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

 




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 9. august 2022:
Vil vi tillade en gentagelse af 1930’ernes terror og ødelæggelser
i dagens Europa og USA?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Emner, bl.a.:

Vil vi tillade en gentagelse af 1930’ernes terror og ødelæggelser i dagens Europa og USA? 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Emner, bl.a.:
Nedsmeltning af det vestlige finanssystem: hyperinflation, rentestigninger, fødevarekrise og nu oven i et truende økonomisk sammenbrud i Europa pga. Vestens sanktioner imod Rusland. 

Krisen i finanssystemet er drivkraften i ønsket om krig og kaos.

Vesten fremprovokerede krigen mellem Rusland og Ukraine. Nu forsøges en krig mellem Kina og Taiwan udløst med Nancy Pelosis besøg i Taiwan.

Skandalen om Ukraines sortliste af vestlige politikere og eksperter, inkl. samråd i Udenrigsudvalget, hvor Udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod skal svare på to spørgsmål stillet af MF Marie Krarup den 2. september:

“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?”

Pressedækning af skandalen  i Danmark, Indien, Tyskland og USA

Landmænd i oprør i Holland, Tyskland og mange andre steder over de voksende klimakrav der truer deres eksisten (og fødevareforsyningen).

Protesterne vil blive langt større i løbet af efteråret og vinteren og indbefatte langt større dele af befolkningen. Vil man slå dem ned med hård hånd for at gennemtvinge krigspolitik og grøn omstilling?

FBI’s razzia af Trumps bopæl viser at alle normale konventioner er smidt ud. Man er desperate for at beholde magten med alle midler.

Vil vi i Danmark ofre vores velfærd for militær oprustning og fortsatte meningsløse krige?

I stedet for at gøre Rusland, Kina og resten af verden til Vestens fjender skal vi samarbejde med om fred, infrastruktur og økonomisk udvikling for alle.

Derfor stiller Tom Gillesberg op til det kommende folketingsvalg for at sikre at de større spørgsmål om krig eller fred, 18 milliarder om året til mere militær eller sundhedsvæsen, uddannelse, dagpleje og investeringer i samfundsøkonomien. Meld dig og hjælp til.

 




Nordjyske artikel om Aalborg professor Li Xing:
Forsker overrasket: Er endt på Ukraines sorte liste

Følgende artikel findes på Nordjyskes hjemmeside

Aalborg-professor anklages for at have pro-russiske holdninger, men det afviser han blankt

Billedetekst: Professor Xing Li blev overrasket, da han erfarede, at han var blevet sortlistet af ukrainske myndigheder. 

– Jeg er ikke bange, for jeg har ikke handlet forkert. Jeg er heller ikke bange, men jeg er ked af det. For det er skadeligt, at de på den måde forsøger at lukke munden på frie forskere. 

Sådan siger Xing Li – professor og de seneste ti år tilknyttet Aalborg Universitets Institut for Politik og Samfund  – som en kommentar til, at han er blevet sortlistet af de ukrainske myndigheder. 

Ukraines Center for Modvirkning af Desinformation – en del af landets nationale sikkerhedsråd – kalder Xing Li og en række andre for pro-russiske og anklager dem for at bakke op om den russiske fortælling om krigen. 

I alt står der 72 navne på listen, og mange af dem er betydeligt mere kendte end den aalborgensiske professor.

Mest prominente navn er den amerikanske, republikanske senator, Rand Paul, der i senatet har blokeret for en amerikansk hjælpepakke på 40 milliarder dollar til Ukraine. Men også to tidligere franske præsidentkandidater er anført sammen med en række forskere fra hele verden. 

Men Xing Li afviser blankt, at han skulle være være hverken pro-russisk eller på nogen måde støtte den russiske invasion af Ukraine. 

Præcist hvorfor han er endt på listen er uvist, men årsagen kan være hans udtalelser på et videoseminar arrangeret af den politiske tænketank Schiller Instituttet i København.

På seminaret, der handlede om den aktuelle sikkerhedspolitiske struktur i verden og fandt sted sidst i maj, sagde Xing Li blandt andet, at udvidelsen af forsvarsalliancen Nato kan have været en afgørende faktor for, at Rusland gik ind i Ukraine, og at den blokbaserede sikkerhedspolitik ikke er holdbar i længden. 

Han sagde også, at sanktioner mod styret i Moskva ikke virker efter hensigten – at de rammer hårdere i Vesten, end de gør i Rusland. 

– Det er udtalelser, der er baseret på forskning og ikke på politisk overbevisning. Længe før krigen i Ukraine var vi mange forskere, der stillede spørgsmål ved den blokbaserede sikkerhedspolitik, og når jeg tvivler på sanktionernes effekt, er det også på baggrund af forskning, siger Xing Li. 

Han blev temmelig overrasket, da han fandt ud af, at hans navn figurerede på listen. De ukrainske myndigheder lagde den online 15. juli, men Li Xing fandt først ud af det omtrent en uge senere, da en af hans venner i Kina så listen, og gav Xing Li besked. 

– Jeg har boet i Danmark i mange år, og en af de værdier, jeg sætter højest, er ytringsfriheden og retten til fri forskning. Hvis det nu havde været den kinesiske regering, der havde lavet en lignede liste, var den helt sikkert blev fordømt af politikere, men fordi det er Ukraine, er jeg ikke sikker på, at der sker mere, siger Xing Li. 

Hvilke konsekvenser det måtte have at stå på Ukraines sorte liste er uklart – på hjemmesiden fremgår det ikke, og det er ikke lykkedes at få fat i Center for Modvirkning af Desinformation. 

På Aalborg Universitet giver Ukraines sortlistning af Xing Li ikke anledning til at tvivle på professorens evner eller intentioner i forhold til at udtale sig om konflikten.

Så længe professorens udtalelser er baseret på videnskabeligt arbejde og ikke på personlige holdninger, er det vigtigt at kunne sige, hvad man mener, lyder det fra rektor Per Michael Johansen.

– Selvom det er en meget uheldig og forfærdelig konflikt i Ukraine, skal det jo ikke bremse forskerne i at kunne fremføre de forskningsresultater, de har skabt på et forskningsfagligt grundlag, siger han til DR. 




Jyllands-Postens interview med Jens Jørgen Nielsen om Ukraine listen:
Fire danskere er blevet sortlistet af Ukraine: »Det er jo ikke første gang, jeg er blevet kaldt Putin-apologet«

Fire danskere er blevet sortlistet af Ukraine: »Det er jo ikke første gang, jeg er blevet kaldt Putin-apologet«

Ukraine har offentliggjort en liste med personer, som landet mener deler »pro-russiske fortællinger«. »Jeg tænkte da, at det var en joke,« siger historiker og forfatter Jens Jørgen Nielsen, som er en af de fire danskere på listen.

Artiklens øverste billede
Jens Jørgen Nielsen er cand. mag. i historie og idéhistorie og har i mange år specialiseret sig i Rusland. Nu fremgår han på en ukrainsk liste over personer, der spreder »pro-russisk propaganda«



NYHEDSORIENTERING JULI-AUGUST 2022:
Ukraine sortlister 30 talere på Schiller Instituttets konferencer
For et nyt Bretton-Woods kreditsystem
Ophæv sanktionerne mod Rusland!

Download (PDF, Unknown)




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




Aalborg professor Li Xings tale på Schiller Instituttets videokonference den 25. maj 2022. Links.

Li Xings tale begynder 1 time 43 min. inde i videoen.

Dansk oversættelse:

Li Xing, ph.d.: Kinesisk forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur:
 Xi Jinpings forslag fra april om en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur,
Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og det Globale Udviklingsinitiativ

Transcript of the original English version:

Li Xing, PhD: Chinese proposals for a new security and development architecture, Xi Jinpings April proposal for a new international security architecture,  the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative 




Jan Øbergs sortliste respons: Ukraine sviner folk over hele verden
til som led i desinformationskrigen

Jan Øberg var en af fire talere på Schiller Instituttets danske-svenske videokonference den 25. maj 2022, som kom på Ukraines sortliste.

