1

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Løgne og sandheder om Ukraine

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

Mandag den 28. februar 2022 — Jeg taler til jer, fordi jeg ønsker at overbringe jer et ekstremt vigtigt budskab. Som I ved, har russiske tropper, de seneste par dage været i Ukraine i en militær operation. Som en reaktion har Vesten indført meget, meget hårde sanktioner mod Rusland, som vil få umådelig store konsekvenser, ikke kun for Rusland, men også for hele verden. Præsident Putin har sat de russiske atomvåben i alarmberedskab.  Enhver yderligere optrapning af denne situation indebærer en risiko for, at tingene kommer helt ud af kontrol og i værste fald fører til en atomudveksling og tredje verdenskrig, og hvis det sker, er der chancer for, at ingen vil overleve. Det kunne betyde menneskehedens udslettelse.

For at forstå, hvordan vi er nået til dette punkt, må man se på den nyere historie – i hvert fald de sidste 30 år – for vi er gået som søvngængere fra et punkt, som var utroligt håbefuldt, til en forværring af situationen – trin for trin, trin for trin – og de fleste mennesker var aldeles ubekymrede for, hvad der skete.

Man skal erindre, at i 1989, da Berlinmuren faldt, var mange af de unge mennesker ikke engang født dengang, og har ikke en egentlig fornemmelse af, hvad denne periode indebar: Det var et øjeblik med et utroligt historisk potentiale, fordi man kunne have opbygget en fredsorden, fordi fjenden var væk, eller var ved at forsvinde; Sovjetunionen udgjorde ikke længere en trussel, fordi Gorbatjov havde accepteret en demokratisering af de østeuropæiske lande, og det var det, vi kaldte “menneskehedens stjernestund”, et af de sjældne øjeblikke, hvor man kan udforme historien til det bedre.  

Dengang udgjorde Sovjetunionen ikke nogen trussel, og derfor var det helt forståeligt, at [USA’s udenrigsminister] James Baker III den 9. februar 1990 i en diskussion med Gorbatjov lovede: “NATO vil ikke udvide sig en tomme mod øst”. Nu siger [NATO’s generalsekretær] Stoltenberg i dag, at der aldrig blev udstedt et sådant løfte, men det er ikke sandt. Jack Matlock, som var USA’s ambassadør i Moskva på det tidspunkt, har mange, mange gange erklæret, at der faktisk blev afgivet et sådant løfte. 

Der findes en video med den tidligere tyske udenrigsminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, hvor han bekræfter dette, og for blot et par dage siden gennemførte den daværende franske udenrigsminister Roland Dumas et interview, hvor han absolut bekræftede dette, og sagde: “Ja, vi lovede dette”. Der er også dukket et nyt dokument op, som befinder sig i de britiske arkiver.   

Så der er overvældende beviser for, at der blev afgivet et sådant løfte. Når Putin nu siger, at han føler sig forrådt, er der derfor konkrete beviser, for Putin kom også til Tyskland i 2001, hvor han talte til den tyske Forbundsdag på tysk, og han var fuld af forslag og forhåbninger om at opbygge et fælles europæisk hus, at samarbejde. Han talte om det tyske folk, om kulturens folk, om Lessing og Goethe. 

Der var potentiale til ligefrem at omgøre situationen i 1990’erne, med Jeltsin og chokterapien. For på det tidspunkt var der desværre sket det, at visse kredse i Storbritannien og USA besluttede at opbygge en unipolær verden. I stedet for at opbygge en fredsorden sagde de: “Okay, nu er der mulighed for at opbygge et imperium efter det Britiske Imperiums forbillede, baseret på det særlige forhold mellem Storbritannien og USA: Det blev benævnt PNAC, Project for a New American Century.  Langsomt, trin for trin, begyndte de at foretage regimeskifte af alle, der ikke var enige i dette, at gennemføre en farverevolution, at gennemføre humanitære interventionistiske krige, som resulterede i Afghanistan, Irak, som var baseret på løgne; den utrolige løgn over for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om Libyen; forsøget på at vælte Assad [i Syrien]; krige, som har ført til, at {millioner af mennesker} er døde, at millioner af mennesker er blevet flygtninge og har fået et ødelagt liv. 

Så dette var et område, hvor Ukraine fra starten udgjorde en stor del af regnestykket. Der var i alt fem bølger af NATO-udvidelser, og i 2008 blev det på topmødet i Bukarest lovet, at Ukraine og Georgien ville blive en del af NATO, hvilket set fra Ruslands opfattelse, bestemt ikke er acceptabelt. I stedet for at NATO ikke bevægede sig “en tomme mod øst”, flyttede det sig 1.000 km mod øst!  De sidder nu i de baltiske lande, på grænsen til Rusland, men Ukraine ville medføre, at offensive våbensystemer ville være i stand til, at nå Moskva på mindre end 5 minutter, og reelt gøre Rusland forsvarsløst.  Man må forstå, at det er Ruslands vitale sikkerhedsmæssige interesse, som, hvis NATO ville inkludere Ukraine, ville krænke denne interesse, og derfor er al denne diskussion om, at ukrainerne har ret til at vælge deres egen alliance, reelt ikke troværdig!  Eftersom det også er et princip i alle officielle dokumenter, at man ikke kan garantere et lands sikkerhed på bekostning af et andet lands sikkerhed, hvilket i dette tilfælde ville være Rusland. 

