Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Schiller Instituttets video interview (med afksrift)
efter han blev fyret af Folkeuniversitetet for politiske årsager

Mandag den 14. november 2022

Her er afskriftet på engelsk, som kom i Executive Intelligence Review Vol. 49, Nr. 46, November 25, 2022
Interviewet af Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand.
Videoen findes også på Schiller Instituttets amerikanske YouTube kanal her, hvor knap 6.000 personer har set den indtil den 20. november.

Her er en pdf version. En tekst version findes nedenunder.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

INTERVIEW: Jens Jørgen Nielsen

Danish Historian Fired After Ukraine Blacklists Him

Jens Jørgen Nielsen has degrees in the history of ideas and communication, was the Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, is the author of several books about Russia and Ukraine. He is a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark; he has been a teacher at the Copenhagen adult night school Folkeuniversitetet for eight years.

Mr. Nielsen has participated in several Schiller Institute conferences, including the Institute’s Danish-Swedish videoconference on May 25, 2022 for a new international security and development architecture. Then, on July 14, 2022 he, along with other speakers at the May 25 conference, was put on the blacklist of “information terrorists” put out by Ukraine’s UK-supported and U.S.-funded Center For Combating Disinformation. There was widespread coverage of this in the major Danish media. The Danish parliament conducted a consultation about this affair with the Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod on Aug. 28, 2022.

He was interviewed for EIR and the Schiller Institute by Michelle Rasmussen in Copenhagen on Nov. 14. The transcript has been edited, and subheads added.

EIR: You have just been fired from one of your teaching posts for political reasons. You are currently teaching a course about the history of Crimea, which you will be allowed to finish, but next year’s courses about “Russian Conservatism” and “History of Ukraine” have been canceled.

Why have you been fired, and what led up to that?

Nielsen: Well, I would say I was not fired for anything which took place in the classroom. Because there have been some evaluations of my teaching and they have always been very good. The latest evaluation was from February this year. And when people were asked about the professional level, 100% were very satisfied. So that’s nothing to do with it. And I’m not politicizing in my teaching. When I teach, I objectively lay out various interpretations and sources, the interests of various nations and actors in the political process. So, it’s not for something I’ve done in the classroom. It’s obvious. Even though the board of directors who wrote me this letter tries to legitimize it by saying that I may be politicizing in the classroom, but they have never attended any of my lessons. They didn’t know what’s going on there, and they never invited me to talk about it. They never invited any of the students who attended the courses. So it’s obvious.

There’s no doubt that it was for something which happened outside the classroom. I was on this Ukranian blacklist that you mentioned. And I gave also an interview to Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian on a Russian TV channel. And I didn’t endorse the war, like some would say. We talked about the explosion of Nord Stream 2, and who may have done it, who might not have done it, what the Danes thought about this kind of thing, and things like that.


I was not endorsing the war. That’s very important, because I have my doubts about this Russian engagement in Ukraine. That is another question. But I didn’t endorse it. But the fact that I gave an interview brought about a crisis in the board. The old board had left, and there was a new board. And the old, original board supported me, and the leader of the school said it was okay because there was nothing wrong with my teaching…. What I do outside the classroom, which points of view I had, was up to me. They didn’t have anything to do with it as long as the teaching in the classroom was done objectively and people were satisfied with this.

So it was because I was considered to be a person who showed understanding for Putin. Showed understanding for Putin. And I was asked by a journalist, do you really show understanding for Putin? I said, you have to be aware that you use the word understand. What does it mean? It is very important to understand Putin, what his situation is, his background and his way of thinking, and things like that. It’s absolutely not the same thing as to say it is very good, but you have to understand him. But I think in the Danish media, journalists think it’s an offence, in itself, to understand Putin, and to understand Russia, not either endorsing or not endorsing, but to understand them….

%%’No, We Don’t Have Freedom of Speech’

Well, it seems like we are living in—our thinking—something has happened. It resembles something that happened in Stalin’s time. You have very strict control with people at the university, or you’re allowed to say some things, and you have a lot of taboos you’re not allowed to talk about.

So, for me, it was really a surealistic experience in my own country, which I was brought up to believe is one of the best countries. We have freedom, and we have freedom of speech. We have all these kinds of things. No. It doesn’t really work that way today. And I was surprised about it because I had some illusions about my own country, which I don’t have now. So, freedom of speech. No, we don’t have freedom of speech.

Of course I have not been killed. I will not be put in the gulag…. But when you fire people, you indirectly also tell people at other universities, “Beware about what you write and what you say. Don’t try to say something which is opposed to government policy right now.” This is the logic. This is the conclusion I have reached, that you have to get in line with the government policy….

So I think it’s a sad day. Firstly, I think it’s a sad day for democracy, because in a democracy, we come up with various points of view, and we discuss them, and we find a solution. Secondly, how do you develop new knowledge, if the young people who enter a career as a researcher in this field, indirectly they have been told, ‘Beware. Look at what happens to people who have some controversial points of view…. And I think this is the sad thing. For me, of course, personally, but a sad thing for the country, in terms of developing and knowledge, in terms of having a vibrant working democracy. I think it’s a disaster for those two endeavors, for those two very, very important things in a democracy.

EIR: One of the things that immediately tipped off the controversy was that three of your fellow teachers resigned, saying that if you were allowed to continue, then they would resign. And then, the board of directors started an investigation and they accused you of “politicizing your teaching in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine.” On the radio interview on Radio 24/Seven after you were fired, the chairman of the board of directors simply said that you have very strong, very biased opinions.

First of all, is this this true in terms of “politicizing in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine” in your classroom? Have have you brought your own political views into your classroom?

Nielsen: No, of course not, because normally when I start a course, I say that I have my own points of view, of course, but I will work here as a professional historian. I will present various interpretations and various viewpoints about this conflict, the situation, because I’m also teaching very ancient history. Regarding Crimea, the first two, three classes were from ancient times and from the Middle Ages, 2000 years of history. So it’s impossible. Putin has not really anything to do with Crimea a thousand years ago. That’s one thing.

And secondly, these people who criticize me, those of my colleagues who would not want to teach if I teach, they have never attended even a second of any of my courses. So, I don’t know what is going on there. And there was one colleague who also participated in this debate on the radio. He has never read any of my books. He did not understand the interview with Vladimir Solovyov because it was in Russian. Well, I asked very humbly, on what basis have you made this decision? Because you don’t know anything whatsoever about me, apart from what some people say on Facebook, and other social media.

So I couldn’t call it anything other than a witch hunt. It seems like a kind of a witch hunt, because it’s as much a witch hunt, as we had here in Denmark and northern Europe 400 years ago, where we picked out some women, and we killed them because, we said that they were probably evil, but we didn’t know exactly how, but probably, they were evil….

%%Students Shocked

We are not discussing anything I said, anything I wrote, anything I have done. We are discussing a picture which someone has made about me being like a Putin follower who likes what is going on, who likes to kill Ukrainian children, and things like that. That’s what’s going on. And I think it’s not at all worthy for a democracy like the Danish democracy. I think it’s outrageous.

EIR: You said that neither you, nor any of your students were spoken to by the board of directors. Have any of your students complained that you were politicizing your teaching, and now, after your firing, have any of the students protested against your being fired?

Nielsen: Yes. Of course. Many of the students there have been protesting now. And if you go back, there was one remark in February. But an evaluation was made where 100% were satisfied with the professional level of the teaching. And 75% were very satisfied and 25% were satisfied. There was no one who was dissatisfied or less satisfied. But there was one who mentioned that it was a little bit too pro-Putin. That was one among 30 people who made this remark. But that was compared to the other 29 or so. It couldn’t, by any means, be a reason for this. Of course, it’s not. Because you could also say that it was at the beginning of the war, and actually, in the classroom, there were several people who were very staunch supporters of Putin—a small group—and a small group who very much disliked Putin; and they had some quarrels between themselves, which has nothing to do with me, because I was not part of that. I think that this was the reason why one person said this. But before that, there hadn’t been anything like that. Nothing of the sort. There have been several evaluations, and apart from this, there haven’t been any remarks at all.

EIR: And you said that that many of your students have written to you protesting your being fired.

Nielsen: Yes. I don’t know exactly how many, but many said they would protest it. How many actually have done it? I’m not quite aware, but I think that there probably will be a lot, because it was a shock, because people have been following me for years. Some of those … have attended all my courses, or many of my courses, and they were shocked, because they didn’t understand it at all.

And I also gave a course on the history of Ukraine last year, and there were really many participants. And the people said they were in shock because I didn’t politicize, I didn’t do anything. I just put forward some facts and various viewpoints. Because when you’re talking about Ukraine, you have very different narratives about what Ukraine is. And even inside Ukraine, you have very different points of view. What constitutes actually a country like Ukraine? I have several Ukrainian friends who have very, very diverging ideas and concepts of what Ukraine is, what constitutes Ukrainian identity. It’s not a simple or unambiguous concept, because it’s very controversial, what it actually constitutes. It’s not that easy. So I had to put forward something.

But many of the people who criticize me, they criticize me because they think I should say exactly what the Western governments and the Ukrainian government say. This is the thing, that I have to say something exactly like the public version of the Ukrainian nationalist government’s interpretation of Ukrainian history. But as an historian, that’s very easy to criticize. Because there are historical facts which run counter to much of the Ukrainian [government’s] way of thinking.


EIR: Along that line, the one thing that the board of directors did do, besides referring to these very few student remarks, was that they read one of your books called Ukraine in the Field of Tension. What did they criticize about your book?

Nielsen: They criticized me when I wrote about the so-called annexation. First, I would say that it’s a book written six years ago. So a lot of things have happened since then. But there was a discussion about what does annexation mean? Because, I admit also that the Russian troops did not adhere to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine regarding the lease of the Sevastopol naval port. They were allowed to have 25,000 soldiers to defend the fleet and the port, but the Russian troops had no right to stay in Simferopol. They went from Sevastopol to Simferopol. It´s true. But on the other hand, it´s a very strange annexation where there was hardly any bloodshed. There were two or three people who were killed by accident, and there were 21,000 soldiers in the Ukrainian army in the Crimean garrison, but 14,000 decided to join the Russian side.


So it means that it’s a very split country, whatever you may call it. And I also said that, I think it was in the Summer of 2014, Q International American Polling Institute made a survey in Crimea saying that 80 or 90% of the population endorsed the status as a part of Russia. And the same result was arrived at by the German polling company GfK in 2015. So, when the majority of the population accepts this transfer from Ukraine to Russia, is it an annexation? I had a discussion in the book about it: Because you can say, on the one side, it depends, if you look at it like that, you can consider it to be an annexation. But in other ways, it’s not a very typical annexation, because of what I’ve just mentioned.

So they really made a mistake, because they said it shows that I am teaching the history of Russia in favor of the Russian war in Ukraine going on right now. So they are manipulating things to get it to fit into their own narrative. It’s not serious. Not at all. And I’m open to debate about this. Of course I am. But they are not interested in a debate. I wrote a letter to them and they have, of course, not answered the letter.


And whatever I wrote six years ago, it is not what I’m saying in the classroom.

%%Liberties Only in Time of Peace?

EIR: As a teacher at the Folk University, don’t you have the right to take part in the public debate, even if some may object to your views? What do you think about that? And why do you participate in the public media debate about Russia and Ukraine?