Fra Jan Øbergs blog:
På Engelsk:
Ukraine smears people around the world as part of the disinformation war

his is an addendum to the article below published on July 28, 2022. The thing was worse than I had thought. I’ve been alerted to the fact that the acting director of the Ukrainian Center for Combating Disinformation, Andriy Shapovalov, had this to say at a recent seminar with the telling title: “Truth And Security”

Andrei Shapovalov: Individuals who knowingly spread disinformation are information terrorists”

Representatives of state authorities, public organizations, mass media and international experts took part in a roundtable on combating disinformation.

Participants discussed the methods used in Ukraine and abroad, as well as the legal framework and specifics of interaction between the civil society and state authorities to counter fakes and disinformation in the context of cyber security.

During the discussion, the acting head of the Centre for Combating Disinformation Andriy Shapovalov said that people who knowingly spread disinformation are information terrorists. He argued that legislation should be amended to protect the information space.

“Information terrorists must know that they will have to answer to the law as military criminals,” he added.

Also during his speech, the Acting Head of the Centre said that Ukraine has definitely taken the upper hand in the information warfare.

The roundtable was organized by the National Security Service Academy, the Civilian Research and Development Foundation of the United States (CRDF Global Ukraine), the International Academy of Information, and the coordinating platform National Cyber Security Cluster. The event was supported by the US Department of State.”

The government of Ukraine runs this Centre for Combating Disinformation as part of its National Security and Defense Council directly under President Zelensky who has this article – about making the Center an international hub – on his homepage. It’s part of a larger framework:

“The National Cybersecurity Cluster is the coordination platform that joins resources, capabilites, competencies of the Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council and the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation (CRDF Global), government institutions, international partners and private sector” – all of which participated in the mentioned seminar.

One notices the close relations with US like-minded institutions and that the seminar was “supported by the US Department of State.”

The whole thing appears bizarre and hilarious. Unintentionally comic. For years, I have argued for a peaceful solution to the conflict, including protecting Ukraine by a huge United Nations peace-making mission. See just two examples from 2014 here and here. And here are nine other articles from 2014-2017 with the word “Ukraine” in the title. I have written about Ukraine in so many other articles.

Just browse the titles and judge for yourself. Do they make me a pro-Russian disinformer? A terrorist? A man to be sentenced by a military court? Hilarious!

But this intellectual and political level makes one wonder whether what we hear from Kiyev these days is at the same level and equally untruthful.

It also makes you wonder what role the US plays in this information war.

I expect the governments of the countries in which these 70+ are citizens to take up, without delay, this smearing campaign with the Ukrainian authorities.

The original article:

The government of Ukraine runs a Center Countering Disinformation. It seems to be tasked with telling the world who carries the truth and who are Spokespeople who are pushing a rhetoric that is in tune with the Russian propaganda.

I’m including in a list issued by the Center together with around 70 people, many of whom I am honoured to be grouped with. The Center published the list on its Facebook page with a rather weird text about how they have put us all in three categories: the third, for instance, “condemn Russian aggression, but inclined Ukraine to negotiate and oppose the supply of weapons to our state (20%).” Condemning Russian aggression and being in tune with Russian propaganda. Oh, well!

I suppose I am in that category since I distanced myself from the Russian invasion of Ukraine but also believe that the present arming of Ukraine is utterly counterproductive and will have unspeakably destructive consequences for Ukraine in particular. But, sadly, the US and NATO countries are united – so far – in (mis)using Ukraine as the battlefield to weaken Russia and “win” over it. That is, as a proxy – fighting for itself and Ukraine to the last Ukrainian. See my article on that here.

On the list are a series of diplomats, professors, politicians, media people and even former CIA people and some of them have already expressed their surprise at seeing themselves on that list – for instance, Edward Luttwak who has lobbied NATO governments to send weapons to Ukraine and is generally known as a hawk.

In summary, it is one of those intellectually and morally poor attempts, of course, to smear people who have a balanced view or are not 100% on your side. It’s based on a simple twofold table and not a fourfold table – as I say in the video below. The Centre’s employees have no idea about how one makes a professional conflict analysis and choose to do what many do these days: Attack your position without understanding analytical content.

The whole thing appears bizarre, hilarious. Unintentionally comic.

Russia Today – RT – is the Russian equivalent to, say, CNN or BBC. But unless you have a proxy server, you cannot see their articles and programs because numerous Western countries have prevented access to it – in violation of your human rights, but that doesn’t bother them. They wanted to do a report and panel discussion and approached me as one of the participants. The other participant is Bradley Blankenship who is also on the Ukrainian list.

Let me be very clear – also with reference to my principled media policy: If a Ukrainian TV channel had done the same, I would of course be pleased to accept its invitation too. Let’s see whether they dare do a face-to-face with the people they have smeared on their list – best Joe McCarthy 1950 style.

I hope the link below works for you, if not here is the link to RT on Yandex – you know, RT has been thrown out of YouTube…Enjoy!
———————

Her er Jan Øbergs tale fra Schiller Instituttets videokonference:

Jan Øberg: Hvorfor vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur?//
Nej til Sverige og Finland i NATO.
Tale ved Schiller Instituttets seminar den 25. maj 2022

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




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)




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.




Næstformand Michelle Rasmussen på LaRouche-organisationens videoprogram den 29. maj 2022,
om Schiller Instituttets danske-svenske videokonference
for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur

Næstformand Michelle Rasmussen fortalte, hvorfor vi tog initiativ til at holde videokonferencen den 25. maj 2022 og om organiseringsprocessen. 

Michelle Rasmussens indlæg begynder 57 min. inde i videoen.

Bagefter er der spørgsmål og svar fra Michelle og medpanelist Richard A. Black, Schiller Instituttets repræsentant i FN, som talte om den første Euræsiske Økonomiske Forum i Kyrgyzstan den 26. maj 2022. Der var også spørgsmål om kultur og om at komponere klassisk musik.

Se konferencen her:
Vi behøver en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitekturfor alle nationer,
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke;
NEJ ved den danske folkeafstemning den 1. juni om afskaffelse af EU’s forsvarsforbehold
NEJ til Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO.




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.




Introduktion og Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale til Schiller Instituttets online-seminar fra Danmark og Sverige den 25. maj 2022

Den 25. maj 2022 (EIRNS) — Her er introduktionen og grundlæggeren af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale ved videokonferencen:
Vi har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer, ikke for en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke: 

Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO, 
“Nej” ved folkeafstemningen i Danmark om at tilslutte sig EU’s militær”. 

Introduktion ved Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand, Schiller Instituttet i Danmark 

Deres Excellencer og diplomater fra mange lande fra fire kontinenter, gæstetalere, medlemmer og venner af Schiller Instituttet, mine damer og herrer! Velkommen til dette seminar, der er sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og Sverige, og som også bliver livestreamet på YouTube. Titlen er: Vi har brug for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke. NEJ ved den danske folkeafstemning den 1. juni om afskaffelse af EU’s forsvarsforbeholdNEJ til Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO  Jeg er Michelle Rasmussen, vicepræsident for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, og jeg vil være ordstyrer i dag. Efter starten af krigen i Ukraine er der blevet foreslået et dramatisk skift i forsvarspolitikken i tre af de nordiske lande.Danmark har den 1. juni en folkeafstemning om at tilslutte sig EU’s militære aktiviteter,og Sveriges og Finlands regeringer ønsker at tilslutte sig Nato. Vi mener, at det er nødvendigt at diskutere disse spørgsmål på et højere niveau. Vores hovedtaler, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, udtalte den 19. maj, at dette er det farligste øjeblik i verdenshistorien. Der er krig i Europa, og mange eksperter advarer om, at hvis krigen ikke snart bringes til ophør, og der ikke findes en diplomatisk løsning, og hvis de, der går ind for at øge den geopolitiske konfrontation, ikke bliver politisk besejret, kan krigen eskalere og endog føre til en atomkrig. Samtidig er verdensøkonomien i krise. Selv om farerne er store, er der håb, fordi der findes løsninger i form af en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur,herunder forslag fra den afdøde Lyndon LaRouche, grundlæggeren af vores politiske bevægelse, Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Schiller Instituttet,om en sikkerhedsaftale efter forbillede af den Vestfalske Fred,kombineret med et øget økonomisk udviklingssamarbejde mellem landene. Vi har indkaldt til dette møde for at drøfte –   * Hvad er årsagen til den nuværende ekstremt farlige militære og økonomiske krise? * Hvorfor en styrkelse af EU’s militære enhed med dansk deltagelse og Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO blot vil forværre de geopolitiske konflikter. * Hvilke principper kan vi anvende til at skabe en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur til gavn for alle nationer og befolkninger? Vi ønsker at sikre, at både farerne og løsningerne er kendt, og at der opbygges en effektiv bevægelse for at stoppe en yderligere optrapning af denne krig og dens økonomiske konsekvenser, og forhindre fremtidige krige og økonomisk ødelæggelse. På en eller anden måde må menneskeheden skabe de betingelser, hvor krig ikke er en mulighed i denne atomvåbenæra.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche blev introduceret af Michelle Rasmussen, som også var ordstyrer på seminaret. 