Så det der skete var, at da EU forsøgte at inkludere Ukraine i EU’s associeringsaftale i slutningen af 2013, erkendte den daværende præsident Janukovitj, at det var uacceptabelt, fordi det praktisk talt ville have åbnet Sortehavet og NATO for de ukrainske havne, så han trak sig ud af aftalen. Straks fulgte demonstrationerne på Maidan; og det siges altid, at det blot var demokratiske individer – selvfølgelig var der demokratiske mennesker, som ønskede at være en del af Europa og en del af Vesten. Men lige fra begyndelsen var der elementer, som efterretningstjenesterne havde holdt skjult siden Anden Verdenskrig, Stepan Banderas netværk, som var den person, der havde samarbejdet med nazisterne under Anden Verdenskrig. Stepan Bandera blev faktisk agent for MI6; hans netværk havde kontorer i München, de var en del af den anti-bolsjevistiske blok af nationer, de blev holdt skjult af efterretningstjenesterne, MI6, CIA, BND, med henblik på en eventuel konfrontation med Sovjetunionen.  Disse netværk blev mobiliseret på Maidan, som en del af en operation for regimeskifte, en farverevolution, og så til sidst kuppet, som USA – ifølge Victoria Nuland – havde brugt 5 milliarder dollars på at opbygge ngo’er og grundlæggende forsøge at manipulere befolkningen til at tro, at hvis de blev medlem af EU, ville de fra den ene dag til den anden, blive rige i lighed med Tyskland, hvilket naturligvis aldrig var planen.

Derfor indtraf kuppet naturligvis, og med kuppet i februar 2014 kom der netværk til magten, som var ekstremt undertrykkende over for det russiske sprog og den russiske befolkning, det var derfor, at befolkningen på Krim stemte for at blive en del af Rusland.  Det var ikke Putin, der annekterede Krim, det var en foranstaltning til selvforsvar for den russisktalende befolkning på Krim, for at få mulighed for at stemme ved en folkeafstemning.  Befolkningen i Østukraine besluttede at udråbe sig til uafhængige republikker af samme grund. 

Minsk-aftalen skulle have indeholdt en forhandlingsmodel, der kunne give disse uafhængige republikker mere autonomi i Ukraine, men den ukrainske regering har {aldrig} gennemført dette – både Tyskland og Frankrig, som skulle være en del af Normandiet-drøftelserne, herunder Tyskland, Frankrig, Ukraine og Rusland, lagde aldrig pres på den ukrainske regering, så det førte ingen steder hen.  I mellemtiden var der flere og flere manøvrer omkring Rusland, så dette eskalerede til det punkt, hvor der i november var manøvrer, hvor der ligefrem befandt sig flyvende fartøjer, som testede og indøvede et atomangreb på Rusland i en afstand på 22 km. fra Ruslands grænse.  

Det var denne følelse af øget omringning, som er årsagen til, at Putin den 17. december sidste år erklærede, at han ønskede sikkerhedsgarantier for Rusland fra USA og NATO om, at de juridisk forpligtende, ville garantere Ruslands sikkerhed, hvilket ville omfatte: 

NATO må ikke ekspandere yderligere mod øst. 
Ukraine må aldrig blive medlem af NATO, af de grunde tidligere nævnt. 
Der må ikke placeres offensive våben ved Ruslands grænse. 

Men han fik ikke nogen respons. Han fik et svar fra USA og NATO, som grundlæggende reagerede på sekundære spørgsmål, f.eks. en vis aftale om at genoptage våbenforhandlingerne, men han fik ikke svar på de centrale krav. Jeg tror, at det eksempelvis er årsagen til, at Rusland og Kina nu har indgået en meget tæt strategisk alliance, hvilket skete den 4. februar, og Putin forsøgte at afprøve, om der var villighed fra europæiske nationer, som Tyskland – hvis kansler, Scholz, tog til Moskva, og den franske præsident Macron, som tog til Moskva – men han kom til den konklusion, at der ikke var nogen beredvillighed til at stå op imod NATO’s og USA’s fortsatte bestræbelser på at fortsætte Ruslands omringning. 

Nu kan man indvende, at krig er meget slemt, og naturligvis er det det mest forfærdelige, der kan ske. Men man må forstå, at hvis man sætter Ruslands centrale sikkerhedsinteresser i fare, ja, så er det, hvad man risikerer at få!  Man er nødt til at forstå Ruslands historie: For der har allerede to gange tidligere været en invasion af Rusland.  Den ene var med Napoleon, som, hvis man husker det, eller hvis man kender historien, havde en enormt stor hær og gik ind i det meget vidtrækkende område i Rusland. Der var en plan om at besejre Napoleon ved at lokke ham ind i de fjerne regioner, ved at få ham til at trække en lang operationel linje, ved at udnytte det faktum, at Napoleon ødelagde alt på vej ind, for i bund og grund at gøre det umuligt for ham at få flere forsyninger af fødevarer og andre materialer. De tillod endda, at Moskva blev brændt ned for at sikre, at der ikke var noget, som Napoleon kunne anvende for at overleve vinteren, så han måtte træffe beslutningen om at trække sig tilbage, i vinteren, med sneen. Da Napoleons tropper endelig kom tilbage til Ruslands grænser, var der kun nogle få mennesker fra en tidligere gigantisk hær.  Det var en traumatisk oplevelse, allerede dér.

Der var selvfølgelig også Hitler, som ligeledes invaderede Rusland, og for russerne er det en oplevelse, som er dybt indgroet i deres DNA, kan man sige, for de mistede 27 millioner mennesker!  For dem er det at forsvare Rusland det vigtigste – det er et spørgsmål om liv og død. 

Så hvad der nu skete var, at da alt dette eskalerede, udtalte Rusland: Vi trækker absolut en rød streg; da disse røde streger ikke blev respekteret, var dette så en handling, som skulle gøre det meget klart. Putin sagde, at han ville iværksætte en “militær-teknisk reaktion”, og jeg tror ikke, at Rusland har til hensigt at besætte Ukraine. Jeg tror de ønsker en vis neutralisering, de ønsker en afnazificering. Ærlig talt, med den nuværende kombination – Zelinskij blev ganske vist demokratisk valgt, men Azov-brigaden er der stadig som en del af forsvarsstyrkerne, og der er stadig medlemmer af parlamentet, en masse højreorienterede elementer. Zelinskij har forandret sig fra en fredselskende eller lovende fredspræsident til en person, der udelukkende er et redskab, og som ikke engang tør bringe Minsk 2 på banen, fordi han føler sig truet af at blive væltet, eller det der er værre, hvis han går ind for Minsk 2. 