Nielsen: Well, my case seemed to prove the fact that if you take part, and have some points of view, which do not suit public opinion, or does not suit the government, you will lose your livelihood. You will lose your job. So this is what it proves, that you can lose your job. I have lost two jobs because of this. So it’s obvious that there are some costs connected to it. It shouldn’t be like that. You should not be fired because of some points of view you have, and that you bring into the public discussion such a very, very important question as the war going on in Ukraine right now. So it’s difficult. At any rate, it comes with big costs for those who participate. They can be fired. There can be a witch hunt against them. There can be a campaign against them, smear campaigns, and such kind of things. It has taken place here, and I also understand—I just followed some of my German colleagues, and they have been exposed to something like that.

EIR: Yes, you liken this to a German word “Berufsverbot”. What is that?

Nielsen: Beruf means your work. Verbot means you’re blocked, your fired, you’re not allowed to work there. And some years back, 40 or 50 years ago, we had this discussion. Are you allowed to work at university, if you have certain points of view? And also at this time, there were people who were fired, some from the right and some from the left, by the way. And we had a discussion. Well, I don’t recall precisely, but it was in around the ’70s, Vietnam, the ’80s, where we had this discussion. I was very young at this this time. And I think it ended up with the fact that we agreed that you should not be fired because of your public opinions. One of the leaders of the Nazi Party in Denmark was a teacher at Aalborg University. I knew this guy. I didn’t like him. But that is off the mark. But there was discussion, and actually, he was allowed to stay there, because there was no complaint about his teaching. He was teaching German language and literature. There was a discussion about it.

So it’s not a new thing. We didn’t have this discussion for many years. Now it’s come back, and it tells that when you have some tension, some conflict, and things like that, our highly valued liberties, they immediately fly away. So it’s a thin layer. Our democracy, the democratic culture here, is maybe a very thin layer. So I wonder, if Denmark enters the war more directly, I think we’ll probably lose all our liberties. We can have liberties when you have peace. There’s no danger. But when you have some tension, they should prove themselves. These liberties should prove themselves in times of tension.

%%’Europe Should Not End Up in Nuclear War’

EIR: And why is it that you have participated in the debate about Russia and Ukraine in the public media?

Nielsen: Because I’m very dissatisfied with the policy. I think that the policy the West is pursuing towards Russia—and also Ukraine—I think it’s hopeless. I think it’s very, very foolish, and is very dangerous, by the way. Well, for Russia, of course, but also for ourselves. I think we’re playing with fire. It’s a very dangerous situation. I think this is the most dangerous situation we have, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was 60 years back. Of course, I’m driven by this, that the West, that Europe should not end up in nuclear war. Because I know exactly, that if there will be a nuclear war, Europe will be the first theater which will be hit, and it will really, really, really have consequences which we have not seen in the history of mankind, ever.

We know the potential for nuclear war. We know where it is. And you can be angry with Putin around the clock. But, at the end of the day, there’s no alternative to have some kind of agreement with Russia to find some kind of solution. To defeat Russia is stupidity. And I’m not talking, maybe, because I feel sorry for the Russians. I feel sorry for ourselves. I feel sorry for the Europeans who are following a very shortsighted policy, especially from America, the United States of America. I think Europeans, we should find another approach to the policy, because it’s obvious for everyone now, because of the sanctions, Europe is really in straits. Europe is the part of the world which is hit most by the sanctions. It’s actually not really Russia. It’s Russia to some extent, of course. But Russia can sell their oil anywhere. And we buy their oil. Much of the gas and oil from Russia goes to India, and China, and they sail around the globe, and they end up in Germany for four-five times the price. It’s stupidity. It’s pure stupidity, and that’s why I engage in the debate.

EIR: You’ve also said that in your media debates, you have not legitimized Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, but that you have stressed that it’s important to find out how we got here. Also the responsibility on the western side. I have made interviews with you, actually, before the start of the war in February. I interviewed you in December of last year, and you were warning about—that was at the point where Russia had just proposed two treaties to try to avoid crossing their red lines. But you said that you have also participated in the media debate to find out how can we reach a peaceful solution?

Do you think that you being put on the Ukraine blacklist, and that being widely publicized in Denmark, could have been a factor that led to this situation where you’ve been fired?

%%Arrogance of the West

Nielsen: Definitely, among other factors. But it definitely has played a role, There’s no doubt about it.

And I also need to just add that the two questions are actually interrelated, because to find out what brought us to this point, it will also be very meaningful when you find out how we proceed from here, how to get to a more peaceful solution. So those questions are interrelated actually. You can’t find a road to peace, really, if you don’t find out how we how we got here and how to proceed. So I think that is very interrelated.

But when I look at many of the researchers in Denmark, they have some strange ideologically fixed pictures of Russia. There’s a lot of things to criticize in Russia. That’s not the point. But to find out, more exactly, what’s taking place. And I think that the West should take off their ideological glasses, and look much more realistically at what’s happening on the ground. And then, they will probably, maybe, come to some more effective solutions, I don’t know. But then there’s a chance of it, at least.


EIR: You have also warned in your media debates that people who think that if you just get rid of Putin, then the problem is solved—you have warned that there are factions which are very anti-Western.

Nielsen: Yes, sure. Because I think many in Denmark, and in the West in general, tend to forget that Putin was actually very pro-Western in the beginning of his term when it started more than 20 years back. He was President in 2000. They seem to forget it. He actually wanted Russia to become part of NATO. He appealed to the West in his speech in the Bundestag, in the German parliament, and so on, and met with George W. Bush, and things like that. He was very good friends with Tony Blair, I think. There was a hope for the world, but things changed, and I think is very interesting to understand what changed in those years. I think that there were many steps. It’s a little complicated to put it shortly here, but a lot of it, I think, was the West’s arrogance, and the West saying we can do anything, without asking Russia.

The first thing was the bombing of Serbia in 1999, and the extension of NATO, and things like that. And secondly, was the Iraq war, and things like that. So things changed in Russia…. I lived in Russia in the ’90s, and I talked to the Russians. I had another picture. I knew, at this time, that Russia would rise again as a superpower.

And it was important, also, to have some kind of confidence in each other, and to get into a more comprehensive cooperation with Russia. It didn’t happen for several reasons…. And does the West’s attitude have anything to do with it? It definitely has. But this is the discussion.

I think that’s also where many of the discussions tend to stop today, because in the West, many politicians, and also people from think-tanks in the West, tend to think that our way of thinking is the only way of thinking…. I think it’s a very, very dangerous way of thinking. I think they will end up with conflicts.

So, I think it’s important to have, in universities, but also among politicians, to have a discussion. Where has this American-led world brought us today? It has brought us to the brink of catastrophe, to the brink of a breakdown of a lot of things. And many of the Russians are aware of this. They look at it this way, but many in the West have difficulties to see it, because we are blindfolded, more or less, ideologically, and it’s dangerous.


%%Voices of Dissent Are Important Now

EIR: Just to conclude, what has to change now, on the western side, and also in Russia, to make it possible for us to switch over to peace negotiations to avoid nuclear war?

Nielsen: The first thing is to have a ceasefire. And it’s interesting: Everyone knows that there had been some steps to make ceasefire in March and April. And it’s very interesting to see who stopped it? It was actually not the Ukrainians, in the first place. It was first, the European Union, and then Boris Johnson from the UK, and also Biden. It was the West that stopped it. There were some attempts in Belarus in the first place, and later on in Turkey. Erdogan invited Russia and Ukraine to some talks, and there are still some talks. There are still some talks about the export of wheat from Odessa, and they’re sitting in Istanbul, while we are talking. And it was because of Erdogan. There are many people in the West who do not like Erdogan. I’m not very much in love with Erdogan, but this is a very, very—it’s the most reasonable step which has been taken. It’s been taken from Erdogan, because he invited Russia and Ukraine.

And now, maybe, it could seem that it’s too late. I don’t know exactly, But it seems now that—because the Ukrainians, Zelensky has now changed his mind. He wants to go to the end, to have a military victory. So he believes that Ukraine can kick all the Russian soldiers out of Ukraine, and the Crimea included. I don’t believe it will be that easy. Definitely. If you look at it a little cynically, it might seem that the Americans want a war of attrition against Russia, so that Russia will be weakened. Because they’re saying that what happened, probably in the beginning of the ’80s, … the Americans made some new armaments, and the Soviet Union could not follow. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed. And maybe they are thinking about the same strategy now, which they had in the ’80s with the war in Afghanistan, and also with the armaments, that it will break the back of Russia. But it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing.

I’m definitely not sure it will happen this time, because Russia and China are allied this time, and Russia has strong allies, also, in India, Pakistan and all the Asian countries. Russia has integrated itself into the Asian environment. And I think that it’s not a realistic policy from the United States and Europe. So I think, eventually, it will be bad for us, definitely.

I think it’s important for us that there is a voice of dissent. As I said, that there are some people who will present some other ways of thinking, because many of us who think like that, we are in a minority right now. But things can change very quickly. And I wouldn’t be surprised if, suddenly, there will be a situation where people in the West, people in Europe, and also in America, will say enough is enough. We can’t do it any more, because this huge amount of money we’re sending to Ukraine, I mean, we are taking the money from other projects: infrastructure, education, hospitals, health care system, things like that. So I think that there’s a limit to how long time we can continue this war. And I also think that that goes for Ukraine. How much can they destroy the country, and how many people should be killed? It’s very important that some voices in the West demand that we have this peace process taking place as fast as possible.

EIR: Jens Jørgen, thank you very much. And thank you for your courage in standing up for your views, for your personal views in the media, and for having a professional attitude towards your teaching, where you have been presenting different viewpoints.

Debatten på DR med Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Krisernes tid

Se programmet her.

22. sep 2022:
“Økonomien er på vej ned, og udsigterne er ikke blevet bedre efter, at Ruslands præsident Putin har bebudet, at han vil sende yderligere 300.000 soldater til Ukraine. Spørgsmålet er, hvordan Vesten skal reagere på de flere forskellige kriser, som verden står overfor? Og hvad betyder svaret, for de økonomiske udsigter?
Vært: Clement Kjersgaard. “

Jørgen Østrøm Møller: Fred i Ukraine eller amerikansk hegemoni?
Amerika må beslutte sig

På engelsk:
The National Interest, September 24, 2022

Peace in Ukraine or U.S. Hegemony?
America Must Decide

The United States should come to terms with the fact that mending the global system is long overdue.

In his speech last week, Russian president Vladimir Putin announced a “partial mobilization” of Russian military reservists, a referendum in occupied Ukrainian territory, and made a thinly veiled threat to resort to nuclear force. This is fairly frightening for Ukraine, but also for the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world. It does not take much to predict that if Russia uses nuclear weapons, the United States must respond in kind. 

But looking at it from another angle, Putin’s speech also presents a golden opportunity for the United States to checkmate Russia, end the war in Ukraine, avoid a nuclear catastrophe, and shape a new world order. It might sound strange, but this is a “now or never” moment to steer the world out of the immediate mess created by Russia, as well as decades of bad statecraft by the United States and Europe.

After analyzing U.S. statements and policies in recent years and months, it is doubtful whether this perspective is driving the decisions of U.S. policymakers.