Den første taler er Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter. Hun er også chefredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review, formand for det tyske politiske parti BüSo (Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet), og hun var hustru til og nærmeste medarbejder af den afdøde amerikanske økonom og statsmand Lyndon LaRouche.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche stod blandt mange andre ting i spidsen for en bevægelse for økonomisk udviklingssamarbejde mellem øst og vest efter Berlinmurens fald og Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, først kaldet Den eurasiske Landbro eller Den nye Silkevej, der siden blev udvidet til at blive Verdenslandbroen.

Helga, vi er glade for, at du kan tale til os i dag.

{{Helga Zepp-LaRouche:}} God dag, mine damer og herrer: Som Michelle netop har sagt, har jeg erklæret, at vi står over for den farligste krise i menneskehedens historie.  Hvorfor siger jeg nu det? Det inkluderer naturligvis to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, Cuba-krisen, så det er en stor ting. Den første grund er den mest indlysende; for allerførste gang står vi over for den reelle fare for en global atomkrig, og hvis det nogensinde skulle komme dertil, ville det helt sikkert betyde udslettelse af den menneskelige art.

I den seneste tid er der opstået en illusion om, at en begrænset atomkrig kan udkæmpes og vindes, eller at en langvarig hybrid-atom/konventionel krig kan finde sted.  Dette var emnet for en manøvre i januar i år, kaldet “Global Lightning”, som havde den antagelse, at man har nogle atombomber, neutronbomber, rumkrig, cyberkrig, og at dette ville fortsætte i ugevis. Nu har den berømte atomvåbenekspert, den tidligere MIT-professor Ted Postol, udviklet alle argumenter for, hvorfor dette er fuldstændig latterligt, hvorfor, hvis man blot bruger et enkelt atomvåben, er logikken i atomkrig, at alle vil blive brugt.

I de seneste måneder, siden krigen i Ukraine startede, har man hørt alle mulige politikere og journalister og alle mulige andre, der har holdt uforsvarlige taler og sagt ting som: “Selv om der er risiko for atomkrig, er vi nødt til at sende tunge våben til Ukraine. Vi kan ikke lade os afpresse”. Eller: “Det vil ikke ske, for ingen ville være så tåbelige at gøre det”.  Jeg synes ikke, at det er et overbevisende argument.

Den anden grund til at jeg vil påstå, at vi befinder os i den værste krise nogensinde, er, at vi oplever et civilisatorisk sammenbrud, afslutningen på et helt system. Dette har mange aspekter.  Vi har en umiddelbar fare for en optrapning af krigen som følge af NATO’s nuværende krigspolitik over for Rusland, der er baseret på konfrontation. Vi står over for et hyperinflationært sammenbrud af det vestlige neoliberale finanssystem, som længe har været undervejs, selv før krigen i Ukraine begyndte. Vi står over for en hungersnød i verden, som ifølge FN truer 1,7 mia. mennesker med sult.  Det er 20 % af hele menneskeheden. Pandemien er ikke overstået, og alt dette truer med socialt kaos som følge heraf, og dette kaos kan i sig selv true med at kaste verden ud i en krig.

Hvis man lytter til de vestlige medier og alle mulige politikere, skal det hele naturligvis bebrejdes Putin. Han får alle mulige betegnelser lige nu: at han har forvoldt en “uprovokeret angrebskrig”, at han er ansvarlig for hungersnøden i verden, at han er årsag til inflationen, osv.  Hvis man fremsætter noget som helst argument for de virkelige årsager til den nuværende situation, bliver man straks beskyldt for fake news, man bliver kaldt “Putin-agent”, det bliver fordømt som Rusland-propaganda.  

Men det har meget lidt at gøre med Ukraine.  I virkeligheden handler denne nuværende konfrontation om verdensordenen. Det er en kamp mellem en unipolær verden, som i virkeligheden er et verdensimperium baseret på det “særlige amerikansk-britiske forhold”, hvor det angloamerikanske herredømme insisterer på, at kun den såkaldte “regelbaserede orden”, som de har defineret, er gyldig, imod en verden hvor Kinas fremvækst og lande, der er associeret med Rusland og Kina, insisterer på deres egen ret til økonomisk udvikling. 

Vi befinder os lige nu i det mest usikre øjeblik: Det neoliberale system er ved at bryde sammen.  Det er ikke længere stærkt nok til at gennemtvinge sin vilje, men den nye orden er endnu ikke klart defineret. I den officielt tilladte diskussion siges det naturligvis, at dette er en kamp mellem “demokratier” og “autokratiske regimer”. Men hvis man lytter til, hvad visse politikere og folk som Stoltenberg siger, er vi lige nu på vej mod en potentiel total afkobling mellem Vesten samt Five Eyes plus Japan, Australien og Sydkorea over for en del af verden, som omfatter Rusland, Kina, Shanghai-samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), BRICS, samt mange lande der nu forsøger at blive en del af BRICS, hvilket er det meste af det globale syd. 

Med hektiske udflugter farer Blinken rundt i verden og forsøger at overbevise folk om at slutte sig til “demokratiernes” fraktion.  Præsident Biden er lige nu i Asien og forsøger at gøre det samme. Kansler Scholz har for nylig rejst til Afrika, von der Leyen til Indien, alt sammen i et forsøg på at isolere Rusland og Kina, men det virker ikke: Fordi Indien, Indonesien, Brasilien, Egypten, Nigeria, Sydafrika og mange andre ikke ønsker at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konfrontation mellem de to parter.  Det, vi faktisk oplever, er en reel renæssance for Den alliancefrie Bevægelse.

Vi må ikke overse briternes rolle i lyset af den amerikanske politik, som er “Global Britain”, hvilket i virkeligheden er et nyt ord for det Britiske Imperium, som i modsætning til hvad mange tror, kun har ændret form, men ikke dets væsen. Tag f.eks. en artikel af Malcolm Chalmers, vicegeneraldirektør for Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), som i øvrigt er den ældste officielle tænketank med tilknytning til kongehuset og det britiske militær. De beskriver sig selv som “verdens ældste og førende britiske tænketank inden for forsvar og sikkerhed”.  De foreslår en “Cuba-krise på steroider”, som kunne blive resultatet af Ukraines forsøg på at generobre Krim, hvilket efter deres mening ville gøre det lettere at løse krigen mellem Ukraine og Rusland.  Dette er det forbløffende forslag i denne artikel, som har overskriften: “This War Still Presents Nuclear Risks – Especially in Relation to Crimea”, som blev offentliggjort den 20. maj af tænketanken RUSI. [https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crimea]