Så det er en situation, hvor vi er nødt til at acceptere, at en afnazificering ikke er russisk propaganda, men at den rummer et reelt aspekt. Det er en komplet skandale, at Vesten med deres såkaldte frihedselskende, vestlige værdier, “regelbaserede orden”, demokrati, menneskerettigheder – er blevet lidt skrøbelige efter alle disse interventionistiske krige. Især det der blev begået og bliver praktiseret i Afghanistan, hvor folk bliver efterladt til at dø. Det er alt sammen en bevidst politik, fordi man vidste, hvad der ville ske, hvis der ville være en så hastig tilbagetrækning, der efterlod det afghanske folk med absolut ingenting.  

Så vi befinder os i en meget, meget farlig situation.  I søndags er der sket et epokegørende skift: Tyskland, som har gode grunde til at sige “aldrig mere” ønsker vi krig, fordi vi har haft to verdenskrige på vores jord, og i alles hukommelse, især hos de ældre, har vi vores forældres og bedsteforældres historier i baghovedet om, hvad krig gør, når den foregår på ens jord!  I søndags var der et jordskælv, hvilket jeg finder er en absolut katastrofe, fordi kansler Scholz afgav en regeringserklæring i Parlamentet, som i realiteten gjorde den tyske regering til et krigsministerium.  De ønsker nu at styrke Bundeswehr, og har oprettet en særlig fond på 100 mia. euro alene for i år; de ønsker at øge militærudgifterne og sender allerede våben til Ukraine, hvilket i realiteten var i strid med ethvert princip, som Tyskland anvendte, fordi landet havde den opfattelse, at man aldrig skulle sende våben til kriseområder.  

Alt dette er ved at ske.  Den tyske befolkning befinder sig i en fuldstændig tilstand af hjernevask.  I Frankrig er det ikke meget anderledes, men i Tyskland er det langt værre.  Folk på stedet, som kender til begge situationer, rapporterede, at det kun kan sammenlignes med det chok, som den amerikanske befolkning fik efter 11- september.  Jeg var i USA på det tidspunkt, og jeg husker, at man ikke kunne tale med nogen, fordi folk var fuldstændig vanvittige, opstemte og ophidsede, og det er nu tilfældet i Tyskland.  

Da jeg hørte kansler Scholz’ tale i går, mindede det mig om den forfærdelige tale, som kejser Wilhelm II holdt den 6. august 1914, da han bekendtgjorde, at Tyskland i princippet forberedte sig på Første Verdenskrig. Vi ved alle, at ved begyndelsen af Første Verdenskrig forventede ingen, at det ville tage fire år i skyttegravene, – frem og tilbage, frem og tilbage – meningsløse drab, og til sidst blev en hel generation ødelagt. Versailles-traktaten var en uretfærdig traktat, som ligefrem skabte forudsætningen for Anden Verdenskrig.

Så hvad gør vi nu? Jeg tror, at den eneste chance er, at vi omgående mobiliserer for en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som skal tage hensyn til sikkerhedsinteresserne hos alle nationerne på kloden, både Rusland, Kina, USA, de europæiske nationer og alle andre nationer på kloden. Modellen for dette er den Westfalske Fredstraktat.  Traktaten blev indgået, fordi man havde 150 års religionskrig i Europa, hvis højdepunkt var Trediveårskrigen, og den førte til ødelæggelse af alt: en tredjedel af værdierne, af mennesker, af landsbyer, af dyr – så til sidst kom folk til den konklusion, at hvis de fortsætter denne krig, ville der absolut ingen være tilbage til at glædes over sejren. I fire år, fra 1644-1648, sad folk sammen og udarbejdede en traktat, som fastlagde meget vigtige principper. Det vigtigste princip var, at fred kun kan vindes, hvis en ny ordning tager hensyn til den andens interesser. Den havde andre principper, f.eks. at man for fredens skyld skal føre udenrigspolitik på grundlag af kærlighed, at man skal tilgive forbrydelserne på begge sider, for ellers ville man aldrig nå frem til en aftale. Den opstillede det princip, at staten skal spille en vigtig rolle i genopbygningen af økonomien efter krigen, og det førte til den økonomiske model ”kameralisme”. 

Denne Westfalske Fred var begyndelsen på folkeretten, og den afspejles i dag i FN’s charter, det er den model, der skal bruges for at få nationerne til at sætte sig sammen for at finde ud af, hvilke principper vi skal følge for at skabe en orden, der giver alle nationer mulighed for fredelig sameksistens.  Og det tilsvarende kameralistiske princip fra den Westfalske Fred må være, at denne nye kombination af sikkerhedsarkitekturer skal tage højde for den egentlige årsag til krig, nemlig det vestlige finanssystems forestående sammenbrud, som er ved at bryde sammen længe før denne situation med Ukraine udviklede sig, men som nu vil blive forværret af sanktionerne og alle konsekvenserne heraf; og den må anvende de foranstaltninger, som Lyndon LaRouche allerede definerede for adskillige år siden.

Det er nødvendigt at gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien, for det er den, der er drivkraften bag denne konfrontation.

Der må indføres en global Glass/Steagall-aftale om adskillelse af bankerne; der skal oprettes en nationalbank i hvert enkelt land i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, og der skal etableres et nyt Bretton Woods-system for at skabe et kreditsystem til langsigtet udvikling, der kan løfte udviklingslandene gennem industriel udvikling.

Alt dette skal fokusere på den presserende udfordring med pandemien: Vi har brug for et globalt sundhedssystem, for uden det vil denne pandemi og fremtidige pandemier ikke forsvinde; vi har brug for en forøgelse af verdens fødevareproduktion, for vi har en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner”, som David Beasley fra Verdensfødevareprogrammet konstant fremhæver; vi har brug for en indsats for at overvinde fattigdommen i alle lande, hvor den er en truende kendsgerning, f.eks. i Afrika, mange latinamerikanske og asiatiske lande, ja, selv i USA og Europa. 