For some years now, the choice has been to either solidify America’s role as the undisputed leader, conveying that the U.S. perspective on global matters is correct and that the United States has the right to lead the world towards a model reflecting its values, or, realizing that the world has changed with rising powers like China and India willing to participate in the global system and question whether the United States has the right to define the rules. The United States seems to have chosen the first option but the time has come to reappraise whether this is still in the interest of the United States.

In connection with the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi met with Putin. Both expressed what could be described as lukewarm support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. In reality, couched in diplomatic vocabulary, they distanced themselves from Putin’s reasons for launching the war and his objectives.

During his meeting with Xi, Putin said that he “highly valued the balanced position of our Chinese friends when it comes to the Ukraine crisis. We understand your questions and concerns about this. During today’s meeting, we will of course explain our position.” 

However, after learning about Russia’s plan for referendums in occupied Ukrainian territory, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman stated

China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear. We believe that all countries deserve respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity, that the purposes and principles of the UN Charter should be observed, that the legitimate security concerns of any country should be taken seriously, and that support should be given to all efforts that are conducive to peacefully resolving the crisis. We call on the parties concerned to properly address differences through dialogue and consultation. China stands ready to work with members of the international community to continue to play a constructive part in deescalation efforts.

For his part, Modi told Putin that “Today’s era is not an era of war.” Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not minced words either and said that Russia’s invasion cannot be justified and that it should give back all the land it has occupied, including Crimea.

It is difficult to appraise how far and how deep the distance these leaders run. Maybe privately these leaders, all of whom have developed close relations with Putin over the years, said something different. However, this is unlikely. They do not only speak to the world but also to domestic audiences. Some kind of duplicity would be hard to explain.

The United States should find out whether it is possible to form a common position to end the Russo-Ukrainian War before it spirals out of control.

It will come at a price. These three countries will resist being enrolled in an initiative that has a hidden agenda of helping the United States maintain global supremacy. They more or less acquiesced to Russia in the first place precisely given their resentment of U.S. supremacy. This allowed them to overlook their adversarial interests with Russia in Central Asia, for example. To help end the war, they will ask that the United States soften the pursuit of its values abroad as a policy benchmark. Even more so, they will ask for the United States to amend and reform the international system so that it no longer serves American interests exclusively and is used by the United States to underwrite its global policies.

This may be difficult for U.S. policymakers to accept but the alternative is that the war risks turning into something much worse. The United States should come to terms with the fact that mending the global system is long overdue; in many ways, it still reflects how the world looked seventy years ago when it was designed by the United States and Great Britain. The rest of the world has come to the conclusion that now is the time for them to have more influence in the decision-making process and reflect their interests.

The United States might get away with going solo thanks to its military power. It might be possible to push Russia back and uphold America’s right to be the global leader. Recalling prognoses for global economic growth putting Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDE) in the forefront, such a policy might postpone the reckoning by a decade. Yet, the risks of doing so are higher compared to the benefits of moving now when the United States is still strong and can play a major role in designing a new global system that does not exclusively reflect American and European interests.  

Joergen Oerstroem Moeller is a former state-secretary for the Royal Danish Foreign Ministry and the author of Asia’s Transformation: From Economic Globalization to Regionalization, ISEAS, Singapore 2019 and The Veil of Circumstance: Technology, Values, Dehumanization and the Future of Economics and Politics, ISEAS, Singapore, 2016.

Billede: YouTube videograb

POLITISK ORIENTERING den 21. september 2022:
Krig eller fred? Økonomisk kollaps eller udvikling? LaRouche og Tom Gillesberg har løsningerne

Med Tom Gillesberg, formand og folketingskandidat udenfor partierne i Københavns storkreds.

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

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

Dansk oversættelse:

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

Transcript of the original English version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original article:

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

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

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

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

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

The whole thing appears bizarre, hilarious. Unintentionally comic.

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

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

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

Her er Jan Øbergs tale fra Schiller Instituttets videokonference:

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

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

Foredrag af Rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Hvad sker der i og omkring Ukraine? den 5. marts 2022

“Jens Jørgen Nielsen, som er historiker, Ruslandskender og forfatter til bøger om både Ukraine og Rusland, holdt dette foredrag d. 5.  marts 2022 på Aarhus mod Krig og Terrors debatmøde om situationen i Ukraine.” fra hjemmesiden Flygtninge og Fred her.


Download (PPTX, 2.67MB)

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


Poul Villaume den 14. januar 2022:
Efter 1989 lovede vesten, at Europa skulle have en ”ny sikkerhedsstruktur”.
Skal vi ikke bygge den nu – sammen med Rusland?

Følgende er to citater fra Poul Villaums debat artikel i Ræson den 14, januar 2022:

Titlen: Poul Villaume: Efter 1989 lovede vesten, at Europa skulle have en ”ny sikkerhedsstruktur”. Skal vi ikke bygge den nu – sammen med Rusland?

Poul Villaume (f.1950) er dr.phil. og professor emeritus i samtidshistorie, Saxo-Instituttet, KU.

»Det er i denne forbindelse også værd at minde om, at både NATO selv (London-erklæringen, juli 1990) og alle CSCE-lande (Paris-charteret, november 1990) ved Den Kolde Krigs afslutning lovede sig selv og hinanden, at der nu skulle opbygges nye sikkerhedspolitiske mekanismer og institutioner og en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur i et helet og helt Europa, som naturligt også skulle omfatte både Nordamerika og Rusland. Man talte også om et sikkerhedsfælleskab, som skulle strække sig ”fra Vancouver til Vladivostok”. Men efter at Sovjetunionen brød sammen under sin egen (død)vægt i 1991, blev NATO kastet ud i en stille, eksistentiel krise, som man først gradvist overvandt med vedtagelsen af NATOs udvidelsesprogram mod øst i 1993-94 (”expand or die”, lød parolen internt). Der blev dermed, som Vestens yndlings-russer i 1990erne, Boris Jeltsin, fortroligt advarede Bill Clinton om i 1994 og 1995, i praksis tale om, at den tilbageblevne koldkrigsalliance blev dominerende i Europa på bekostning af et sikkerhedspolitisk marginaliseret, isoleret og ydmyget Rusland….«

»En anden vigtig erfaring fra Den Kolde Krig er, at uanset hvor skarpt modsætningerne mellem parterne er trukket op, er det altid godt, at der er dialog, forhandlinger og personlige kontakter – gerne suppleret af fortrolige ’bagkanaler’ mellem parterne på højst muligt niveau, og med gensidig respekt for modpartens bekymringer, uanset alle politiske og værdimæssige forskelle. Det var på den måde, afspændingsepoken under Den Kolde Krig blev igangsat i 1960erne og 1970erne, og det var sådan, den, især på europæisk plan, overlevede selv det stærkt forværrede supermagtsforhold i begyndelsen af 1980erne. Det er derfor farligt at bagatellisere dét, at der alene finder forhandlinger sted, som måske nytteløs ”bla-bla-bla”; det er under alle omstændigheder bedre end ”bang-bang-bang” (eller som Churchill formulerede det i 1954, da han ihærdigt søgte at stable et topmøde mellem Øst og Vest på benene: ”To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war”). Og en sidste påmindelse, også formuleret midt under Den Kolde Krig, og af gyldighed også i den aktuelle situation mellem Rusland og Vesten, fremsagt af den respekterede britiske militærskribent Sir Basil Lidell Hart i 1960: ”Fasthold styrke, om muligt. Under alle omstændigheder, hold hovedet koldt. Hav ubegrænset tålmodighed. Træng aldrig en modstander op i hjørnet, og hjælp ham altid med at redde ansigt. Sæt dig selv i hans sted – for at se tingene gennem hans øjne. Undgå selvretfærdighed som djævlen – intet gør mere blind.”«

Læs hele artiklen i Ræson her.

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!


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.

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

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

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and Xinjiang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.

Psykopater udgør en risiko for vor eksistens! Tyskland må træde ud af Nato! Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

I betragtning af den politiske orientering hos den nye regering i Berlin virker det næsten udsigtsløst at kræve en øjeblikkelig tysk udtrædelse af Nato. Men hvis Olaf Scholz mener det alvorligt med den embedsed han aflagde for to dage siden ved sin tiltræden som forbundskansler, nemlig at han vil dedikere sin “kraft til gavn for det tyske folks vel, virke til gavn for det og beskytte det mod ulykker”, så bør han øjeblikkeligt igangsætte denne udtræden. For i Nato og frem for alt i USA og Storbritannien er der indflydelsesrige kræfter, der af geopolitiske grunde leger med Tysklands og derudover også med hele menneskehedens eksistens. Den virkelige årsag til dette globale militære spil med musklerne på flere fronter er af det nyliberale systems forestående kollaps, som man prøver at tilsløre med en kompleks konfettiregn af antirussiske og antikinesiske beretninger.

Gennem flere uger har man opbygget et scenarie i medierne om en påstået forberedelse fra russisk side af en militær invasion i Ukraine, og Avril Haines, chefen for USA’s nationale sikkerhedstjeneste, har endda forsøgt at overbevise Nato-ambassadørerne i Bruxelles om det, selv om det udtrykkeligt er blevet tilbagevist af Rusland. Uger igennem har man gennemført en række provokationer som for eksempel en Nato-manøvre, hvor man gennemspillede et atomangreb på Rusland, og hvor amerikanske fly nærmede sig 20 km til den russiske grænse, såvel som droneangreb i Østukraine og provokerende “orienteringsflyvninger” i Sortehavet.

Rusland har beskyldt Nato for at have overtrådt flere “røde linjer” i Ukraine og for ikke at have reageret på klagerne derover. Og op til det af præsident Biden foreslåede virtuelle topmøde mellem Biden og Putin på højdepunktet af spændingerne forlangte Putin retsligt bindende aftaler om, at Nato ikke skulle udvides nærmere mod den russiske grænse, hvilket Biden afviste med, at man ikke accepterede nogle “røde linjer” fra Ruslands side, medens Nato’s generalsekretær Stoltenberg betonede, at Rusland ikke havde nogen ret til at opbygge “indflydelsessfærer”.

Midt under de eskalerende spændinger truede vicechefen for det amerikanske senats forsvarsudvalg, senator Roger Wicker fra Mississippi, med et førstehåndsangreb med atomvåben: “Militære aktioner vil sige, at vi overvælder det russiske militær med ødelæggelse, at vi indsætter amerikanske tropper derovre. Vi udelukker ikke et førstehåndsangreb med atomvåben.”

Tulsi Gabbard, tidligere kongresmedlem fra Hawaii og pensioneret løjtnant i den amerikanske hær, kommenterede Wickers tirade: “Enhver, der foreslår sådan noget eller bare tager det som en mulighed, må være afsindig eller en sociopat eller en sadist.” Dog er Wicker med sine forslag, der ikke blot vil ødelægge det amerikanske folk og hele verden, men også ukrainerne, hvis demokrati, det angiveligt er, der skal beskyttes, ikke noget særtilfælde. Den samme retorik kommer både fra demokrater og republikanere i Kongressen, fra administrationen og medierne, fra de samme neokonservative og neoliberale kræfter, der trak landet ind i regimeskiftskrigene i Irak, Libyen og Syrien.

Man kan kun give Tulsi Gabbard ret. Den der gennem de sidste år har fulgt den stadigt eskalerende propaganda mod Rusland og Kina fra hele det amerikanske politiske spektrums side, bliver mindet om det udsagn, at den, som guderne vil ødelægge, ham driver de først til vanvid.