Chalmers diskuterer, hvordan Rusland kunne blive tvunget ind i en nuklear konfrontation ved at sende stadig mere sofistikerede våben til Ukraine, som det i sidste ende ville trække sig tilbage fra. Chalmers beskriver NATO’s strategi i de sidste tre måneder som en strategi, der går ud på at “koge den russiske frø”. I husker alle billedet – ifølge historien, jeg tror ikke, at det faktisk er sandt – men ifølge historien, hvis man smider en frø i kogende vand, vil den hoppe ud; men hvis man lægger frøen i gryden, når vandet er koldt, og så langsomt øger temperaturen, ender frøen med at blive kogt, uden at den opdager det. Så han taler om at “koge den russiske frø” ved gradvist at øge “størrelsen og graden af raffinement af de våben, som de har været parate til at levere til Ukraine”. På grund af disse våben vil man “i den næste periode se Ukraine tilbagevinde de fleste af Ruslands seneste territoriale gevinster, herunder Kherson og endda Mariupol.” Det ville imidlertid ikke give anledning til en atomtrussel, og det ville heller ikke give Ukraine anledning til at bruge disse våben og territoriale vindinger til at ødelægge broer, jernbanehoveder, lagerpladser og luftbaser inde i Rusland. Men hvis Ukraine skulle forsøge at generobre Krim og angribe et “fristende mål”, f.eks. broen i Kertj, på nuværende tidspunkt, kunne det føre til en “Krim-missilkrise”, mener Chalmers. “En specifik trussel om at bruge atomvåben i forbindelse med Krim … kunne Putin se som en måde at genoprette noget af sin magtanvendelse på, selv om han (og USA) tvivlede på, om han ville gennemføre en sådan trussel…. Hvis en rød linje ikke blev accepteret af Ukraine, kunne Rusland så føle sig nødsaget til at overveje en række yderligere optrapningsmuligheder, såsom at sætte sine atomstyrker i højere beredskab.” De er allerede i beredskab. “Stillet over for alternativet med det sandsynlige tab af Krim, kunne Putin tro, at Ukraine (med USA’s opmuntring) sandsynligvis ville blinke først. Det ville være et øjeblik med ekstrem fare, hvor alle parter ville forsøge at forstå hinandens hensigter, selv om de søgte at varetage deres nationale interesser.

“Netop på grund af den fare der ligger i en sådan situation, kunne en atomkrise af denne art gøre det lettere for lederne at indgå vanskelige kompromiser. Forudsat at krigen blev afsluttet og blokaden af Odessa ophævet, kunne Ukraines ledere være villige til at udskyde en løsning af Krim-spørgsmålet. For Putin ville en mislykket invasion og den efterfølgende succes for den ukrainske modoffensiv have været en massiv ydmygelse. Men han ville i det mindste kunne argumentere for, at det russiske strategiske arsenals styrke på et tidspunkt med stor national svækkelse havde haft held til at afskrække NATO’s planer om at splitte Rusland op. Dette kunne være nok for begge parter til at undgå det værste resultat af alle.”

Jeg mener, at det er fuldstændig vanvittigt! At sige at man skal true med at generobre Krim og derefter sætte alle atomvåben i højeste alarmberedskab, og så kan vi sætte os ned og finde en løsning.  Så han kalder det en Krim-cubansk missilkrise på steroider.  

Denne politik med at “koge den russiske frø” er ikke begyndt for tre måneder siden, men det har været metoden siden 1990, da James Baker III den 9. februar 1990 lovede Gorbatjov, at NATO ikke ville bevæge sig en tomme mod øst. I hele Jeltsin-perioden var der en politik, der gik ud på at reducere den tidligere supermagt til en råstofeksporterende nation med Jeffrey Sachs’ “chokterapi”, og mellem 1991-1994 blev Ruslands industrielle potentiale reduceret til kun 30 %. Der findes en meget vigtig bog af Sergei Glazyev, som beskriver 1990’erne, med titlen {Folkemord: Rusland og den nye verdensorden}, fordi dette var hvad der blev pålagt Rusland på det tidspunkt. 

Putins forbrydelse er, at han forsøgte at omgøre dette og havde en vis succes med det.  Svaret var farverevolutioner, regimeskift, humanitære krige, som de 20 år i Afghanistan, hvor der som følge af NATO’s og USA’s forhastede tilbagetrækning i august nu er 24 millioner mennesker, der sulter i Afghanistan, udsat for COVID, mæslinger, polio, uden tilstrækkelig medicin.  Så hvis man havde haft en lige så omfattende tv-dækning af Afghanistan i 20 år, som vi ser det nu med Ukraine hver dag, ville verden måske have været lige så oprevet – eller, måske ikke, for afghanerne er ikke hvide.

Så havde vi Irak-krigen i 2003, hvor Nancy Pelosi offentligt indrømmede, at alle ansvarlige mennesker på forhånd vidste, at der ikke fandtes masseødelæggelsesvåben.  Der var Libyen.  Hillary Clinton måtte under Durham-undersøgelsen i USA indrømme, at hele grundlaget for Russiagate udelukkende var usandheder. Har man set noget om det i de etablerede medier?  Absolut ikke!  I hvert fald ikke i Europa.  Så var der Syrien.  Så var der Maidan-kuppet i 2014, som Victoria Nuland pralede med, og hvor Udenrigsministeriet brugte 5 mia. dollars på ngo’er, og, lad os ikke glemme, Azov-bataljonen, hvor medierne i Vesten nu siger, at der ikke er nogen nazister i Ukraine – men det er et dokumenteret faktum, at det er der.

Som et resultat af denne “kogning af den russiske frø” gennem næsten 30 år, krævede Putin den 15. december juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier fra USA og NATO. Han har ikke modtaget noget svar fra USA eller NATO på de væsentligste krav, kun på våbenkontrol, men det var ikke essensen af det, han anmodede om. Lederen af det russiske sikkerhedsråd, Nikolaj Patrusjev, erklærede, at Rusland ikke havde nogen anden udvej, fordi Ruslands eksistens som stat var truet, da de foretog det, de kalder den “særlige militære operation” i Ukraine. Man kan absolut argumentere for, at Rusland var i en situation, i henhold til FN-pagtens artikel 51, som er et spørgsmål om selvforsvar og ikke om aggression.

Nu står vi over for den sjette udvidelse af NATO i forbindelse med Finland og Sverige.  Det er reaktionen, som Stoltenberg endda praler af.  Han siger: “Putin ville have mindre NATO, nu får han mere NATO.”  Så kogepunktet bliver bare øget.

Man må betragte denne vanvittige politik for at fremkalde en Krim-Cuba-krise sammen med en anden britisk politik, som blev afsløret i et dokument fra Henry Jackson Society i 2020, som de igen har anbragt på forsiden af Henry Jackson Societys hjemmeside, hvilket betyder, at det er den igangværende politik fra denne tænketank. Det er en rapport, der skitserer en strategi for at bruge den berygtede “Five Eyes”-alliance – Storbritannien, USA, Canada, Australien og New Zealand – som et instrument til at gennemtvinge Vestens afkobling fra Kina. Denne rabiate anti-russiske, anti-kinesiske neokonservative tænketank drives af den britiske efterretningstjeneste, bl.a. gennem den tidligere MI6-chef Sir Richard Dearlove, som er den primære hjerne bag Russiagate, der blev fuldstændig miskrediteret som en løgn, og han var en af stifterne af Henry Jackson Society og er en af dets ledere i dag. 

Så selv forsøget på at afkoble Kina fra det internationale system kunne, før det gennemføres, detonere en økonomisk atombombe over hele verdensøkonomien.  Kina er ikke blot verdens største handelsmagt: Det skaber i øjeblikket den højeste videnskabelige og teknologiske udviklingstakt på planeten, en produktiv kraft, som landene i udviklingssektoren og de sammenstyrtende vestlige nationer har hårdt brug for, hvis de vil overleve.  Men en egentlig atomkrig kan også blive resultatet, for en del af Henry Jackson Societys strategi er at opbygge forbindelser med Taiwan, der fører til dets adskillelse fra Kina.  Kina har gjort det helt klart, at det vil reagere med overvældende militær magt på ethvert forsøg på at adskille Taiwan fra resten af Kina. Dette er lige så farligt som et NATO-støttet Ukraine, der forsøger at generobre Krim. Så, præsident Biden begik den bommert i sit svar til en journalist på sin rejse til Japan for nylig, adspurgt: “Ville USA forsvare Taiwan militært?” Biden svarede igen: “Ja.” Og han måtte endnu en gang blive korrigeret af Det Hvide Hus.