Udgangspunktet er naturligvis Kinas tilbud til USA og Europa om at samarbejde med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, om muligvis at tilslutte sig USA’s Build Back Better-program og EU’s Global Gateway-program, ikke at betragte det som konkurrence, men som en mulighed for samarbejde. For kun hvis verdens nationer samarbejder økonomisk til gavn for alle, har man et grundlag af tillid til at etablere en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som kan fungere.

Så jeg mener, at vi har udsendt en sådan opfordring til en konference og en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, og jeg opfordrer jer til at udbrede denne idé, få mange mennesker til at underskrive dette opråb, få folk til at skrive artikler, kommentere det, skabe en international debat om, at {vi har brug for et nyt paradigme}: For enhver fortsættelse af geopolitik med det såkaldte “fjendebillede” af den ene eller den anden part vil føre til en katastrofe, og hvis det kommer dertil, vil der ikke være nogen tilbage til overhovedet at kommentere det, fordi det vil være menneskehedens undergang.   

Så jeg opfordrer dig: Deltag i vores mobilisering, fordi det er dit liv og hele vores egen fremtid.

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

 




Helga Zepp-LaRouche fra Schiller Instituttet interviewet af CGTN om
truslen om en atomkrig og nødvendigheden af en
ny sikkerhedsarkitektur

Den 26. februar (EIRNS)–Helga Zepp LaRouche blev interviewet i kinesiske CGTN’s udsendelse The Hub i morges af vært Wang Guan.

WANG GUAN: Og nu er vi også sammen med Helga Zepp-LaRouche fra Wiesbaden, Tyskland, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. Fru LaRouche, velkommen tilbage til CGTN. Jeg er glad for at have dig hos os igen. Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne høre din vurdering af den igangværende Rusland-Ukraine-konflikt: Tror du, at den kunne have været undgået?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Præsident Putin havde gjort det meget klart, at røde linjer var blevet overskredet. Han sagde på et tidspunkt, at der ikke er noget sted, jeg kan trække tilbage til, og Vesten lyttede ikke til det. Den 17. december bad han så NATO og USA om juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier, om at NATO ikke ville udvide sig yderligere mod øst, at der ikke ville blive placeret offensive våben ved den russiske grænse, og at Ukraine aldrig ville blive medlem af NATO. Og han modtog ikke noget svar. Han fik ikke svar på det centrale spørgsmål, kun på underordnede forhold.
Så jeg mener, at Vesten begik en stor fejl ved ikke at lytte til Ruslands legitime, udtrykte sikkerhedsbekymringer, og nu er vi på randen af noget, som kan komme helt ud af kontrol.

WANG: Fru LaRouche, USA og NATO har annonceret de aktuelle sanktionsrunder mod Rusland, som er rettet mod præsident Putin og udenrigsminister Lavrov og andre. Tror du, at det vil afskrække Rusland fra sine nuværende planer, deres operationer i Ukraine?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det mener jeg ikke, for jeg tror, at præsident Putin har afvist dette. Han har allerede for nogle år siden sagt, at hvis Vesten ikke havde fundet Ukraine til at inddæmme og bruge til at nedbryde Rusland, ville de have fundet et andet problem. For nylig sagde han, at det virkelige formål med alt dette er at forhindre Ruslands økonomiske udvikling. Den 25. januar var der to unavngivne embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus, som sagde, at sanktionerne har til formål at forhindre Rusland i at diversificere fra olie og gas, hvilket betyder, at de nægter Rusland retten til udvikling!

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/25/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-russia-ukraine-economic-deterrence-measures/]

Dette er en krigshandling. Sanktioner er en krigshandling, og jeg tror, at Putin har afvist det. Det vil være smertefuldt for Rusland, men jeg tror, at Vesten påfører sig selv langt større skade. Og det skal fordømmes fuldstændigt.

WANG: Og lad os også tale om FN, den rolle FN’s resolutioner spiller, som ikke blev vedtaget tidligere. Overrasker det dig overhovedet? At vi endnu en gang så et splittet Sikkerhedsråd i FN, når der står alt for meget på spil?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: FN’s Sikkerhedsråd er praktisk taget blevet gjort overflødigt af NATO allerede i 2011, da de løj i forbindelse med Libyen. De fik Ruslands og Kinas godkendelse til en begrænset aktion i Libyen, som så viste sig at være et omfattende militært angreb. Fra dengang har løgnen spillet en stor rolle, og det overrasker mig slet ikke, at målet med alt dette nu er at bevare den unipolære verden. Og det kan Rusland og Kina naturligvis ikke gå med til, så det er slet ikke overraskende.

WANG: Madame LaRouche, i årevis og årtier har du opfordret til en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, og nu opfordrer du til en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur i Europa. Hvad indebærer denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, jeg opfordrer til en {international} sikkerhedsarkitektur, som involverer sikkerhedsinteresser for alle nationer på denne planet, inklusive Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det historiske forbillede er den Vestfalske Fred, fordi alle de deltagende magter efter 150 års religionskrig i Europa og de enorme ødelæggelser kom til den konklusion, , at en fortsættelse af krigen ikke ville være til gavn for nogen, fordi ingen ville leve for at nyde den. Og vi befinder os i en lignende situation: Hvis man virkelig ser nøje på situationen, er faren en atomar udslettelse af hele den menneskelige art. Og jeg tror, at det er det, der skal trænge ind i alles bevidsthed, og så skal der indledes en proces som Westfalens fred, hvor princippet er, at en løsning skal tage hensyn til den andens interesser, til {alle} andres interesser.