Indholdet af den to timer lange samtale mellem Biden og Putin er endnu ikke offentliggjort. Dog optog Biden kontakt med fire Nato-partnere angående kravet om en retsligt bindende aftale og lovede yderligere rådføringer med alle Nato-landene. Og naturligvis kender alle Europas regeringer den sande historie om det af Victoria Nuland understøttede kup i Ukraine i februar 2014, om Stephan Banderas nynazistiske gruppes rolle i kuppet og løgnen om Putins påståede besættelse af Krim, som i virkeligheden var en afstemning af Krims befolkning om, at de i betragtning af naziterroren i Kiev foretrak at tilhøre Rusland. Måske ville det være på tide, at de europæiske regeringer indrømmede sandheden om hændelserne i Ukraine, som de naturligvis var meddelagtige i gennem deres sammenslutninger, frem for at den tredje verdenskrig bryder ud på grund af en falsk historie om Putins påståede aggression.

Men selv om den akutte krigsfare kan svækkes midlertidigt – Biden taler om at udskyde Ukraines medlemskab af Nato ti år – så vedvarer den akutte fare for en ny verdenskrig.

Det anden farecenter, hvor en krig kan opstå og udvikle sig, er atomprogrammet i Iran og Trump-administrationens opsigelse af JPCOA-aftalen. Selv om CIA-chefen William Burns netop har bekræftet, at sikkerhedstjenesten ikke på nogen måde er bekendt med, at Iran skulle arbejde på et atomvåbenprogram, så ser Israel også en fare i det civile atomprogram – som Iran har fuld ret til at udvikle i følge folkeretten – sådan som Israels forsvarsminister Benny Gantz understregede det under sit nylige besøg i Pentagon, hvor den amerikanske forsvarsminister Austin bekræftede, at USA var fast besluttet på at hindre Iran i at anskaffe sig atomvåben.

Men den farligste situation er uden tvivl konflikten mellem USA og Kina om Taiwan. Efter at verden har nærmet sig faretruende mod den tredje verdenskrig på grund af tilspidsningen af forholdene i Ukraine, udtalte en række amerikanske politiske eksperter – og dette er nyt – sig om den amerikanske sædvane med at iscenesætte falske begrundelser for militære operationer. Således henviste den tidligere diplomat Peter Van Buren til eksplosionen af krigsskibet USS Maine i Havanas havn i 1898 (hvilket var anledningen til den spansk-amerikanske krig, og ikke var noget terrorangreb, men en eksplosion i selve skibet), til begivenheden i Tonkin-bugten, hvor USA fik et påskud til at påbegynde til længe planlagte vietnamkrig, og naturligvis til Irak-krigen i 2003, hvor alle de indblandede på forhånd var klar over, at påstanden om masseødelæggelsesvåben var en løgn, sådan som Nancy Pelosi indrømmede det offentligt.

Angående Kina skriver Van Buren: “Den næste krig ser ud som om den leder efter en årsag.” Eftersom Kina vægrer sig ved at marchere ind i Taiwan og dermed give USA en grund til at virkeliggøre sin krigsfeber, så er et oprustningskapløb inden for overlydsvåben blot det mindste problem. “Men hvad hvis USA allerede er fast besluttet på en virkelig krig og blot søger efter en troværdig årsag?”, spørger Van Buren og udtaler dermed det, der for længst er blevet indlysende. Kan man antage, at disse og flere andre begivenheder “under falsk flag” er de vestlige regeringer og partier velkendte? Bortset fra måske et par uerfarne partimedlemmer – afgjort! Derfor er de folk, der har deltaget i præsident Bidens “Demokrati-topmøde”, som snarere burde kaldes et hyklertopmøde, nogenlunde lige så troværdige som organisatorerne af de berygtede “tæppe-busture”, hvor godtroende pensionister påduttes plystæpper som “ægte persiske tæpper”.

For ideen  om, at det drejer sig en alliance af “gode kræfter”, et værdifællesskab, der går ind for menneskerettigheder og frihed, mod de “onde”, der undertrykker deres befolkninger, er et blikfang, hvor de udstyrer et fordærvet produkt med kosmetiske indgreb og udbyder det til salg.

 Senest efter at den amerikanske administration og dens “forbundsfæller” har efterladt Afghanistan i en absolut katastrofal tilstand efter 20 års krig og har tilbageholdt penge, der tilhører afghanerne, og dermed forstærket den værste humanitære katastrofe på planeten, hvor 24 millioner mennesker trues af sulte- og kuldedød, bør ingen af disse agtværdige demokrater mere tage ordet menneskerettigheder i deres mund. Snarere bør man nævne de millioner af sårede, døde og flygtninge, som de endeløse, på falsk grundlag opbyggede krige har frembragt. Og hvad med Julian Assange, hvis eneste forbrydelse var at have afdækket krigsforbrydelser? Han bliver myrdet med juristiske midler i verdensoffentlighedens påsyn.

Man kunne forlænge denne liste med endnu mere: EU’s krigeriske tilbagedrivelsespolitik mod flygtninge, der blot er flygtninge, fordi de er ofre for de “endeløse krige”. Flygtningelejrene, som pave Frans har sammenlignet med koncentrationslejrene, følgerne af Klaus Schwab-typernes malthusianistiske politik, der anser forsøgene på at overviende fattigdommen for den største trussel mod “klimaet”, og derfor har kvalt enhver udvikling med deres betingelser gennem årtier?

Sammenlignet hermed tager de “enevældige” regeringers succeshistorier sig ikke så dårligt ud. Kina har ikke blot befriet 850 millioner mennesker af sin egen befolkning fra dyb fattigdom og for første gang gjort det muligt for udviklingslandene at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling. USA har ud af en befolkning på knap 330 millioner mennesker næsten 800.000 corona-døde, medens Kina med 1,4 milliarder mennesker har under 5000 døde. Måske – dette kunne de europæiske tæppesælgere jo engang prøve at tænke over – er menneskeliv mere værd for de “enevældige” regimer.

I Tyskland burde vi virkeligt tænke indgående over, at det at forblive i en militærpagt, der i et krisetilfælde vil medføre vor udslettelse, måske ikke er så god en ide alligevel. Der eksisterer virkeligt et alternativ til konfrontationspolitikken hos Nato, der siden 1991 faktisk er forældet. Der må oprettes en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der tager hensyn til alle staters sikkerhed.

Fire minutter i midnat: Hvor tætte er vi egentlig på atomkrig?

Den 8. december (EIRNS) – Både Præsident Joe Biden og Præsident Vladimir Putin kommenterede offentligt i dag angående det egentlige indhold af deres diskussion ved topmødet i går. Biden bekendtgjorde, at han arbejder på at sætte et yderligere topmøde op for at diskutere de røde linjer, som bekymrer Rusland, i forbindelse med Ukraine og NATO. »Den gode nyhed er, at indtil videre har vores hold haft løbende kontakt«, sagde Biden, og tilføjede at han håber på at kunne meddele før den 10. december, at der vil være et topmøde indenfor kort tid, som involverer Rusland, USA og mindst fire store NATO-allierede lande for at tage hånd om »Ruslands bekymringer i forhold til NATO« og forsøge at »bringe temperaturen ned langs østfronten«.

Præsident Putin forklarede i dag hvad bekymringerne i forbindelse med de røde linjer er: »Det ville være kriminel passivitet fra vores side slapt at betragte, hvad der finder sted« i Ukraine, sagde han, og fortsatte: »Vi har ret til at sørge for vores egen sikkerhed. Amerikanske/NATO-våben er problemet«. Som Putin gentagne gange har forklaret, vil NATO’s udvidelse helt op til Ruslands grænse i løbet af de sidste 20 år, og nu den direkte trussel om, at Ukraine kunne tilslutte sig NATO, eller amerikanske og NATO-tropper på dets territorium, gøre Rusland umulig at forsvare – undtagen via brugen af hypersoniske atomvåben. Hver side ville så have atomvåben med en flyvetid indenfor 5 minutter af hinanden, bemærkede Putin.

Eller ville det være fire minutter?

Lige efter gårsdagens topmøde meddelte Kreml-assistenten, Juri Ushakov, pressen, at Biden fortalte Putin ved deres topmøde, at han ville diskutere NATO’s østlige udvidelse med sine allierede kollegaer. Det ser ud til at være blevet bekræftet af Bidens egne kommentarer i dag.

Men fra Washingtons side kommer løgnene hurtigt og tætpakkede – og signaliserer den enorme fare for krig, der ikke blot stadig eksisterer, men forøges  hver time. Krigspartiet har taget initiativet til fuldstændigt at tage kontrollen over den strategiske politik ud af Bidens hænder og øjeblikkeligt optrappe provokationerne mod både Rusland og Kina til bristepunktet. Udenrigsminister Tony Blinken og den nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, Jake Sullivan, deltog i topmødet med Putin og agerede som Bidens støttepædagoger igennem hele forløbet, imens Putin sad alene. Blinken og Sullivan dukkede dernæst frem fra mødet for omgående at løbe til pressen for at udtale sig om hvad der angiveligt skete på topmødet – og undgik at nævne det planlagte møde, der skulle tage hånd om Ruslands bekymringer.

I stedet sagde Sullivan, at Biden læste Loven om Optøjer (Riot Act) op for Putin. Blinken var iskold og klar i sin levering af trusler og advarsler til både Rusland og Kina, og bebrejdede dem for kriserne i henholdsvis Ukraine og Taiwan, og truede med et frygteligt amerikansk svar på nogen form for militære træk, som de lande muligvis kunne fortage sig. Blinken var særlig skamløs angående etablissementets gambit med tilbagetrækningen fra Afghanistan, og argumenterede sågar, at det amerikanske folk stadig har »en appetit… for at genetablere os i udlandet igen, hvis det bliver nødvendigt« – altså, at påbegynde nye flerårige krige; blot, at det denne gang ville være direkte mod Rusland og Kina, præcis som Lyndon LaRouche allerede havde advaret var den sande strategiske hensigt bag provokationerne i Libyen, Irak, Syrien, Afghanistan, m.m.

Medmindre der er en seriøs opposition i USA mod en sådan krig mellem stormagterne, så vil det ske, advarede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag. Ukraine-krisen er langt fra overstået, og krigspartiet, anført fra London, er i gang med at hærge, som dette kan ses med Blinkens trusler mod både Rusland og Kina, samt hans utilslørede hensigt om at udsulte den afghanske befolkning indtil de underkaster sig – hvis ikke dét er en Nüremberg-forbrydelse, er der intet der er. Vil amerikanerne bare kigge den anden vej, mens en senator, Robert Wicker fra Mississippi, på nationalt TV udtaler: »Jeg ville ikke udelukke amerikanske tropper på fastlandet« i Ukraine, og at USA heller ikke skulle »udelukke anvendelsen af atomvåben, som de første« (»first-use nuclear action«) for at afskrække Rusland?

Zepp-LaRouche advarede yderligere, at hvis dette fortsætter meget længere, så vil lande i Europa, hvor atomvåben er opstillet, snart ophøre med at eksistere. På begge sider af Atlanterhavet burde det begynde at gå op for folk, hvad eksistensen af hypersoniske våben rent faktisk betyder.