Kineserne har allerede skrevet i deres lederartikler, at dette ikke er en “bommert”, men et signal om USA’s virkelige hensigt.  Og Chas Freeman, der var assisterende forsvarsminister for internationale sikkerhedsanliggender, og den officielle oversætter for præsident Nixon på hans rejse til Kina i 1972, samt en karrierediplomat, advarede og kaldte det en kolossal fejltagelse af Biden at have lavet en så tåbelig udmelding. 

Præsident Biden er i øjeblikket fortaler for netop disse britiske strategier på sin nuværende rejse til Asien. Lige efter at have fejret udvidelsen af NATO skal Biden afsløre en storslået økonomisk rammeaftale, Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) som højdepunkt på sin rejse under sit stop i Japan. Den nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Jake Sullivan erklærede onsdag den 18. maj uden omsvøb, at budskabet i IPEF er, at “demokratier og åbne samfund i verden står sammen om at forme reglerne for fremtiden”. Vi tror, at dette budskab vil blive hørt overalt. Vi tror, at det vil blive hørt i Beijing.” 

52 amerikanske senatorer sendte Biden af sted på sin rejse med instrukser om, at Taiwan skulle indlemmes som et af de “lande”, der deltager i IPEF, hvilket helt klart ikke er acceptabelt set fra Kinas side, fordi det er en overtrædelse af Et-Kina-politikken.

Nu er der netop i dag, hvis man åbner medierne, hvis man ser på tv eller aviser, en kæmpestor skandalehistorie om billeder fra de påståede arbejdslejre i Xinjiang, der blev “undersøgt” af en gruppe internationale medier, hvor 1 million uighurer skulle være blevet tortureret, slået i arbejdslejre, tvangsarbejde osv.  Naturligvis udbrød vores såkaldte udenrigsminister, Annalena Baerbock (Tyskland), straks et ramaskrig og krævede en transparent afklaring af beskyldningerne. Opfordringer om at alle forbindelser med Kina skal afbrydes – efter at forbindelserne med Rusland er blevet afbrudt – og at al handel med Kina skal stoppes, lad os nu se realistisk på det: Kina var i 2021 den tredjestørste partner for EU’s vareeksport, 10,2 %, og den største partner for EU’s vareimport, 22,4 %; for Tyskland var Kina den største handelspartner for varer i 2021 med et handelsvolumen på over 245 mio. At skære ned på dette ville betyde totalt økonomisk selvmord, hvilket allerede er ved at ske med forbindelserne med Rusland. 

Hvad er kilden til denne utrolige historie?  Ifølge {Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung}, en af de førende aviser i Tyskland, er alle fotos og data blevet stillet til rådighed af Adrian Zenz, en tysk antropolog og mangeårig observatør af Xinjiang.  Nu hævder denne Adrian Zenz, at han har fået alt dette fra en “unavngiven kilde”, som havde adgang til cyber, cyberkrigsspionage og hvad ved jeg.  Det er en meget tvivlsom observation.  Men Adrian Zenz er ikke en ukendt person: Bloggen, The Grayzone, og de meget respekterede undersøgende journalister Ajit Singh og Max Blumenthal skrev allerede i 2019, efter at han var kommet med en lignende historie om folkemord i Xinjiang, artikler om, at Zenz er en “højreekstremistisk fundamentalistisk kristen, der er imod homoseksualitet og ligestilling mellem kønnene, støtter “bibelsk prygl”‘ af børn, og tror at han er “ledet af Gud” på en “mission” mod Kina.”, fordi dommedag er nær, og opkomsten af antikrist også er på vej.  Han er helt ude i hampen og siger, at der er folkemord i Xinjiang, på grund af et sammenbrud i uighurernes demografiske kurve, og Lyle Goldstein, der er professor ved Naval War College i USA, siger, at en sådan udtalelse er “latterlig i en sådan grad, at den er provokerende over for dem, der mistede slægtninge i Holocaust”. 

Der er rigeligt bevis for, at der ikke er tale om noget “demografisk sammenbrud” blandt uighurerne i Xinjiang: Tværtimod.  Der er en undersøgelse fra 2019 i det britiske medicinske tidsskrift {Lancet}, som omhandler en massiv forbedring af den forventede levealder blandt uighurerne, en demografisk vækstrate, som er meget højere end hos Han-kineserne, en forbedring af mødres sundhed, faldende børnedødelighed, og alt dette repræsenterer “en bemærkelsesværdig succeshistorie”.

Zenz’ såkaldte vidnesbyrd kommer fra eksil-uighurere, som er blevet kultiveret af det amerikanske udenrigsministerium. Zenz har været medlem af Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation i Washington, D.C., som er en højreorienteret lobbygruppe, der er affødt af National Captive Nations Committee.  Det er en meget, meget interessant forbindelse, for den blev grundlagt af den ukrainske nationalist Lev Dobriansky, som står i spidsen for denne institution, hvis medformand var Yaroslav Stetsko, som var leder af OUN-B-militsen, som er den nazistiske gruppe, der kæmpede sammen med de tyske nazister under besættelsen af Ukraine under Anden Verdenskrig.  Stetsko og hans kone havde en bopæl i München i hele efterkrigstiden og ledede derfra den “Anti-bolsjevikiske Blok af nationer”. Efter hans død rejste fru Stetsko til Ukraine og genopbyggede OUN-B, Bandera-organisationen, i traditionen fra Stepan Banderas ideer.  Se, det er nu en direkte forbindelse til dette apparat, som var stærkt ledet af de vestlige efterretningstjenester – Bandera selv blev medlem af MI6 i 1947, og BND i München havde et tæt, i det mindste “kendskab” til disse mennesker (for at sige det mildt).

Zenz blev også indsat af Jamestown Foundation, en neokonservativ tænketank i Washington D.C., der blev grundlagt af CIA-direktør William Casey, som en kanal for udenrigsministeriel til at betale sovjetiske dissidenter.  

Hvis Tyskland eller andre europæiske nationer falder for denne efterretningsoperation, som er præcis det, som Henry Jackson Society talte om, nemlig “Five Eyes” på arbejde, hvis de følger dette, vil det være et totalt økonomisk selvmord. Nu er selv Henry Kissinger i en alder af 99 år mere fornuftig, og i Davos udtalte han, at verden højst har et tidsrum på to måneder til at afslutte krigen i Ukraine gennem forhandlinger, og han appellerede til Ukraine om at gå med til et territorialt kompromis for at opnå fred.

På Schiller Instituttets konference den 9. april præsenterede vi en helt anden tilgang: Der er et alternativ til den fuldstændige afkobling mellem de såkaldte “demokratier” og det Globale Syd på den anden side.  Det nye system er allerede ved hastigt at udvikles. Der er mange lande, som på det nylige udenrigsministermøde i BRICS, ønsker at være en del af dette: Argentina, Indonesien, Egypten, Nigeria og mange andre.  Vi har BRICS i udvidet form, vi har Shanghai-samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), næsten alle organisationer i det Globale Syd, som ønsker at blive en del af en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som grundlæggende er en kombination af det kinesiske Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ samt to andre forslag fra præsident Xi Jinping: Det Globale Udviklings Initiativ og det Globale Sikkerheds Initiativ, som aktivt er ved at blive gennemført.  

Nu har vi behov for en sådan konference om en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur i traditionen fra Den Westfalske Fred.  Den Westfalske Fred var en erkendelse fra alle krigens parter om, at hvis de fortsatte krigen, ville ingen være tilbage til at nyde sejren, fordi de alle ville være døde.  Derfor udviklede de princippet om, at enhver fred skal være baseret på den andens interesser. Sikkerhedsinteresserne for alle lande på planeten, hvilket i dag ville betyde en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der i høj grad inddrager Rusland og Kina. En sådan konference skal adressere årsagerne til så stor en krigsfare: For det er ikke nok på nuværende tidspunkt at være imod krigen.  Man er nødt til at løse det problem, at det neoliberale finanssystems sammenbrud er i gang.

