økonomisk, videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt for at kunne konkurrere med Kina og alle de, der vil samarbejde med Kina? Eller vil Vesten blive irrelevant?

De, der satser på økonomisk vækst drevet af menneskelig kreativitet og videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt vinder i det lange løb.

Vi lever i farlige tider men står også potentielt over for det største spring fremad i menneskehedens historie.

Lyt til hele talen her.

 

Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere 
fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika.

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (brixsweden.org):

Hussein Askary præsenterede den akutte voksende sultekatastrofe i Afrika og hvordan den kan løses. Dels gennem en nødaktion for at fragte fødevarer fra USA, Europa, Rusland og Kina, men også gennem at opbygge Afrikas egne fødevareproduktion og skabe økonomisk udvikling, især infrastrukturprojekter og industrialisering i samarbejde med Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ. 

Hussein Askary præsenterede Afrikas egne udviklingsplaner, Kinas rolle i at virkeliggøre dem, og hvorfor USA og Europe skal deltage.  

Hussein Askary brugte en Powerpoint præsentation til illustration under talen, som også findes, som en særskilt video på engelsk her.

 

Beethoven 250 år og menneskehedens æstetiske opdragelse

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Vi har en civilisationskrise: en konfrontationspolitik, som kan føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, en COVID-19-pandemi, økonomiske og finansielle kriser og en voksende sultkatastofe i Afrika.  
Vil vi etablere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden eller vil det ende i kaos og krig? 
  
Det er en kamp mellem helt forskellige menneskesyn. 
LaRouche understregede altid: hvad er forskellen mellem mennesker og dyr? 
Er vi dyriske? 
Eller har vi en iboende kreativ erkendelsesevne, som gør os i stand til at opdage nye principper — noget nyt, som ingen andre har tænkt på. 
I videnskab opdager vi nye naturvidenskabelige principper. 
I kunst opdager vi nyt om vores egne kreative evner, som kan deles med andre, som i et orkester eller kor eller med tilhørerene. 
  
Skønhed, som Schiller sagde, forædle vores følelser og vores intellekt — 
ikke kun rå følelser som dominerer os uden intellekt,  
ikke kun intellekt uden medfølelse og næstekærlighed. 
  
Men gennem at lege, speciel gennem kunst, at spille, kan de to går op i en højere enhed, som vi kalder en æstetisk tilstand, når vi er omfavnet af skønhed.  
  
Det var Schillers løsning efter den franske revolution, som ikke endte som den amerikanske, men i et blodbad. 
  
Platon skrev, at den vigtigste uddannelse for sjælen var musik — at fylde sjælen med skønhed og gøre den skøn. 
Mennesket ville så lovprise skønhed, modtage den med glæde i sin sjæl, og blive til en skøn sjæl. 
  
Den 16. december fejrer vi Beethoven 250-års fødselsdag. 
Vi fejrer ham, som en af de mest kreative sjæle i historien, men vi fejrer også menneskehedens erkendelsesmæssige evner.  
  
Studér Beethoven for bedre at forstå, hvad vi mennesker er. 
Beethoven, selv da han ikke var i stand til at høre sin egne musik, hørte den alligevel i sit sind, og udfordrede sig selv til at lave det ene gennembrud efter det anden. 
  
Der var ingen stilstand eller entropi, men hvad LaRouche kalder ikke-entropi.  
  
At viljemæssigt blive mere og mere bevist om, at kende sine egne erkendelsesmæssige evner, og presse dem til det yderste for at kunne stige op til det næste niveau, og som han skrev, at nærme sig Guds egen skaberkraft. 
  
Og han havde et formål: at opløfte den trængende menneskehed.  
Han var bevidst om musikkens rolle med at forædle menneskene.  
  
Gennem at spille, synge eller lytte, kan Beethovens kreativitet deles med andre —  
noderne på papiret, er ikke kun toner, men nøglen til Beethovens kreative sind.  
  
Og dermed kan andre mennesker bekræfte et positivt menneskesyn, som også havde en politisk dimension for Beethoven — stræben efter frihed.  
Som Schiller sagde, vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed. 
  
For at fejre Beethoven så lyt til eller syng og spil hans værker. Genoplev hans åndelige gennembrud, bekræft den menneskelig kreativitet, skab et samfund, hvor vi kan genopdage den tabte kunst at skabe skøn musik,  
måske endnu mere kreativ end Beethoven, og udvikle vores erkendelsesmæssige evner, for hele menneskehedens skyld. 
  
Så blev der spillet den første del af 2. sats af Beethovens 7. symfoni, dirigeret af Wilhelm Furtwängler, som eksempel.  
Ud fra en enkel begyndelse tilføjes flere og flere stemmer for at skabe noget stort og opløftende. 

 

 

Billede af det amerikanske flag. WikiImages fra Pixabay 




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 18. juni 2020:
COVID-19 vil være her en tid.
4-magtsalliance kan sikre samarbejde om global økonomisk opbygning.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Schiller Instituttet · COVID-19 vil være her en tid. 4-magtsalliance kan sikre samarbejde om global økonomisk opbygning



POLITISK ORIENTERING den 14 maj 2020.
Den nye coronastrategi og kampen for økonomisk genrejsning

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

 

Resumé

Coronakrisen:

Mette Frederiksen og regeringen viser stadigvæk stærkt lederskab under coronakrisen med den ny coronastrategi, men vi skal bruge de nødvendige penge til at ansætte folk til testning, laboratorier og smittesporing.

Konspirationsteorierne om, at coronakrisen det er bare en komplot for at Bill Gates kan sælge farlige vaciner til verden, eller for at indføre et diktatur er vildledende propaganda. Det er heller ikke rigtigt at COVID19 skulle være skabt i et kinesisk laboratorium.

Vi står med ”The Big One” siger Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

Kombinationen af kriser: sundhed, økonomi, landbrug – det hele. Hvad Lyndon LaRouche havde advaret om i 50 år.

Som LaRouche altid spurgte: Har vores civilisation den moralske kapacitet til at overleve?

Verdens Fødevareorganisationen WFP advarer om, at 300.000 mennesker kan dø om dagen pga. det coronaudløste kollaps i fødevareproduktion, hvis vi ikke gør noget. 3,3 mia. mennesker arbejder i uformelle jobs, uden nogen form for social sikkerhed.

Vi har brug for et nyt nyt Bretton Woods kreditsystem og LaRouches fire økonomisk love.

Schiller Instituttet arbejder på en plan for halvanden milliarder nye jobs til at opbygge verden.

Glem den klimadagsordenen.

75 år-året for den 9. maj 1945: Victory in Europe Day:

Ånden fra Elben, hvor amerikanske og russiske soldater rakte hånden til hinanden og svor ”Aldrig mere”.

Vi har brug for en alliance mellem USA-Rusland-Kina samt Indien for at lave et globalt paradigmeskifte.

USA:

Justitsministeriet har droppet retsagen imod General Michael Flynn.

Mindst 22% arbejdsløshed.

Kvantitiave lempelser for finansverden, men ikke meget til produktion.

Vil Trump vedtage Schiller Instituttets program?

Vi må udbrede kendskab til Schiller Instituttets løsninger.

Skab en renæssance.

Gå med i Schiller Instituttets kampagne.