I sit ugentlige webcast sammenfattede Zepp-LaRouche i dag situationen og opfordrede til handling:

»Min vurdering [af topmødet] er, at vi stadig sidder på en vulkan med en potentiel atomkrig… Jeg mener, at dette alt sammen er ekstremt farligt, og vi har omgående brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur i Europa og i Eurasien, som udelukker den mulige fare for atomkrig… Forhåbentlig vil fornuften sejre og denne utroligt farlige situation forvandles til noget andet.«

Hun mindede lytterne om sit forslag om Operation Ibn Sina, hvor verdens stormagter ville arbejde sammen for at stoppe den faretruende massedød i Afghanistan, og forsyne det land med et moderne sundhedsvæsen, tilstrækkelige fødevarer og den nødvendige infrastruktur for at muliggøre dette.

»Under pandemiens betingelser – hvilket ikke kun berører sundhed, men er en komplet trussel mod økonomien, som vi ser det i mange lande – er den eneste måde at italesætte de mest presserende spørgsmål som menneskeheden står over for, at sige: Vi bliver nødt til at fokusere på menneskehedens fælles mål, navnlig at overvinde pandemien, og vi bliver nødt til at arbejde sammen internationalt. Dette ville være et skridt i retningen af at overvinde denne vanvittige, ekstremt farlige geopolitiske konfrontation.«

Zepp-LaRouche opfordrede lytterne til, sammen med Schiller Instituttet, at mobilisere for at stoppe faren for en atomkrig. »Og samarbejde med os om Operation Ibn Sina, fordi det er et skridt i retningen af at afmontere en ellers ekstremt farlig situation.«

At skabe en mulighed ud af katastrofen:Tilblivelsen af en katalysator for et nyt paradigme

(2. december (EIRNS) – Rusland og Kina er flankeret mod vest og øst af truslen for militærkonflikt gennem brændpunkterne, Ukraine og Taiwan. Varslingerne om et angiveligt forestående angreb på Ukraine fra Rusland, bruges af NATO’s ledere som undskyldning til at presse på for at tropper og våben bliver stationeret i Ukraine. Præsident Putin har gjort det klart, at dette fuldstændigt ville overskride en rød linje for Rusland. Og udtalelsen tidligere i denne uge fra den forhenværende japanske premierminister, Shinze Abe, at Japan og USA ville forsvare Taiwan militært i tilfælde af en invasion fra det kinesiske fastland, blev mødt med yderst stærke fordømmelser fra Folkerepublikken Kina.

I tirsdags forklarede Putin truslen, som hans land står over for: »Den russiske Føderation har også visse bange anelser, hvad angår de storstilede militærøvelser, afholdt nær dets grænser, , herunder dem som ikke var planlagte, såsom de nylige øvelser i Sortehavet, hvor strategiske bombefly, der er kendt for at bære præcisions- og sågar atomvåben, fløj indenfor 20 km fra vores grænse.« Med NATO’s udvidelse mod Rusland i løbet af de sidste 20 år, inklusive placeringen af angivelige missilforsvarssystemer i Polen og Rumænien – udstyr som også er i stand til at affyre Tomahawk- og andre missiler – advarede Putin, at der er en absolut rød linje fra truslen af missiler fra Ukraine. »Jeg vil gentage det endnu engang, at spørgsmålet omhandler den mulige opstilling på Ukraines territorium af missilsystemer med en flyvetid på 7-10 minutter til Moskva, eller 5 minutter i tilfældet af hypersoniske systemer…«

»Så, hvad skal vi gøre? Vi ville blive nødt til at skabe lignende systemer, som kan bruges mod dem, der truer os… [V]i har afholdt succesfulde testninger, og tidligt næste år vil vi gøre et nyt sø-affyret, hypersonisk missil med en tophastighed på 9 mach klar til brug. Flyvetiden for dem, der udsteder ordrer, vil også være 5 minutter.«

»Hvorfor gør vi dette?« spurgte Putin. »Skabelsen af sådanne trusler er en rød linje for os.«

Udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov fortalte udenrigsministrenes OSCE-møde i Stockholm, at NATO’s involvering i Ruslands umiddelbare nærområde (vigtigst af alt Ukraine) ville »have de mest alvorlige konsekvenser og vil tvinge [Moskva] til at svare igen«. Det væbnede konflikts monster er vendt tilbage indenfor Europas grænser.

Kinas viceudenrigsminister, Hua Chunying, påmindede Japan: »Gennem dets koloniale herredømme over Taiwan for et halvt århundrede siden, begik Japan talrige forbrydelser, for hvilket det bærer et alvorligt, historisk ansvar overfor det kinesiske folk. Ingen bør undervurdere det kinesiske folks stærke viljestyrke, beslutsomhed og de evner de har for at garantere nationens suverænitet og territoriale integritet. Dem, som vover at forfølge en gammel vej med militarisme og udfordre vores grundlag, vil være på kollisionskurs med det kinesiske folk!«

Og det er ikke blot krig! Det ideologiske foretagende, som søger at bruge truslen om en militær konfrontation for at destabilisere udvikling, og kontrollere væksten og suveræniteten af nationer, der er uafhængige af den angloamerikanske slimede skimmelsvamp, er den samme magt, der fremmer den åbenlyse malthusianske dagsorden bag Den store Nulstilling. En pandemi løber amok i det meste af verden uden vacciner til rådighed i tilstrækkelige mængder  til at dække behovet og efterspørgslen i de mindre udviklede lande. Men i stedet for at løse dette problem, og udvikle en dybdegående sundhedsinfrastruktur, fortælles verden at den må mobilisere ti eller endog hundreder af billioner af dollars i investeringer for at forhindre relativt små forandringer i klimaet. Dette umenneskelige paradigme må erstattes omgående med et nyt paradigme for vækst og udvikling.

Selve den dødelige corona-pandemi skaber en mulighed. Ved at kaste lys over vores ekstreme mangel på beredskab, både imod nyfremkommende virusser og i form af sundhedsinfrastruktur samlet set, viser det behovet for et moderne, avanceret sundhedsvæsen for alle mennesker, som en motor for at skabe infrastrukturel, industriel og kulturel udvikling, samt uddannelse, i sin helhed.

Deltag med Schiller Instituttet denne lørdag i en diskussion om, hvordan den fulde udvikling af sundhedsinfrastruktur kan tjene som en motor for at feje den umenneskelige malthusianisme og geopolitik til side, og erstatte dem med en tilgang, der er i overensstemmelse med hvert individs værdighed.

Billede: chess-Pixabay, FelixMittermeier


Washington: Fredsdiplomati eller krigsmobilisering

10. oktober (EIRNS) – Det ville være muligt at berette om en række diplomatiske tiltag undervejs i Biden-administrationen og konkludere, at et amerikansk skifte, hen mod fredsforhandlinger og udvikling, finder sted. Men det ville være lige så muligt at berette om en lignende række væsentlige tiltag, som tages af Biden-administrationen, der ville føre til den modsatte konklusion – at forberedelser til krig er undervejs og tæt på et punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage.

Man behøver blot at huske på, at beslutningen om at afslutte den frugtesløse og blodige ”endeløse krig” i Afghanistan – et skridt i retningen af fornuft – blev efterfulgt af et britisk imperialt træk for at forene USA, Storbritannien og Australien i en militærpagt, et skridt mod et ”asiatisk NATO” for at forberede en krig mod Kina. Den 5. oktober udgav USA’s flådeminister, Carlos del Toro, en ”strategisk vejledning”, som udråbte Kina til at være den største, enkeltstående fare for USA. Det ”centrale, ledende koncept, den højeste prioritet”, siger han, er at ”udvide vores fordele indenfor krigsbekæmpelse i forhold til Kina” ved ”at udvide vores globale magtpositur” for at omringe og true både Kina og Rusland.

Kinas svar på denne provokation – særligt til Wall Street Journals påstand om at USA har militært personel på Taiwans fastland, som træner taiwansk militær – er ligeså alvorligt, som dette tydeliggøres i Global Times’ leder, at hvis dette er sandt, vil det blive betragtet som en ”invasion” af Kinas suveræne territorium, og at USA’s styrker ville være de første til at blive udslettet, hvis det kommer til krig.

Og i forhold til Rusland er modsætningerne indenfor USA’s politik ligeså absurde, hvor Biden-administrationen forfægter nødvendigheden af at forbedre det diplomatiske samarbejde med Moskva, umiddelbart efterfulgt af NATO’s bortvisning af 8 ud af 18 russiske repræsentanter til NATO. Kremls talsmand, Dmitry Peskov, konkluderede: ”NATO er ikke et instrument for samarbejde, ikke et instrument for interaktion; det er en blok, som overordnet set er af antirussisk natur”, og gør det umuligt at genoptage en dialog.

Og dog genoprettede administrationen i dag dialogen med Taliban i Doha, herunder en repræsentant fra Det internationale Udviklingsagentur, som skaber håb for, at USA vil gøre en ende på sanktionerne og tilbageholdelsen af afghanske betalingsmidler, hvilke er ansvarlige for den tilnærmelsesvise sultedød, der truer millioner af uskyldige. Administrationen afholdt også en runde af forhandlinger om handel med Kina her til morgen, som blev beskrevet af begge parter som ”ærlige, pragmatiske og konstruktive”.

Bag de modstridende tiltag i udenrigspolitikken findes en voksende anerkendelse af, at den globale økonomi nu går ind i en generel sammenbrudsfase. Dette er ikke blot et spørgsmål om, at spekulanter gør hvad de altid gør, når de sættes fri fra regulering – det er nærmere systemet selv, som falder fra hinanden. Forsyningskæder brydes, hvilket fører til nedlukningen af fabrikker og tomme hyller, imens energiproduktion, baseret på effektive, fossile brændstoffer og kernekraft, erstattes med ineffektive og utilregnelige energikilder, mere passende for det 17. århundrede, da der var mindre end en milliard mennesker på Jorden. Det er i sandhed en malthusiansk affolkningspolitik, der er intentionen.

Reaktioner kommer ind fra rundt om i verden på EIR Daily Alert Services afsløring af ordene fra Klaus Schwab, chefen for den internationale bankkonklave kendt som Verdens økonomiske Forum (World Economic Forum), som står i centrum for ”Den store Nulstilling” (Great Reset) og ”Den grønne new Deal”. Schwab skriver i sin bog, Stakeholder Capitalism, at udviklingen i Afrika og andre steder må stoppes med det samme, eftersom ”den samme kraft, som hjælper folk med at undslippe fattigdom og få et ordentligt liv, er den samme som ødelægger leveomstændighederne på vores planet”. Imens der er et voksende tilbageslag mod denne ondskab, som kunne – og må – forårsage at de folkemorderiske intentioner på COP26 klimatopmødet i Glasgow i næste måned slår fejl, må de tusinder af videnskabsfolk, som ved at CO2 ikke har nogen målbar indvirkning på klimaet, ikke desto mindre blive hørt, og dette malthusianske svindelnummer – fascisme med et grønt ansigt – stoppes omgående.

Det faktum, at arkitekterne bag dette morderiske angreb på menneskeheden i stigende grad er bange for at blive afsløret, blev yderligere demonstreret denne uge, da de instruerede deres ”tankepoliti” hos Google og YouTube i at forbyde alle reklamer, som udfordrer det falske dogme for klimaforandringer. Ligesom i den blodige franske revolution, da den store franske videnskabsmand, Antione Lavorier, blev halshugget, under opråbet: ”revolutionen har ikke brug for videnskab”, så udelukkes og latterliggøres de førende videnskabsfolk, der siger sandhed om CO2 i dag som ”klimabenægtere”. Der er en kampagne for at gøre ”økomord” til en forbrydelse, ligestillet med drab imod andre mennesker.