Lyndon LaRouche har den usædvanlige fortjeneste, at han forudså det, der sker i dag, den nuværende krise, allerede i august 1971, da Nixon afsluttede det gamle Bretton Woods-system, ved at erstatte systemet med faste valutakurser med et system med flydende valutakurser, og LaRouche forudsagde dengang, at hvis man fortsatte på den vej, ville det føre til en ny depression, fare for en ny krig og fascisme.  Det er præcis, hvor vi er i dag.

LaRouche foreslog fire love til at løse krisen. Det første skridt, et globalt Glass-Steagall-bankopdelingssystem, skal gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien.  Der skal være kapital- og valutakontrol for at forhindre den spekulative manipulation af valutaer, som vi lige nu ser i store dele af verden.

Hvert land skal have en nationalbank for atter at gøre skabelse af kredit til et anliggende for den suveræne regering i Alexander Hamiltons tradition og ikke for private bankfolk. Derefter skal disse nationalbanker være forbundet gennem et kreditsystem, som giver langsigtet kredit med lav rente til reelle investeringer i den fysiske økonomi.

Den fjerde lov består af, at vi skal have et forceret program for fusionsteknologi, som i den seneste periode har gjort utrolige fremskridt, og den kommercielle anvendelse af den er umiddelbart forestående.  Vi har brug for en massiv forøgelse af verdensøkonomiens produktivitet, for alene det faktum, at 1,7 milliarder mennesker er truet af sult, at 2 milliarder mennesker ikke har rent vand, er beviset på, at det nuværende produktivitetsniveau er faldet langt under det niveau, der er nødvendigt for at opretholde den nuværende befolkning i verden på 8 milliarder mennesker.  

Der skal være et internationalt samarbejde, ikke kun om fusionsteknologi, men også om rumteknologi og rumfart, for det udgør den videnskabelige og teknologiske spydspids i dag.

Vi står lige nu over for en situation, hvor de førende regeringer og institutioner er udfordret:  Er vi i stand til at løse verdens problemer, er vi i stand til at løse de problemer, der truer menneskehedens eksistens, eller er vi ikke i stand til at løse dem?  Schiller Instituttet har i mere end 30 år foreslået først Den Eurasiske Landbro, Den Nye Silkevej, og i 2013 foreslog vi “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen”. Vis venligst diasbilledet: Dette er en plan for, hvordan vi kan overvinde verdens fattigdom, hvordan vi kan udrydde underudvikling for altid, og hvordan vi kan skabe et nyt, moderne globalt sundhedssystem for alle lande i verden, hvilket er den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan overvinde gamle og nye sygdomme, denne pandemi og truende nye pandemier. 

Det er bestemt muligt, og det er visionen om, hvordan verden vil se ud om nogle få år, hvis vi i øvrigt undgår den nuværende fare for atomkrig.  Udviklingen af infrastruktur, der forbinder alle kontinenter, er den naturlige måde, hvorpå infrastrukturudviklingen vil fortsætte, forudsat at der er fred. Jeg mener, at det er noget, vi skal sætte på dagsordenen til diskussion, og grunden til, at man trods den utrolige fare kan være optimistisk, er, at vi er den menneskelige art, vi er i stand til at ræssonere, og vi er ikke barbarer.

Mange tak.

Rasmussen: OK, we have 10 minutes now questions to Helga. 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.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 17. maj 2022:
Meld dig til vores sikkerheds videokonference fra Danmark og Sverige den 25. maj kl. 13.30-16.30

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Videokonference invitation:

Invitation til at deltage i et gratis internationalt onlineseminar arrangeret af

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og Sverige:  

Vi behøver en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur

for alle nationer, 

ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke
 
Schiller Instituttet anbefaler:
 
NEJ ved den danske folkeafstemning den 1. juni om afskaffelse af EU’s forsvarsforbehold
NEJ til Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO 
 
Dato: Onsdag den 25. maj 2022
 
Tid: 13:30-16:30 dansk tid (CEST)
 
Online via Zoom
 
Gratis adgang
 
Seminaret vil blive afholdt på engelsk.
 
Tilmeldelse kan ske til si@schillerinstitut.dk, +45 53 57 00 51
 
På seminaret hos Schiller Instituttet vil følgende emner blive drøftet:
 
* Hvad er årsagen til den nuværende ekstremt farlige militære og økonomiske krise?
 
* Hvorfor en styrkelse af EU’s militære enhed med dansk deltagelse og Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO blot vil forværre de geopolitiske konflikter.
 
* Hvilke principper kan vi anvende til at skabe en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur til gavn for alle nationer og befolkninger?
 
Program:
 
* Verden har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident.
 
* Baggrunden for krigen mellem Ukraine-NATO og Rusland.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen, uddannet i idé- og kommunikationshistorie, Moskva-korrespondent for det 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.
 
* Hvorfor vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur?

Jan Øberg, ph.d., freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf, ph.d. i sociologi, gæsteprofessor i freds- og konfliktstudier i Japan, Spanien, Østrig og Schweiz, medstifter og direktør for det uafhængige TFF, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, i Lund, Sverige, og forfatter.
 
* Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings forslag af 21. april 2022 om en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur.
 
Professor Li Xing, ph.d., professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Institut for Politik og Samfund, Det Humanistiske og Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet, og forfatter.
 
* Hvorfor Danmark bør afstå fra et intensiveret geopolitisk militært engagement.
 
Tom Gillesberg, formand, Schiller Instituttet i Danmark
 
* Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO.
 
Ulf Sandmark, formand, Schiller Instituttet i Sverige
 
Information: si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51

———————

Som baggrund er her uddrag af en tale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlæggeren og præsidenten for Schiller Instituttet, holdt på en online-konference med unge den 7. maj 2022. Hele talen kan læses nedenunder.

 

“Vi faktisk befinder os i et utroligt farligt øjeblik. Men der er også håb…. Det er kun muligt, hvis vi overvinder idéen om geopolitik.

Geopolitik er den idé, at der altid vil være en blok af nationer eller en nation, som vil definere eller er nødt til at definere sine interesser over for en anden blok af nationer, og at der altid vil være en dødbringende kontrovers, hvor enten den ene eller den anden vinder, og det hele vil være et nulsumsspil. Det er netop hvad der må og kan overvindes.

Det vi skal gøre er at etablere en international orden, hvor det princip, som denne orden grundlæggende er baseret på, er tanken om, at hver nation har ret til, og mulighed for, at udvikle alle deres borgeres potentialer. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor vi har brug for en systemisk ændring: En fuldstændig fornyelse af systemet. Grunden til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at situationen er meget presserende.

Flere og flere analytikere og eksperter er enige om, at faren for Tredje Verdenskrig er akut, at situationen er farligere end på højdepunktet af Den kolde Krig….

Så vi er et hårsbred fra den menneskelige civilisations udslettelse…. Hvis den nuværende politik fortsættes, kan denne verden nemlig ende meget pludseligt om få minutter, om få dage, uger eller måneder, og krigen i Ukraine er naturligvis et brændpunkt. Men hele denne krise handler ikke om Ukraine. Den handler om, hvilken slags verdensorden der skal eksistere: Skal det være en unipolær verden, domineret af en eller to nationer? Skal det være en “regelbaseret orden”, hvor en lille klub af nationer udstikker reglerne? Eller skal den være multipolær, og skal den være baseret på folkeretten, som den er udtrykt i FN-pagten?…

Jeg tror, at det er det, der er udgangspunktet: Kun hvis man gør det klart for sig selv, at atomkrig mellem de to største atommagter, USA og Rusland, betyder udslettelse af menneskeheden, og derefter mobiliserer for, at krigen skal stoppe, og kæmper for et alternativ, som skal starte med tanken om, at krigen skal stoppe; diplomati og forhandlinger skal straks starte for at finde en løsning, der er acceptabel for alle parter….