Og det indebærer Ruslands sikkerhedsinteresser, Kinas sikkerhedsinteresser, USA’s, europæernes og alle andre nationers sikkerhedsinteresser. Det andet princip i Westfalske Fred var, at alle forbrydelser, som blev begået af den ene eller den anden part, skal glemmes af hensyn til freden, og for det tredje, at statens rolle er vigtig i den økonomiske genopbygning efter krigen.

Nu betyder det tilsvarende i dag, at alle magter skal tage fat på det virkelige, afgørende spørgsmål, nemlig at grunden til, at vi overhovedet har konflikten, er, at Vestens neoliberale system er ved at bryde sammen, og derfor skal den første handling i en sådan ny arkitektur være en global Glass-Steagall-bankopdeling, hvor der skal sættes en stopper for kasinoøkonomien, som har været årsagen til, at Vesten er blevet så desperat, og hvor der skal gøres en ende på den. Derefter skal vi have et nationalt banksystem for hvert enkelt land og et nyt kreditsystem i traditionen fra Bretton Woods-systemet, som giver billig kredit til udvikling af udviklingslandene. Hvis man bliver enige om disse foranstaltninger, vil en varig fred være mulig.

WANG: Madame LaRouche, [navn 6:23] en anerkendt politolog i Asien sagde tidligere i dag, at Ruslands slutspil kunne være at skabe en slags “mini-Sovjetunion”. Ser du også på det på den måde?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, det tror jeg ikke. Jeg tror, at de eneste mennesker, der presser på for geopolitiske blokke lige nu, er dem, der står bag præsident Biden, som forsøgte at skabe denne “alliance af demokratier” mod de såkaldte autokratiske regeringer. Jeg mener, at aftalen mellem præsident Xi Jinping og Putin den 4. februar, hvor de indgik en strategisk alliance mellem Rusland og Kina baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, er åben for alle. Og jeg mener, at enhver ny orden, der skal føre til fred, skal være inkluderende, skal overvinde geopolitikken og grundlæggende gå ud fra et princip om, at fred kun er mulig gennem udvikling, som skal være tilgængelig for alle.

WANG: Endelig, fru LaRouche, mener De, at USA og Vesten på en eller anden måde er på vej nedad, hvis man sammenligner deres holdning, f.eks. i Jugoslavien for 20 år siden, hvor de resolut greb ind militært, og nu, med Ukraine, med deres lige så resolutte “ingen støvler på jorden”-princip og holdning?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, vi har set i Afghanistan, at NATO og USA, som er den angiveligt mest magtfulde militærmaskine på jorden, ikke var i stand til at besejre det, der i sidste ende viste sig at være 65.000 talibankrigere. Der er altså tvivl om Vestens militære magt.

Problemet er, at der dermed kun er atomvåben tilbage, og hvis man ser på atomdoktrinerne – Prompt Global Strike-doktrinen eller den nylige manøvre Global Lightning, som havde denne idé om en langvarig atomkrig – så tror jeg, at det udgør den virkelige fare. Og derfor er spørgsmålet om det nukleare magtspil, som vi ser lige nu, det, der skal undgås, og som skal udskiftes hurtigst muligt. Folk skal være klar over, at hvis det kommer til brug af et enkelt atomvåben, er det logikken i atomkrig, sammenlignet med konventionel krigsførelse, at alle atomvåben vil blive anvendt, og det vil betyde civilisationens fuldstændige udslettelse. Og det er det, der er spillet her.

Jeg tror, at flere mennesker, forstår det og kræver en anden verdensorden, en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som f.eks. kunne være baseret på samarbejdet om et verdenssundhedssystem. Vi har stadig en pandemi. Vi har en hungersnød, som David Beasley kalder en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner”, som truer 300 millioner mennesker, der risikerer at dø. Og disse ting må vi tage fat på. Og det er den eneste chance for menneskeheden – kan vi forene alle disse… [crosstalk]

WANG: Ja, der er virkelig mange udfordringer derovre. Det er al den tid, vi har, er jeg bange for – undskyld, jeg afbryder. Kom tilbage til vores udsendelse næste gang, tak. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, mange tak, fordi du kom til os i denne stund.




100 sekunder til midnat på dommedags-uret.
Vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur!
“En atomkrig kan ikke vindes og må aldrig udkæmpes.”
Schiller Instituttets internationale online-konference.
Lørdag den 19. februar

Panel 1 inkluderer Jens Jørgen Nielsens tale.
Se også Panel 2 med Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale:

Videokonferencen kan her ses på denne side og her på den internationale Schiller Instituts hjemmeside.

Talerlisten inkluderer Jens Jørgen Nielsen fra Danmark.

Den nuværende strategiske krise mellem USA og Rusland med dens potentielle termonukleare undergang, er en trussel mod hele menneskeheden. Der skal etableres en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som garanterer retten til sikkerhed og økonomisk og kulturel udvikling for alle nationer.

Vi må tilbageføre dommedags-uret, ved at se på årsagerne til krig:

– Den ødelæggende, hyperinflationære eksplosion af det transatlantiske, neoliberale finanssystem

– De angloamerikanske eliters dødbringende fantasi om, at de for evigt kan påtvinge verden deres “regelbaserede orden” [i modsætning til en “lovbaserede orden”.]

Schiller Instituttet afholder denne hårdt tiltrængte dialog, for at drøfte årsagerne til den store globale krise og finde løsningerne på disse.

Panel 1; kl. 16 dansk tid:

Hvem og hvad er drivkraften bag fremdriften mod en verdenskrig? Hvor tæt er vi på?

Talerlisten på engelsk:

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

Keynote: Harley Schlanger (US), The Schiller Institute: “What Happens After D-Day? Will Russia Invade Ukraine?”

Natalia Vitrenko (Ukraine), Chairwoman, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU): “Ukraine’s Role in Present World Affairs”

Graham Fuller (US), 25-year career as a CIA operations officer, author: “The Validity of the Concept of Spheres of Influence”

Col. (ret). Alain Corvez (France), International Consultant, former Counselor for the French Defense and Interior Ministries, “Evaluation of the Strategic Situation; a French Perspective”

Jens Jorgen Nielsen (Denmark), former Moscow correspondent for the Danish daily Politiken; author; Director, Russian-Danish Dialogue and assistant professor, communication and cultural differences. Niels Brock Business School. “Why We Need a New Security Architecture.”