Modgiften til denne globale krise er præsenteret i den brochure, som nu cirkuleres af LaRouche-Organisationen: ”Det kommende økonomiske mirakel i USA på Den nye Silkevej”. Dette er det nødvendige og optimistiske program, som behøves for at iværksætte det store potentiale af amerikansk videnskab og teknologi for at genopbygge sig selv og opbygge de nationer, der blev ødelagt af de angloamerikanske ”endeløse krige”, og de mange andre der er blevet fastholdt i tilbageståenhed gennem de sidste 70 års kolonialistiske og neokolonialistiske politik.

Taler påbegyndes ved FN’s generalforsamling i denne uge;
tid til at overvinde ‘moralsk anløben ligegyldighed’

19. september (EIRNS) – Der er et begreb i amerikansk lov kendt som "moralsk anløben ligegyldighed". Det refererer til princippet om, at en person er ansvarlig, strafferetligt, hvis de ser passivt til, imens en uskyldig, sårbar person rammes af en forfærdelig skade. Tilfælde af domsfældelse involverer sædvanligvis en eller nogle få mennesker, der er ligeglade med, om en anden person lever eller dør. Men i dag ser vi moralsk anløben ligegyldighed over for lidelse og død af en massiv størrelsesorden, hvilket kunne forhindres.

På den "humanitære" side ser vi for eksempel de dødelige konsekvenser af at fortsætte de økonomiske sanktioner, som USA nu har over for mere end 30 lande, de fleste i længere perioder, herunder Yemen, Syrien, Venezuela, Cuba med flere. Og den overlagte mangel på økonomisk udvikling fortsætter, mens kredsene inden for City of London/Wall Street regerer.

I Afghanistan betyder et afslag fra amerikanske finansinstitutioner på at ophæve deres indefrysning af landets aktiver en ordre om at lukke landet ned, og forårsager massedød midt i kaosset fra pandemien og hungersnøden.

På den "militære" side ser vi oprettelsen af AUKUS – Australiens, Storbritanniens og USA’s militærblok, en del af bestræbelserne for "Global Britain", som også indvarsler farlige konsekvenser gennem konfrontation mod Kina og Rusland og dødelig oprustning.

Som eksempel på krisen har vi det aktuelle forfærdelige drama med haitianerne og deres land. I dag begyndte de amerikanske myndigheder en omfattende udvisning af haitiske flygtninge fra Texas, og at flyve dem tilbage til Haiti. I weekenden var der mere end 12.000 flygtninge, hovedsageligt haitianere, der slog lejr under og nær den internationale bro i Del Rio, Texas, under elendige forhold, efter at de krydsede Rio Grande fra Ciudad Acuna, Mexico. I dag fløj tre fly 320 migranter tilbage til Port-au-Prince; den 21. september forventes yderligere seks fly at ankomme dertil. Alt i alt er der siden fredag den 17. september blevet flyttet 3.300 migranter fra Del Rio med fly hjem eller til amerikanske flygtningelejre. Om en dag forventes yderligere 3.000 at blive bortvist, og alle migranter fjernet inden næste weekend. Mexico har også til hensigt at begynde deportationer.

Disse migranter er ikke fordrevet alene på grund af jordskælvet, der ramte Haiti den 14. august, men mange af dem flygtede for år tilbage, efter jordskælvet i januar 2010 og i de hårde år siden, uden at deres nation blev opbygget. Cirka 4 millioner mennesker i Haiti ud af deres 10 millioner har brug for mad bare for at overleve, og der er flere nødlidende på andre af øerne og områderne for de 44 millioner mennesker i det caribiske øhav. Læg dertil fordrivelsen og nøden i de kystnære områder fra Venezuela til Mellemamerika. I dag var David Beasley, leder af Verdens Fødevareprogram (VFP), i Falcon State, Venezuela, for at sørge for VFP’s skolemadprojekt for børn, en livline for tusinder her og millioner rundt om i verden. Beasley appellerer om nødfinansiering til VFP i Haiti, Venezuela, Afghanistan og for at lindre og derefter stoppe sult overalt. Det betyder grundlæggende at starte økonomisk udvikling.

Det er moralsk anløben ligegyldighed ikke at forstå dette. "Kan 'Vesten' tage ved lære?" er det relevante spørgsmål, der ligger til grund for erklæringen den 5. september fra Schiller Instituttets formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der har fokus på Afghanistan, og opfordrer til at tage ved lære af den dødbringende fejltagelse med den langvarige krig i Afghanistan. ("Kan 'Vesten' tage ved lære? Hvad Afghanistan har brug for nu! Https://larouchepub.com/pr/2021/20210906_lead-editorial.html") Men hendes spørgsmål gælder generelt. Kan Vesten tage ved lære? Udvikling er navnet på fred. Det er også navnet på stabilitet, retfærdighed, sikkerhed, overlevelse og fremtiden.

I sidste uge, den 14. september, begyndte FN's generalforsamling sin 76. session i New York City, og den generelle debatperiode for diskussioner på højt plan mellem stats- eller regeringschefer eller udenrigsministre løber fra 21.-25. september og den 27. september. Erklæringen fra Zepp-LaRouche vil blive cirkuleret, og endvidere er endnu en erklæring fra Schiller Instituttet på vej. Derudover vil et udkast til et udviklingsprogram for Haiti blive udgivet om 10 dage. Nu er tiden inde til at deltage i mobiliseringen.,

Billede af: Lowlova, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Det amerikanske præsidentskabs stormfulde beslutning, inkl. uddrag fra præsident Bidens tale

31. august (EIRNS) – ”Denne beslutning om Afghanistan er ikke blot en beslutning om Afghanistan. Det handler om afslutningen på en æra med større militære operationer for at omdanne andre nationer.” Det amerikanske præsidentskab, repræsenteret af Joe Biden, har den 31. august potentielt set lukket døren til mere end tre årtier med transatlantiske ”triumftog” siden 1989 under Projektet for et nyt amerikansk Århundrede (PNAC); gennem George H. W. Bush’s forsvarsminister, Dick Cheneys, neokonservative ”5/20-komité” fra 1990; gennem Margaret Thatchers og George Bushs golfkrig (”Desert Shield/Desert Storm”) i 1990-91; gennem Tony Blairs tale om ”Responsibility to protect” (”Ansvaret for at beskytte”) i Chicago i 1999; og gennem ”evighedskrigene” i perioden efter 11. september, 2001.

Hvad angår Afghanistan har talsmanden for det kinesiske udenrigsministerium leveret, ikke en formaning, men et velovervejet forslag: ”En hvilken som helst handling, besluttet af FN’s sikkerhedsråd, inklusive timingen, bør afhjælpe konflikten i stedet for at optrappe spændingerne, og hjælpe med en blød overgang frem for endnu et styrtdyk ned i kaos… Vi håber, at de relevante lande indser det faktum, at en tilbagetrækning ikke er enden på ansvaret, men begyndelsen på refleksion og korrektion… USA og nogle andre vestlige lande burde yde Afghanistan den støtte, som økonomien har så hårdt brug for, levevilkår og humanitære nødvendigheder, hjælpe det afghanske folk med at overvinde problemer så hurtigt som muligt og påbegynde en fredelig genopbygning på det tidligst mulige tidspunkt. Hvad de ikke bør gøre er blot at tage af sted og efterlade et rod…”

Afslutningen på geopolitik er her visdommens begyndelse, og ikke blot en ”geoøkonomisk” erstatning af geopolitik. En ny idé – idéen om at forøge den samlede potentielle, relative befolkningstæthed på hele planeten, ved strategisk at forøge befolkningen for at øge planetens fysiske værdi som helhed, inklusive biosfæren selv, gennem et entusiastisk samarbejde blandt suveræne, uafhængige nationalstater – er den ”skøre” idé, som den transatlantiske verden må overbevises om på vegne af hele menneskeheden. Det vil ikke være let. Men: ”Du kvaser disse ord ind i mine ører imod / min egen mavefornemmelse” er ikke nødvendigvis svaret fra alle fraktioner i USA og den transatlantiske verden. Det åndfulde livsværk indeholdt i Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske forslag, herunder løsningerne til de tilsyneladende uløselige problemer i hver del af en stormfuld verden fyldt med konflikter, en sygdomsbølge og underudvikling, må nu slippes løs for at genopbygge verden. Det er den egentlige mission for LaRouche Legacy Foundations arkiveringsprojekt – en mission, som i de kommende måneder, må gøre problemløsningsmetoden i hundrede af LaRouches værker tilgængelig i videoform, på skrift og i taleformat.

Imens andre nationer, specielt dem som har taget initiativ til og samarbejdet med Bælte- og Vejinititativet, tydeligvis har udtrykt deres ønske om og evne til at udvikle sig selv, er Lyndon LaRouches tilgang til fysisk økonomi, samt hans opfindelse af ”udviklingskorridoren”, som det fysiske grundlag for at opløfte biosfærens evolution som helhed, kvalitativt overlegen i forhold til alle andre eksisterende begreber om fremtidig udvikling. Formidlingen af LaRouches unikke bidrag til global erkendelse, så vel som genskabelsen af menneskelig kreativitet , er vores formål, specielt i de kommende dage og måneder. Afghanistan er på nuværende tidspunkt en enestående situation, området for et enormt transformationspotentiale, hvor igennem en flerdimensionel, forbundet proces for verdensøkonomisk udvikling kan igangsættes overalt på denne klode. På denne måde vil vi undgå den tilsyneladende uundgåelige påbegyndelse af denne største, stadigt forestående, men hurtigt kommende, menneskelige tragedie. Hvis dette synes at være nådesløst, er det det kun for dem, som mangler modet til at forandre deres aksiomer.

Selvom LaRouche ikke er fysisk til stede til at overvære dette, har ødelæggelsens vinde, ligesom i Shakespeares Stormen, som blæser den dødelige tredelte pandemi af sygdom, krig og hungersnød/fattigdom til den atlantiske verdens kyster, overdraget menneskehedens fjender til den nutidige histories dom. Denne nutidige historie vil ikke tolerere den fjollede selvødelæggende utopi kaldet den Grønne New Deal. På trods af at det Skotske Nationalparti bringer de Grønne ind i regeringen for først gang, og Angela Merkel giver sin hovedtale ved 50-årsjubilæet for stiftelsen af Greenpeace’s tyske aflægger, indser verden, at den grønne euforis intetsigende løfter er en opskrift på undergang. ”Ingen brug af metal, korn, eller vin, eller olie – ingen beskæftigelse; alle mænd er ledige, alle, og kvinderne ligeså.”