Nu skal vi gøre os klart, og det er holdningen hos alle, der arbejder med Schiller Instituttet, at krig ikke kan være en metode til konfliktløsning i en tid med atomvåben; og jeg siger ikke, at denne krig skulle have fundet sted, men man er nødt til at forstå årsagerne til, at den fandt sted.”

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, “Det hele startede i forbindelse med den tyske genforening, da Berlinmuren faldt, og den amerikanske udenrigsminister James Baker III lovede Gorbatjov, at NATO ikke ville flytte sig en tomme mod øst.

En pensioneret tysk general ved navn Harald Kujat, som havde været formand for NATO’s militærkomité i 2002-2005, har netop givet et interview til et tysk tidsskrift, hvori han sagde, at hovedvægten ikke længere ligger på at beskytte og bistå Ukraine i dets forsvarskamp mod et russisk angreb, hvilket er i strid med folkeretten, men på at svække Rusland som strategisk rival på lang sigt….” 

[Nationer med] 2,2 milliarder mennesker, de nægter alle at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konfrontation mellem USA og NATO på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side.

Samtlige af disse lande holder fast ved idéen om alliancefrihed, og det tror jeg er nøglen til fred lige nu. Fordi principperne for den alliancefri bevægelse, som var principperne i FN-pagten, Bandung-konferencen, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, som er suverænitet, ikke-indblanding i det andet lands indre anliggender, accept af det andet samfundssystem….

Jeg mener, at vi i traditionen fra Den Westfalske Fred, som afsluttede 150 års krig i Europa, har brug for en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som først og fremmest tager hensyn til udviklingslandenes interesser; der skal ske en forøgelse af levestandarden for hvert enkelt individ, både i Europa, USA, Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det er afgørende for, om menneskeheden kan overleve. Det betyder, at vi har brug for et nyt paradigme i vores tænkning, nemlig idéen om, at hver nation har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale. Hvert barn, alle børn, der fødes, uanset i hvilken nation i verden, har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale, hvilket betyder, at det skal have en universel uddannelse….

Vi har aldrig været på et vigtigere tidspunkt i historien, og farerne har aldrig været så store, men potentialet for at skabe en helt ny verden har aldrig været så tæt på: At gøre en ende på kolonialismen, at skabe en økonomi baseret på termonuklear fusion, hvilket ville betyde, at vi har energi og råstof sikkerhed for alle nationer, at vi kan få et internationalt samarbejde om udnyttelse af rummet, at menneskeheden bliver voksen, og at geopolitiske krige bliver et spørgsmål fra fortiden.”

Vi håber inderligt, at du vil have mulighed for at deltage i denne vigtige begivenhed, og at du vil dele denne invitation og opfordre andre mennesker til at deltage. 

Hjemmesider:

Danish: Schiller Instituttet

Swedish: Schillerinstitutet

English: The Schiller Institute | A New Paradigm for the Survival of Civilization 




Schiller Institutterne i Danmark og Sverige holdte en videokonference den 25. maj:
Vi har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer,
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke.
Vi anbefaler NEJ til at afskaffe EU forsvarsforbeholdet og NEJ til svensk/finsk NATO medlemskab.

Invitation til at deltage i et
gratis internationalt onlineseminar arrangeret af
Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og Sverige:  

Vi behøver en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur

for alle nationer, 
ikke en styrkelse af geopolitiske blokke
 
Schiller Instituttet anbefaler:
 
NEJ ved den danske folkeafstemning den 1. juni om afskaffelse af EU’s forsvarsforbehold
NEJ til Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO 
 
Dato: Onsdag den 25. maj 2022
 
Tid: 13:30-16:30 dansk tid (CEST)
 
Online via Zoom
 
Gratis adgang
 
Seminaret vil blive afholdt på engelsk.
 
Tilmeldelse kan ske til si@schillerinstitut.dk, 53 57 00 51
 
På seminaret hos Schiller Instituttet vil følgende emner blive drøftet:
 
* Hvad er årsagen til den nuværende ekstremt farlige militære og økonomiske krise?
 
* Hvorfor en styrkelse af EU’s militære enhed med dansk deltagelse og Sveriges og Finlands optagelse i NATO blot vil forværre de geopolitiske konflikter.
 
* Hvilke principper kan vi anvende til at skabe en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur til gavn for alle nationer og befolkninger?
 
Program:
 
* Verden har brug for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur. 
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident.
dansk oversættelse

 
* Baggrunden for krigen mellem Ukraine-NATO og Rusland.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen, uddannet i idé- og kommunikationshistorie, Moskva-korrespondent for det 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.
afskrift på engelsk
dansk oversættelse

 
* Hvorfor vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur? 

Jan Øberg, ph.d., freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf, ph.d. i sociologi, gæsteprofessor i freds- og konfliktstudier i Japan, Spanien, Østrig og Schweiz, medstifter og direktør for det uafhængige TFF, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, i Lund, Sverige, og forfatter.
dansk oversættelse

 
* Kinesiske forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur: Xi Jinpings forslag fra april om en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og det globale udviklingsinitiativ.
Li Xing, ph.d.,
professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Institut for Politik og Samfund, Det Humanistiske og Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet, og forfatter.
dansk oversættelse
transcript in English
  
* Hvorfor Danmark bør afstå fra et intensiveret geopolitisk militært engagement. 
Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand, Schiller Instituttet i Danmark
dansk oversættelse 

 
* Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO. 
Ulf Sandmark, formand, Schiller Instituttet i Sverige
afskrift på engelsk

 
Information: si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51 

———————
 
Som baggrund er her uddrag af en tale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlæggeren og præsidenten for Schiller Instituttet, holdt på en online-konference med unge den 7. maj 2022. Hele talen kan læses nedenunder.
 

“Vi befinder os faktisk  i et utroligt farligt øjeblik. Men der er også håb…. Det er kun muligt, hvis vi overvinder idéen om geopolitik.

Geopolitik er den idé, at der altid vil være en blok af nationer eller en nation, som vil definere eller er nødt til at definere sine interesser over for en anden blok af nationer, og at der altid vil være en dødbringende kontrovers, hvor enten den ene eller den anden vinder, og det hele vil være et nulsumsspil. Det er netop hvad der må og kan overvindes.

Det vi skal gøre er at etablere en international orden, hvor det princip, som denne orden grundlæggende er baseret på, er tanken om, at hver nation har ret til, og mulighed for, at udvikle alle deres borgeres potentialer. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor vi har brug for en systemisk ændring: En fuldstændig fornyelse af systemet. Grunden til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at situationen er meget presserende.

Flere og flere analytikere og eksperter er enige om, at faren for Tredje Verdenskrig er akut, at situationen er farligere end på højdepunktet af Den kolde Krig….

Så vi er et hårsbredde fra den menneskelige civilisations udslettelse…. Hvis den nuværende politik fortsættes, kan denne verden nemlig ende meget pludseligt om få minutter, om få dage, uger eller måneder, og krigen i Ukraine er naturligvis et brændpunkt. Men hele denne krise handler ikke om Ukraine. Den handler om, hvilken slags verdensorden der skal eksistere: Skal det være en unipolær verden, domineret af en eller to nationer? Skal det være en “regelbaseret orden”, hvor en lille klub af nationer udstikker reglerne? Eller skal den være multipolær, og skal den være baseret på folkeretten, som den er udtrykt i FN-pagten?…

Jeg tror, at det er det, der er udgangspunktet: Kun hvis man gør det klart for sig selv, at atomkrig mellem de to største atommagter, USA og Rusland, betyder udslettelse af menneskeheden, og derefter mobiliserer for, at krigen skal stoppe, og kæmper for et alternativ, som skal starte med tanken om, at krigen skal stoppe; diplomati og forhandlinger skal straks starte for at finde en løsning, der er acceptabel for alle parter….

Nu skal vi gøre os klart, og det er holdningen hos alle, der arbejder med Schiller Instituttet, at krig ikke kan være en metode til konfliktløsning i en tid med atomvåben; og jeg siger ikke, at denne krig skulle have fundet sted, men man er nødt til at forstå årsagerne til, at den fandt sted.”