James Jatras (US), diplomat, former advisor to U.S. Senate Republican leadership: “The Evolution of NATO in the Post-Soviet Period”

Q&A Session

Panel 2: kl. 20 dansk tid:

Udformning af en ny strategisk arkitektur: Den russisk-kinesiske fælles aftale af 6. februar, og det økonomiske udviklingsperspektiv for Schiller Instituttets forslag om Verdenslandbroen. 

Moderator: Dennis Small (US), Ibero-American Director, Executive Intelligence Review

Keynote: Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), Founder and chairwoman of The Schiller Institute: “Long-Term Survival: A New International Security Architecture”

Shakeel Ahmad Ramay (Pakistan), Political Economist: “Imran Khan’s Proposal for Pakistan To Mediate the U.S. and China”

Alejandro Yaya (Argentina), Civil Institute of Space Technology: “Argentina Joins the Belt and Road Initiative”

Dr. Carlos Gallardo (Peru), President, Christian Democratic Party of Peru: “Development Is the Name of Peace in South America”

Tony Magliano (US), Internationally syndicated Catholic social justice and peace columnist. “War Is Not Inevitable! We Have a Moral Obligation To Save Afghans from Starving! The Need To Create a New, Human-Centered Paradigm”

Q&A Session

———————

Den opringelige invitation:

Schiller Instituttet afholder en international online-konference med to paneler lørdag den 19. februar, for at stadfæste denne særdeles fornuftige erklæring fra de fem atomvåbenmagter og permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som de bekræftede i en fælles erklæring den 3. januar i år. Konferencen vil også fremlægge en {løsning} på den nuværende krise: etableringen af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, der garanterer alle nationer retten til sikkerhed og til økonomisk og kulturel udvikling. For at gøre dette er det bydende nødvendigt med en dialog om årsagerne til og løsningerne på den nuværende krise.

I den sidste uge af januar afholdt USA’s strategiske kommando øvelsen Global Lightning for at teste de amerikanske atomstyrkers beredskab som led i en atomkrigsplan, der har været i kraft siden 2019, og som er baseret på den antagelse, at USA og NATO ville være i stand til at overleve et atomart, første angreb fra Rusland eller Kina, for derefter at gøre gengæld, at absorbere yderligere angreb, at gøre gengæld igen osv. i en vedvarende militær konfrontation.

Præsident Putin havde i 2018 bekendtgjort Ruslands nye atomvåbensystemer, herunder det hypersoniske missil Avangard, det hypersoniske krydsermissil Kinzhal, atomdrevne krydsermissiler, hurtige undervandsdroner og laservåben. Dette var et enormt chok for det vestlige militære etablissement.

Men præsident Putin reagerede på farverevolutionerne fra 2004-2014 og de såkaldte “humanitære” krige rettet mod alle regeringer, som var uvillige til at lade deres egne nationer blive udplyndret. De 5 milliarder dollars, der blev brugt på NGO’ere alene i Ukraine, er velkendt, hvilket i sidste ende blev til det nazistiske Maidan-kup i februar 2014, lige uden for Ruslands dørtrin.

Den 17. december 2021 fremlagde Putin to udkast til traktater til USA og NATO, hvor han insisterede på, at der ikke måtte ske nogen yderligere udvidelse af NATO mod øst (især ind i Ukraine), og at der ikke skulle stationeres offensive våbensystemer ved Ruslands grænser. I betragtning af den manglende seriøse reaktion indtil videre, har Putin bebudet “militær-tekniske foranstaltninger” i tilfælde af en endelig afvisning.

En amerikansk ekspert har beskrevet, at han formoder, at Ruslands “militær-tekniske foranstaltninger” kan omfatte opstilling af hypersoniske Zircon-krydsermissiler med atomvåben, der affyres fra havet ud for Washington D.C., som russiske eksperter tidligere har udtalt kunne ødelægge den amerikanske hovedstad så hurtigt, at præsidenten ikke ville have tid til at gå om bord på Air Force One for at undslippe.

Flere og flere mennesker vågner op til den kendsgerning, at der kun er de berømte hundrede sekunder før midnat tilbage på dommedags-uret.

For at standse uret må årsagerne til krig tages op til behandling: 1) Det transatlantiske neoliberale finanssystems hyperinflationære slutfase; og 2) det finansielle etablissements dødbringende fantasi i City of London, Wall Street og Silicon Valley om, at de kan gennemtvinge deres “regelbaserede orden” i en unipolær verden i al evighed.

De grundlæggende årsager går tilbage til skiftet i august 1971, der blev profetisk erkendt af Lyndon LaRouche, da Nixon effektivt afsluttede Bretton Woods-systemet ved at afskaffe de faste valutakurser og dermed banede vejen for spekulativ profitmaksimering. Dette forårsagede det stigende skift væk fra investeringer i den produktive, fysiske økonomi og hen imod spekulation i stadig mere eksotiske, derivat-baserede finansielle produkter, og nu “flyttes trillioner” til den grønne New Deal.

Set fra et fysisk økonomisk perspektiv, repræsenterer denne politik for at drive investeringer ind i industrier med den lavest mulige energi-gennemstrømningstæthed, i sidste ende en omfattende ødelæggelse af kapital, ligesom investeringer i den militære produktion af våbensystemer.

Alt for mange mennesker er forvirrede omkring finansielle værdier, som adskiller sig fra reel værdiskabelse. De har købt den illusion, at børsnoterede selskabers aktie værdier siger noget om økonomiens produktivitet – hvilket de ikke gør.