Nu må vi skabe, ikke en ende, men en ny begyndelse på en afghansk situation som bliver, om et ikke et convivencia (begreb om den tid da muslimer, jøder og kristne levede fredeligt sammen i Andalusien –red-), men i det mindste en dialog mellem civilisationerne. Statskunst – ikke ”kunsten at lave en handel” (Trumps ”The Art of the Deal”) – er den eneste vej som verden kan tage. I skriftet Latter, Musik og Kreativitet skriver Lyndon LaRouche: ”Kernen af det egentlige spørgsmål er princippet om frihed i forhold til nødvendighed. Sammenligningen mellem den kreative musiker og den kreative fysiker passer eftertrykkeligt her… Essensen af kreativitet er problemløsning. I sidste ende er menneskets beherskelse af naturen, beherskelse af det materielle univers’ implicit forståelige love, underlagt al kreativ problemløsning.”

Denne nye amerikanske æra for samarbejde, en tilbagevenden til den ”menneskelige udenrigspolitik” af den klassiske lærde, John Quincy Adams, den amerikanske udenrigsminister og senere amerikanske præsident, som senere succesfuldt forsvarede de kidnappede afrikanere på slaveskibet Amistad i retten, må tage de sande interesser af alle i hele verden i betragtning. Den verdensomspændende sundhedsplatform, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har foreslået, inkluderer offentlige sanitære forhold, rent vand, medikamenter og fødevarer, ligesom chefen for Verdensfødevareprogram, David Beasley, for nyligt krævede dette for Afghanistan, er måden hvorpå det sorgers hav, som konfronterer verden, kan tæmmes og, ved at ændre ens aksiomer, overvindes.

Uddrag fra præsident Bidens tale efter tilbagetrækningen fra Afghanistan (på engelsk):

“Ending an Era”—Biden Gives Passionate Anti-War Speech

Aug. 31, 2021 (EIRNS)—President Joe Biden today did far more than announce the end of the 20 years of war in Afghanistan—he announced the “ending of an era”—his words—reflecting those of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who has posed that the lesson of Afghanistan is the utter failure of the “regime change” era launched by Tony Blair in 1999, and called for a new paradigm for mankind. While Biden did not go that far, it was close.

“I was not going to extend this forever war, and I was not extending a forever exit,” he said. “This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.” Clearly, if the President means this—and he spoke with passion—it will require both the end of the other “forever wars” which still rage in Southwest Asia, and certainly means ending the drive for war with Russia and China being orchestrated by the British and their stooges in the U.S.

On war itself, Biden said: "After 20 years of war in Afghanistan, I refused to send another generation of America’s sons and daughters to fight a war that should have ended long ago. After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan — a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan — for two decades — yes, the American people should hear this: $300 million a day for two decades…. And most of all, after 800,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan — I’ve traveled that whole country — brave and honorable service; after 20,744 American servicemen and women injured, and the loss of 2,461 American personnel, including 13 lives lost just this week, I refused to open another decade of warfare in Afghanistan. We’ve been a nation too long at war. If you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace.

“So, when I hear that we could’ve, should’ve continued the so-called low-grade effort in Afghanistan, at low risk to our service members, at low cost, I don’t think enough people understand how much we have asked of the 1 percent of this country who put that uniform on, who are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our nation. Maybe it’s because my deceased son, Beau, served in Iraq for a full year, before that. Well, maybe it’s because of what I’ve seen over the years as senator, vice president, and president traveling these countries. A lot of our veterans and their families have gone through hell — deployment after deployment, months and years away from their families; missed birthdays, anniversaries; empty chairs at holidays; financial struggles; divorces; loss of limbs; traumatic brain injury; post-traumatic stress. We see it in the struggles many have when they come home. We see it in the strain on their families and caregivers. We see it in the strain of their families when they’re not there. We see it in the grief borne by their survivors. The cost of war they will carry with them their whole lives. Most tragically, we see it in the shocking and stunning statistic that should give pause to anyone who thinks war can ever be low-grade, low-risk, or low-cost: 18 veterans, on average, who die by suicide every single day in America — not in a far-off place, but right here in America. There’s nothing low-grade or low-risk or low-cost about any war. It’s time to end the war in Afghanistan.”

He said the invasion of Afghanistan had been a counter-terror operation, but we saw it “morph into a counterinsurgency, nation building — trying to create a democratic, cohesive, and unified Afghanistan—- something that has never been done over the many centuries of Afghanistan history. Moving on from that mindset and those kinds of large-scale troop deployments will make us stronger and more effective and safer at home.”

He pledged continued support for the Afghan people, especially the women and girls in Afghanistan and elsewhere, adding: “But the way to do that is not through endless military deployments, but through diplomacy, economic tools, and rallying the rest of the world for support.” This was, unfortunately, his only reference to development.

He insisted that the evacuation was an “extraordinary success,” getting 120,000 people out in such a short time, and that it would have been chaotic whether it were done earlier or later. He said the process will continue with cooperation from the Taliban if they stick to their word, and assured his audience that the terrorists, in Afghanistan or anywhere else, could be fought “over the horizon,” with few or no troops on the ground.

He concluded:

“As we close 20 years of war and strife and pain and sacrifice, it’s time to look to the future, not the past — to a future that’s safer, to a future that’s more secure, to a future that honors those who served and all those who gave what President Lincoln called their”last full measure of devotion." I give you my word: With all of my heart, I believe this is the right decision, a wise decision, and the best decision for America."

Hele talen kan læses her.

Billede: video grab: The White House's YouTube channel

Ingen udvikling, ingen fred: Begynd med Afghanistan

12. august (EIRNS) – Ugeskriftet EIR, udgivet i dag, bringer sin forsidehistorie under overskriften "Ingen udvikling, ingen fred: Start med Afghanistan", hvilket budskab i særdeleshed gælder de intense forhandlinger, der er i gang i denne uge i Doha, og for hvilke der kun er et tidsbegrænset vindue af muligheder. Begivenhederne sker hastigt. Centralt i Doha-forhandlingerne, der har fundet sted fra den 10. august til og med i dag, befinder sig 'Trojka+' – Kina, Rusland, USA plus Pakistan samt repræsentanter for Afghanistan og Taliban, hvortil kommer sessioner, der involverer andre nationer, i forskellige sammensætninger.

I mellemtiden hævder Taliban for nuværende at have kontrol over hovedstæderne i 10 af landets 34 provinser, hvoraf den sidste er Ghazni, kendt som "porten til Kabul", beliggende 130 km sydvest for hovedstaden. Pentagon meddelte i eftermiddag, at man vil sende tusinder af ekstra styrker ind for at hjælpe med at evakuere den amerikanske ambassade i Kabul, samt andre lokaliteter.

De foreløbige rapporter fra samtalerne i Doha udviser lidet eller intet resultat, men selve processen tæller meget. Kinas særlige repræsentant for Afghanistan, Yue Xiaoyong, sagde i går til Doha News, at dette kun er begyndelsen, og at processen skal føre til, at forskellige lande arbejder sammen. Den russiske udsending, Zamir Kabulov, rapporteres at have fremsat et trepunkts-forslag: 1) respektere en våbenhvile; 2) forpligte sig til en inkluderende dialog internt i Afghanistan; og 3) etablere en midlertidig, delt regeringsmagt, hvor der afholdes valg om to år. Afghanistans forslag til en regering – ubekræftet, men bredt rapporteret ved denne briefing – har henblik på en deling af regeringsmagten.

Blandt deltagerne i dagens samtaler er der ud over 'Trojka+' repræsentanter fra Indien, Tyrkiet og Indonesien. Også Norge og Storbritannien og Organisationen for islamiske Lande står til rådighed. I tirsdags i Doha mødtes udsendinge fra EU, Storbritannien og USA.

Den eneste model for at få en plan til at fungere, er et perspektiv og handling for udvikling, og enighed blandt stormagterne for at få det til at ske. En variation af denne sandhed om, at der uden udvikling ikke kan være fred, er det yderligere faktum, at der slet ikke kan være nogen fremtid uden udvikling.

Processen med omvendt udvikling – nemlig "grøn" ødelæggelse af de levevilkår, som mennesker har brug for for at eksistere og være kreative, grundlaget for fremskridt i forhold til fortsat produktivitet – fremgår af endnu et klassisk tilfælde af strømafbrydelse, ligesom udfaldet under frostvejret i Texas i februar, eller det europæiske el-net, der var tæt på nedbrud i januar. Denne gang var det 'down under'.

Den 9. august befandt tusinder af mennesker i New Zealand sig pludseligt i mørket, da den nationale el-produktionskapacitet ikke kunne imødekomme efterspørgslen, og overbelastningssystemet førte til pludselige, kaotiske afbrydelser. Strømmen er tilbage for de fleste forbrugere, men politikerne skråler op om hvem de skal bebrejde. Faktisk blev New Zealand betragtet som verdens førende inden for lave CO₂-udledninger, på grund af at man får over 80 procent af sin elforsyning fra "vedvarende energikilder", hvilket for det meste betyder vandkraft til dets lille befolkning på 4,8 millioner mennesker. Men da de 'smarte' grønne begyndte at tilføje vindkraft og nåede en andel på 6 procent af den nationale forsyning fra 17 installationer plus tilføjede et spotmarked for engros-spekulation i elektricitet og andre typiske former for grøn svindel, var scenen sat for strømudfald.

I Tyskland er det bemærkelsesværdigt, at to store medier i denne uge skriver advarsler mod at gå for langt og for hurtigt med den grønne ideologi. Die Zeit opfordrede til at forlænge levetiden for de tilbageværende fire tyske atomkraftreaktorer. I dag anfører Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, at partiet 'De Grønnes' planer om at trække strøm fra vindparkerne ved Østersøen til forbrugere rundt omkring i landet ikke vil fungere, fordi kommende folk med grøn livsstil vil afvise at have strømledningerne i nærheden af deres hjem, osv.

Dette er blot forhalingsmanøvrer, men indikerer at virkeligheden endelig begynder at sætte ind.

Denne lørdag er der muligheden for at trænge ind til kernen af principperne om, hvad der definerer en vellykket økonomisk tilgang, som præsenteret så historisk og stærkt af statsmanden og økonomen Lyndon LaRouche, i særdeleshed, for 50 år siden, ved vendepunktet 15. august 1971, da Nixon-administrationen iværksatte flydende valutakurser. Konferencen den 14. august, sponsoreret af LaRouche Legacy Foundation, har titlen: "Nå så er du endelig villig til at lære økonomi?" Helga Zepp-LaRouche meddelte i går: "Dette bliver en skelsættende begivenhed, og jeg lover ikke for meget!"

Biden lander i Storbritannien, truer straks Rusland… igen

10. juni 2021 (EIRNS) — Umiddelbart ved ankomsten til Storbritannien onsdag holdt præsident Joe Biden en tale, der truede Rusland i lignende vendinger som dem han brugte i sin leder i Washington Post tidligere på ugen og i Det Hvide Hus' dekret af 15. april. ”Jeg er på vej mod G7, derefter til NATO's ministermøde og derefter til mødet med hr. Putin for at fortælle ham, hvad jeg vil have at han skal vide”, sagde Biden på RAF Mildenhall i Suffolk, England – hjemsted for en amerikansk optanknings-enhed. ”Vi søger ikke konflikt med Rusland, vi ønsker et stabilt forudsigeligt forhold,” sagde Biden. ”Jeg er klar over, at USA vil reagere på en håndfast og meningsfuld måde, når den russiske regering deltager i harmfulde handlinger. Vi har allerede demonstreret det. Jeg vil meddele, at der er konsekvenser for at krænke demokratiets suverænitet i USA og Europa og andre steder”.