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, “Det hele startede i forbindelse med den tyske genforening, da Berlinmuren faldt, og den amerikanske udenrigsminister James Baker III lovede Gorbatjov, at NATO ikke ville flytte sig en tomme mod øst.

En pensioneret tysk general ved navn Harald Kujat, som havde været formand for NATO’s militærkomité i 2002-2005, har netop givet et interview til et tysk tidsskrift, hvori han sagde, at hovedvægten ikke længere ligger på at beskytte og bistå Ukraine i dets forsvarskamp mod et russisk angreb, hvilket er i strid med folkeretten, men på at svække Rusland som strategisk rival på lang sigt….” 

[Nationer med] 2,2 milliarder mennesker, de nægter alle at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konfrontation mellem USA og NATO på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side.

Samtlige af disse lande holder fast ved idéen om alliancefrihed, og det tror jeg er nøglen til fred lige nu. Fordi principperne for den alliancefri bevægelse, som var principperne i FN-pagten, Bandung-konferencen, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, som er suverænitet, ikke-indblanding i det andet lands indre anliggender, accept af det andet samfundssystem….

Jeg mener, at vi i traditionen fra Den Westfalske Fred, som afsluttede 150 års krig i Europa, har brug for en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som først og fremmest tager hensyn til udviklingslandenes interesser; der skal ske en forøgelse af levestandarden for hvert enkelt individ, både i Europa, USA, Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det er afgørende for, om menneskeheden kan overleve. Det betyder, at vi har brug for et nyt paradigme i vores tænkning, nemlig idéen om, at hver nation har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale. Hvert barn, alle børn, der fødes, uanset i hvilken nation i verden, har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale, hvilket betyder, at det skal have en universel uddannelse….

Vi har aldrig været på et vigtigere tidspunkt i historien, og farerne har aldrig været så store, men potentialet for at skabe en helt ny verden har aldrig været så tæt på: At gøre en ende på kolonialismen, at skabe en økonomi baseret på termonuklear fusion, hvilket ville betyde, at vi har energi og råstof sikkerhed for alle nationer, at vi kan få et internationalt samarbejde om udnyttelse af rummet, at menneskeheden bliver voksen, og at geopolitiske krige bliver et spørgsmål fra fortiden.”

Vi håber inderligt, at du vil have mulighed for at deltage i denne vigtige begivenhed, og at du vil dele denne invitation og opfordre andre mennesker til at deltage. 

Hjemmesider:

Danish: Schiller Instituttet

Swedish: Schillerinstitutet

English: The Schiller Institute | A New Paradigm for the Survival of Civilization 

——————————–
English:

Invitation to a free international online seminar by

the Schiller Institutes in Denmark and Sweden:

We need a new security and

development architecture for all nations,

not a strengthening of geopolitical blocks

The Schiller Institute recommends:

NO in the Danish June 1 referendum about abolishing the EU Defense opt-out, and

NO to Sweden and Finland joining NATO

Date: Wednesday May 25, 2022

Time: 13:30-16:30 CEST

Online via Zoom

Free admission

The seminar will be held in English.

Please register here: si@schillerinstitut.dk, +45 53 57 00 51

The Schiller Institute seminar will 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.

Program:

The world need a new security and development architecture. 
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the Schiller Institute founder and international president.

Background to the Ukraine-NATO-Russia war.
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.

Why we need a new security architecture.
Jan Øberg, PhD, peace and future researcher and art photographer, PhD in sociology, visiting professor in peace and conflict studies in Japan, Spain, Austria, and Switzerland, co-founder and director of the independent TFF, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, in Lund, Sweden, and author.

Chinese proposals for a new security and development arcitecture: Xi Jinping’s April proposal for a new international security architecture; the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative.

Prof. Li Xing, PhD, professor of Development and International Relations in the Department of Politics and Society, Faculty in Humanities and Social Sciences, Aalborg University, and author.

Why Denmark should not intensify its geopolitical military engagements.
Tom Gillesberg, chairman, the Schiller Institute in Denmark

Why Sweden and Finland should not join NATO.

Ulf Sandmark, chairman, the Schiller Institute in Sweden


Information:
si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51 (Denmark)

Schiller-institutet@nysol.se, +46 98 30 10 (Sweden)

—————————————

As background, here are excerpts from a speech given by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to an online conference with young people on May 7, 2022,

“The world is facing an incredibly dangerous moment. But there’s also hope…. That is only possible if we overcome the idea of geopolitics.

“Now, geopolitics is the idea that you always will have a bloc of nations, or a nation which will define or has to define its interest against another bloc of nations, and that there will always be a deadly controversy, where either one wins, or the other, and the whole thing will be a zero-sum game. And that is exactly what needs to be overcome, and which can be overcome.

“[W]e have to establish an international order, where basically the principle on which this order is based, is the idea that every nation has the right and the means to develop all potentials of all of its citizens. We are in a situation where we need a systemic change: A complete change of the system. The reason why I’m saying this is because the situation is very urgent. More and more analysts and experts agree that the danger of World War III is acute, that the situation is more dangerous than at the height of the Cold War….

“So we are a hair-trigger away from the annihilation of human civilization…. [I]f the present policies are continued, the world could end very abruptly, in a few minutes from now, in a few days, weeks or months, and obviously, the war in Ukraine is the flashpoint. But this whole crisis is not about Ukraine. It’s about what kind of a world order should exist: Should it be a unipolar world, dominated by one or two nations? Should it be a “rules-based order,” where a small club of nations makes the rules? Or should it be multipolar, and should it be based on international law as it is expressed in the UN Charter?…

I think that that is the starting point: That only if you make it clear to yourself, that nuclear war between the two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, means the annihilation of the human species, and then mobilize that the war must stop, and fight for an alternative which has to start with the idea that the war has to stop; diplomacy and negotiations have to immediately start to find a settlement agreeable to all sides….

“Now, we should be clear, and this is the position of everybody working with the Schiller Institute, that war cannot be a method of conflict resolution in times of nuclear weapons; and I’m not saying this war should have happened, but you have to understand the reasons why it did happen….”

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated, “starting at the time of the German reunification, when the Berlin Wall came down, the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III did promise to Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch to the East….”

“A retired German General, named Harald Kujat, who had been the chairman of the Military Committee of NATO in 2002-2005, just gave an interview to a German magazine, in which he said, that the center of gravity is no longer to protect and assist Ukraine in its defensive struggle against a Russian attack, which is contrary to international law, but to weaken Russia as a strategic rival in the long term.

“[Countries with a population of] 2.2 billion people, they all are refusing to be pulled into geopolitical confrontation between the U.S. and NATO on the one side, and Russia and China on the other side.

“And all of these countries are sticking to the idea of non-alignment, and that I think is the key to peace right now. Because the Non-Aligned Movement principles, these were the principles of the UN Charter, the Bandung Conference, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which is sovereignty, non-interference into the internal affairs of the other country; acceptance of the other social system….

“I think we need, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended 150 years of war in Europe, a security architecture, which takes into [account] the interest of the developing countries first; there must be an increase of the living standard of every single individual, of Europe, of the United States, of Russia and China. I think that is the make or break issue for humanity to survive. This means we need a new paradigm in thinking, namely the idea that each nation has the right to develop its fullest potential. Each child, each baby born, no matter in what nation in the world, has the right to develop its fullest potential, which means it has to have a universal education….

“[T]he dangers have never been as great, but the potential that we can create a completely new world, has never been so close: To end colonialism; to have an economy based on thermonuclear fusion, which would mean, we have energy security for all nations, raw materials security; that we can have international cooperation in space exploitation; that mankind will become adult, and that geopolitical wars will become a question of the past.”

We sincerely hope that you will be able to join us for this important event, and that you will share this invitation, and encourage other people to participate.

Homepages: English: The Schiller Institute | A New Paradigm for the Survival of Civilization

Danish: Hjem – Schiller Instituttet

Swedish: Schillerinstitutet