Nogle mere fornuftige røster har talt til fordel for en ny paneuropæisk sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter Rusland og Ukraine, i en ny Helsinki-aftale. Men i betragtning af den komplekse verdenssituation, truslen mod verdensfreden, der berører alle stater, og det faktum at enhvers sikkerhed er indiskutabel, er det nødvendigt at gå videre end Helsinki og skabe en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter sikkerhedsinteresserne for samtlige lande på jorden.

Et sådant forslag er netop uddybet i en artikel, som Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for nylig har offentliggjort: “100 sekunder til midnat på dommedags-uret”: Vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur!” Denne arkitektur skal være baseret på principperne fra den Westfalske Fred; dvs. den må garantere alle staters interesser og frem for alt deres ret til økonomisk og kulturel udvikling. Bevarelsen af verdensfreden kræver en total og definitiv afstandtagen fra malthusiansk politik, og kræver universel adgang for alle nationer til de videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, der er opnået. Denne nye orden – som er en forudsætning for menneskehedens overlevelse – fordrer et nyt paradigme af tænkning, der må bygge på de bedste klassiske traditioner fra alle kulturer på det højeste humanistiske niveau.

Hvem kan benægte, at vi er et udeleligt skæbnefællesskab?

Vi har et valg: Enten lader vi uret tikke videre, indtil det sidste af de hundrede sekunder er gået, og så vil der ikke være nogen tilbage til at kommentere resultatet, eller også kan vi ihukomme, at vi er den eneste kendte kreative art i universet, og sammen skabe vores fælles fremtid.




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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

%%Russian ‘Red Lines’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%NATO Expansion Eastward

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

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

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

[[[begin quote indent]]]

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

[[[end quote indent]]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%A Coup in Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%Diplomacy to Avert Catastrophe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%The Basis for Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%‘A Way to Live Together’

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: A way of living together.

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

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

%%Ukraine, Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%Crimea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Regime change?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, regime change.

%%The Importance of Cultural Exchanges

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, yes.

%%The Role of Schiller Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Definitely

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

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

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

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

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: I thank you.




Krigstruslen vil ikke bare ’gå væk’

27. april (EIRNS) — Indtil magten fravristes dem, der i øjeblikket udøver den over USA, og et nyt paradigme for økonomi, kultur og politik bliver bestemmende for landets politik, vil truslen om krig kun eskalere, indtil den bliver en dødelig og uafvendelig virkelighed.

Dette fremstød mod krig, drevet af oligarkiet der udøver kontrol over regeringerne, institutionerne og den fremherskende kultur i USA og Storbritannien, kommer fra en absolut forpligtelse til at knuse Rusland og Kinas uafhængighed, og forhindre enhver udfordring for den post-sovjetiske unipolære orden. Den iboende modsætning mellem de oligarkiske engagementer i geopolitisk, militær kontrol internationalt, og i økonomisk kontrol "indenlandsk", kan ikke løses ved blot at vokse og konkurrere, men kun ved at knuse.

Faren øges, både i forhold til Rusland og Kina

Overvej Ruslands reaktion på afsløringerne af et forpurret statskup i Hviderusland, der skulle omfatte mordet på dets præsident, Aleksandr Lukashenko. Under sin tale den 21. april til den Russiske føderale Forsamling henviste præsident Putin til optrapningen fra sanktioner til mord: ”I dag er denne praksis ved at forfalde til noget endnu farligere – jeg henviser til den nylig afslørede direkte indblanding i Hviderusland i et forsøg på at orkestrere et statskup og myrde præsidenten for dette land … Dette går for vidt. Dette overskrider alle grænser”. Han advarede gerningsmændene om, at "Ruslands reaktion vil være asymmetrisk, hurtig og barsk".

Søndag udgav det hviderussiske stats tv-station, ONT, et "anti-fake" tv-show, der foregav at vise en hemmelig video af kupmagernes planlægning, deres tilståelser og et svar til nyhedsformidleren på det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums benægtelse af enhver involvering i et mordplot: ”Vi skal sige jer, hvor Washington kan lede efter sandheden. I Washington selv! Bidens rådgiver, Michael Carpenter, kan fortælle om det, hvis han vil”.

Carpenter, vicepræsident Bidens udenrigspolitiske rådgiver, der var medforfatter sammen med Biden til en artikel i 2018 med titlen: "How to Stand up to the Kremlin", var tidligere viceforsvarsminister angående Rusland og Ukraine og arbejder i dag i Atlanterhavsrådet og Penn Biden Center. Hviderusland, Ruslands trofaste allierede i Europa, har derfor på nationalt tv direkte anklaget en højtstående amerikansk embedsmand, der er tæt forbundet med præsident Biden, for mordforsøg på sin præsident. Hvor vil dette føre hen?

Adspurgt om Kinas reaktion på amerikanske sanktioner og andre skridt mod Rusland, var det kinesiske udenrigsministeriums talsmand, Wang Wenbin, skarp. Han blev spurgt: ”For nylig har USA indført omfattende sanktioner mod Rusland… I sin seneste ”Tale til Nationen” advarede præsident Putin Vesten om ikke at krydse den røde linje, ellers ville Moskvas svar få de skyldige til bittert at fortryde deres ageren. Har Kina nogen kommentar til dette”?

Wang svarede: ”Kina har hele tiden fastholdt, at forskelle skal løses ordentligt gennem konsultationen mellem ligeværdige på grundlag af gensidig respekt. Vi afviser tilgangen med villigt at ty til ensidige sanktioner eller trusler om sanktioner. En sådan adfærd udgør magtpolitik og overformynderisk tyrannisering, som ikke får nogen støtte og i stigende grad afvises… Kina og Rusland har et omfattende strategisk partnerskab for koordinering i den nye æra. Vi vil fortsætte med at forstå og støtte hinanden i at beskytte vores respektive suverænitet, sikkerhed og udviklingsinteresser”.

Amerikanere i særdeleshed må modstå det opsplittende og betydelige nonsens, der fremføres som den dominerende indenrigspolitiske debat, og i stedet anerkende den ekstreme fare, som den britisk styrede krigskampagne imod Rusland udgør. Dette krav om krig blev netop udtrykt på ny i de seneste sindssyge krav fra Royal Institute for International Affairs, denne gang baseret – ikke på valgfusk, hacking af offentlige værker, ineffektive forgiftninger, dusører, men på en eksplosion i Tjekkiet i 2014.

Krigskampagnen vil fortsætte med at finde nye påskud, så ofte som det er nødvendigt, og ophører kun ved at blive besejret. Vil man tage denne udfordring op?




Briterne bereder sig på at sende USA ud for at føre krig mod Rusland

18. april (EIRNS) – Efter at have mistet dets amerikanske koloni i revolutionskrigen og have mislykkedes med at tage den tilbage gennem den britisk sponsorerede borgerkrig, er det Britiske Imperium nu involveret i en åben, dødbringende sammensværgelse for at trække USA ind en selvmorderisk krig med Rusland, hvilket de forestiller sig vil være med til at skabe deres nye "Globalbritannien" – en moderne version af imperiet, som de aldrig opgav. "Britisk hjerne og amerikansk muskelkraft" har tjent dem godt i løbet af det sidste halvandet århundrede og trukket USA ind i to verdenskrige, igangsat af ”John Bull”, og for nylig et par "dejlige små krige" – kolonialistiske krige i Sydøstasien og Sydvestasien – som intet menneskeligt formål tjener, koster millioner af liv, ufattelig elendighed og efterlader verden i dag i en tilstand af moralsk og kulturel opløsning.

Vil det amerikanske folk og deres europæiske "allierede" gå søvngængeragtigt ind i endnu en verdenskrig, denne gang med termonukleare våben? Det ser ud til at være hensigten med regeringen i Ukraine, indsat i 2014 af Obama-administrationen med betydelig hjælp fra George Soros og eksperterne i "regimeskift" fra National Endowment for Democracy. På daværende tidspunkt gav Obama vicepræsident Joe Biden ansvarsområdet med at føre tilsyn med regimeskiftet mod den valgte regering i Ukraine og arbejde sammen med den neokonservative dræber Victoria Nuland, dengang assisterende udenrigsminister for europæiske anliggender, for at bringe de åbenlyst nynazistiske tilhængere af Hitlers ukrainske aktiv, Stepan Bandera, til magten i Kiev. Nu er Biden (eller i det mindste hans senile nuværende jeg) og Nuland tilbage som præsident og departementschef for udenrigspolitiske anliggender. De presser på for, at Ukraine og dets fascistiske ledere bringes ind i NATO. Ukraines ambassadør i Tyskland, Andrij Melnyk, fortalte den tyske presse, at Tysklands ansvar for nazisternes holocaust kræver, at det ”må spille en ledende rolle i, at Ukraine bliver NATO-medlem, og det hurtigst muligt uden 'hvis eller men' ". Undladelse af at gøre dette vil medføre en ny storstilet krig i Europa, antydede han.

Overvej betydningen: Yd kompensation for at have tilladt nazisternes holocaust ved at bringe nazisterne til magten i Ukraine for at fremprovokere endnu en krig mod Rusland? Kan borgerne i den vestlige verden ikke huske, at det var Rusland, der udkæmpede langt størstedelen af kampene med nazisterne i den 'Store Fædrelandskrig', som Sovjetunionen kaldte den, og led langt de største tab blandt sine borgere? Er de opmærksomme på det faktum, at Rusland ser NATO udvide sine atombevæbnede styrker op til Ruslands grænser, at USA ensidigt har afsluttet de fleste af traktaterne for våbenbegrænsning, og at NATO-magterne har udpeget sig selv som overordnede i forhold til FN's Sikkerhedsråd – der blev oprettet for at forhindre endnu en global krig – ved at indføre sanktioner og føre regimeskifte-krige uden Sikkerhedsrådets godkendelse?

Ambassadør Melnyk gik videre: Hvis Ukraine ikke accepteres i NATO, sagde han, er den eneste mulighed "at bevæbne os selv og måske tænke på nuklear status igen". Nazister bevæbnet med atomvåben. Hvem kunne tillade det?

Som man vil se, er svaret: Britisk efterretningstjeneste. Ukraines præsident Volodymyr Zelensky har modtaget ordrer fra MI6-chef Richard Moore. På et to timers møde i London i oktober sidste år, beskrevet af Zelensky som at "hjælpe og beskytte vores suverænitet og territoriale integritet," satte Moore og Zelensky gang i planer for flere amerikanske og britiske våben til Ukraine, åben støtte til Kievs nazi-militsers overgreb mod Donbas, nedlukning af den resterende oppositionspresse i Ukraine og endog genovervejelse af Budapest-memorandummet fra 1994, hvorved Ukraine opgav sine atomvåben.

Borgere med god vilje i USA, Storbritannien og EU har ikke privilegiet af at kunne ignorere denne tilskyndelse til termonuklear udslettelse. LaRouche-Organisationen og Schiller Instituttet tog ved konferencen den 20.-21. marts fat på øjeblikkets civilisationskrise, og vil gøre det igen den 8. maj. Marchen mod krig skal stoppes. Krigs- og sanktionspolitikken, der nu truer millioner af mennesker i Syrien, Yemen og andre steder, må også stoppes. For at vende sammenbruddet af den vestlige civilisation må der imidlertid også foretages en fuldstændig gennemførelse af Lyndon LaRouches fire love, for at gøre en ende på Wall Streets og City of Londons bankerotte monetære system med en New Bretton Woods-konference mellem verdens førende nationer, for at genoprette ideen om fred gennem udvikling, opbygge moderne sundhedsvæsener i alle dele af verden, forene alle nationer i udviklingen af fusionskraft og i udforskningen af ​​det ydre rum samt gendanne skønhed og klassisk kultur i den vestlige kulturelle ødemark. Opgaven er enorm, men intet mindre kan gøre det, og det har aldrig været mere presserende.