Kreml har erklæret sin hensigt om at forsøge at stoppe det frie fald i relationerne mellem USA og Rusland, og bemærkede at præsident Putin ikke er den første til at rejse spørgsmålet om sanktioner. Biden ser imidlertid ud til at være forprogrammeret til endnu en gang at levere truslerne, alt sammen under opsyn af udenrigsminister Tony Blinken, der vil deltage på topmødet.

Billede: Biden taler til US Air Force-personale på Mildenhall Air Base i Storbritannien 10. juni 2021

På tærsklen til tre topmøder – mobilisér for et nyt paradigme

8. juni (EIRNS) – Onsdag formiddag drager Joe Biden og hans kone på sin første rejse til udlandet som præsident, en otte dages tur til tre topmøder – G7 den 11.-13. juni i Cornwall, England; NATO's møde for statsoverhoveder den 14. juni i Bruxelles; og topmødet den 16. juni med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i Genève. Princippet om at ledere af større nationer mødes for samarbejde er hårdt tiltrængt i nutidens verden med de mange kriser – den fortsatte pandemi, hungersnød og konfrontation til et punkt, hvor der er fare for en altomfattende krig.

Imidlertid er modstanderne af potentielt samarbejde og endog princippet om at tjene det fælles gode i fuld gang med enten helt at sabotere Biden-Putin-topmødet, eller på en eller anden fantasifuld måde at forsøge at dominere begivenhederne for at styre hele nationer ind i et dommedagsforløb med grøn dekonstruktion og konflikt. Det blev i går meddelt, at udenrigsminister Antony Blinken vil være sammen med Biden, når han mødes med Putin. Ikke overraskende, men ikke gunstigt.

Tilfældigvis vidnede Blinken på daglange kongreshøringer i 'Udvalget for bevillinger og Udenrigsrelationer' i Repræsentanternes Hus hele dagen mandag, og i Senatet i dag. Det tilbagevendende tema, udtrykt med 'glat upartiskhed', var, at Rusland og Kina er amerikanske fjender; de er imod amerikanske "værdier" og så videre og videre. F.eks. Hævdede rep. Gerald Connelly (D-VA), at NATO ikke længere kun skulle være en forsvarsorganisation i den militære forstand, som den blev grundlagt, men nu være aktiv "for demokrati" mod ondartede ledere. "Det skal være en modgift mod Putin og Xi… Demokrati skal indbygges i NATO's arkitektur" for "demokratisk modstandsdygtighed". Blinken forsikrede ham om, at det vil være sådan. Han sagde, at Rusland i 2010 – det sidste år af NATO's formelle "konceptuelle" mandat – blev omtalt som en "partner", og Kina næppe nævnt overhovedet. Opretholdelse af demokrati mod disse nationer skal nu være NATO’s officielle konceptuelle charter. Der var snesevis af sådanne udvekslinger og national chauvinisme på børnehaveniveau. Som NATO-chef Jens Stoltenberg sagde i den forgangne uge: NATO er ikke længere kun en militær alliance, men en "militær-politisk" alliance og "global", ikke kun i "Atlanterhavsregionen", som navnet fejlagtigt antyder.

I tråd med alt dette vil Bidens første stop i morgen være Mildenhall, England, til Royal Air Force base, hvor 'U.S. Air Force 100th Air Refueling Wing' er placeret, den eneste permanente amerikanske beliggenhed for genoptankning i det europæiske operationsområde. Han vil tale til amerikansk personale. Torsdag vil han mødes med premierminister Boris Johnson, i hvad medierne beskriver som en lejlighed til at understrege det særlige forhold mellem USA og Storbritannien. Søndag tager Bidens til Windsor Castle for at mødes med dronningen.

Denne politiske stillingtagen er lige så giftig som den er farlig, men den er også vildledende. Det monetaristiske finanssystem, der er knyttet til det særlige økonomiske forhold mellem USA og Storbritannien, mellem Wall Street og City of London, er nu i sin endelige slutfase. Det kan ikke fortsætte. Se på dagens hyperinflation, der forværres for hver time. Enten vil der være et gennembrud til et nyt paradigme for økonomisk politik og udenlandske relationer, der begunstiger folk og nationer, eller der vil være kaos og elendighed, med sandsynlighed for krig. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets præsident, pointerer dette kraftigt i nylige meddelelser og advarer om, at hyperinflationen viser, at en større faseændring er i vente. "Det kan ikke stå på for altid… ikke en dårlig uendelighed".

En manifestation af slutfasen er, at folk ikke har råd til at spise. Internationale priser på basisfødevarer – taget som en fællesbetegnelse – er i maj måned 38 procent højere end niveauet i maj 2020, målt og vægtet efter forskellige kategorier. Dette er den seneste rapport fra FN’s fødevare- og landbrugsorganisations (FAO’s) fødevareprisindeks, en månedlig undersøgelse, der blev udsendt den 1. juni. FAO giver detaljer – fx er prisen på majs steget 89 procent i løbet af denne periode; priserne på mejeriprodukter er steget med 28 procent osv.

Se på COVID-19 der nu raser på den sydlige halvkugle, såvel som i Indien samt visse steder i Sydøstasien. Den Panamerikanske Sundhedsorganisations seneste oversigt melder om udbrud fra Chile til det caribiske område.

I dette dystre billeder er der punkter, der skiller sig ud som det modsatte paradigme for medfølelse, fornuft og klog politik. I kulisserne af det Internationale økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg i sidste uge, mødtes præsident Putin med repræsentanter for adskillige medicinalfirmaer, investorer samt nationer, om planer for hurtigt at oprette produktionsfaciliteter mange steder for Sputnik V-vaccinen. Hidtil er 25 firmaer og 14 nationer involveret, plus 30 investorer fra 17 lande. Blandt statsoverhoveder på mødet (virtuelt) var Argentinas og Serbiens. Nationer der deltog i etableringen af vacine-faciliteter inkluderede Mexico, Tyskland, Italien, Hviderusland, Kina, Kasakhstan m.fl.

Dette illustrerer den ånd, der må italesættes overalt i mobiliseringen for et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden. Temaet for den kommende todages internationale (virtuelle) konference i Schiller Instituttet: "Til det fælles bedste for alle mennesker, ikke regler til gavn for de få!"


Sørg for at nødforanstaltninger for det fælles bedste erstatter hyperinflation og geopolitisk vanvid

1. juni (EIRNS) – I en udsendelse fra Asien i dag udtalte manden, der anses for at være forfatteren af den triumferende amerikanske nationale forsvarsstrategi, Elbridge Colby, udsendt i januar 2018, at der ikke er nogen grund til at have amerikanske udenrigs-relationer, med undtagelse af opretholdelsen af USA's beredskab til at vinde konventionelle krige, og, såfremt det er nødvendigt, at føre atomkrig. Colby er den tidligere viceforsvarsminister for strategi og styrkedeployering. Han var den fremtrædende gæst på morgenens program hos Asia Times med titlen: "Hvad kunne starte en stillehavskrig, og hvem ville vinde den".

Selvom ideen om atomkrig kan være forfærdelig, sagde Colby, skal man være forberedt på det. Han sagde, at Kina muligvis ville beregne forkert og indlede en krig om Taiwan i den tro, at USA ikke vil gribe ind. Colbys forsvarsstrategi fra 2018 definerede Kina og Rusland som strategiske konkurrenter, der må inddæmmes økonomisk og militært, hvis det viser sig nødvendigt.

Colby blev bedt om at svare på et spørgsmål, der blev stillet af {EIR}-deltager Mike Billington, (dog ikke identificeret ved navn af ordstyreren, David Goldman, der har bevæget sig langt væk fra tidligere at have samarbejdet med Lyndon LaRouche). Som svar på: "Hvorfor skulle USA ikke bare slutte sig til Kina i Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet for at opbygge verden?" svarede Colby: ”Det ville stride helt imod den menneskelige natur. G2 [to konkurrerende regeringer, der kommer sammen] fungerer aldrig. Tilskyndelsen til at hvert land vil søge at opnå en fordel frem for det andet er simpelthen for stor. "Med andre ord: 'Den Westfalske Fred' – der tog hensyn til de andres interesser – fandt aldrig sted. Colby fortsatte," Kina ønsker at have et stort område, hvor det har herredømme, sætter de økonomiske regler, har overherredømme, som de plejede at sige … "

Det er denne ondskabsfulde tankegang, der ligger bag, ikke kun den ekstreme krigsfare i verden i dag, men også den økonomiske ødelæggelse fra 'den store grønne nulstilling'. Det manifesteres på mange måder…

For eksempel det faktum, at der ikke er noget effektivt internationalt samarbejde i gang for en vellykket global vaccinationskampagne for at stoppe pandemien. Verdenssundhedsforsamlingen (World Health Assembly) med over 190 nationer sluttede i dag (24. maj – 1. juni) med en erkendelse af denne mangel.

Se på den manglende reaktion på de åbenlyse overvågningsoperationer fra det amerikanske National Security Agency (NSA) og de danske myndigheder i årevis, for ikke at nævne andre spionageaffærer og beskidte operationer foretaget af 'Five Eyes' og 'The Nine Eyes' (med tilføjelse af Holland, Norge, Frankrig samt Danmark). Den serbiske præsident Aleksandar Vucic sagde i denne uge, at NSA’s danske udspioneringsskandale og manglende reaktion viser, at der ikke er nogen international lov, intet princip og ingen moral tilbage i internationale relationer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche citerede i dag disse eksempler og bemærkede, at det i øjeblikket står "meget, meget klart, at Vesten med deres geopolitiske besættelse ignorerer befolkningernes fælles bedste". Schiller Instituttet er uundværligt med henblik på at frembringe politik og principper til at håndtere kriserne gennem dialogprocessen og konferencer. Især begivenheden 26.-27. juni er anledning til at slå til lyd for nødvendigheden af en Glass/Steagall-bankreorganisering og tilhørende kreditpolitik, der er presserende nødvendige i USA og rundt om i verden, og som kun kan diskuteres og indføres gennem en ny Bretton Woods-konference med førende nationer. Den falske "videnskab" bag den grønne nulstilling må afsløres og afmonteres. Tilgangen som bruges af Komitéen for 'modsætningernes Sammenfald til løsning af kriser ved at overvinde mindre forhindringer, tage fat på menneskehedens fælles mål, er afgørende og må brede sig internationalt.

Zepp LaRouche understregede yderligere, at tidshorisonten for at gøre dette "ikke er endeløs… ikke en dårlig uendelighed". Nej; den nuværende hyperinflation viser, at en større faseændring snart er i vente. Vi er nødt til at sikre, at vores ideer for menneskeheden får overhånd… og ikke folkemordernes.

Billede: Snip fra internet

Det er stormagternes ansvar at sikre midlerne til livets opretholdelse

14. maj (EIRNS) — Søndag den 16. maj finder et møde om de israelsk-palæstinensiske stridigheder sted i FN's Sikkerhedsråd. Med Kina som formand i denne måned blev Rådet på grund af USA's forsinkelsestaktik forhindret i at mødes tidligere på ugen, eller endog at udsende en erklæring med opfordring til at stoppe de forfærdelige blodsudgydelser. Ud over antallet af dræbte under voldsomhederne, stiger lidelsen og antallet af dødsfald for hver time på grund af den udbredte ødelæggelse af midlerne til livets opretholdelse – vand, energi og mad. På søndag lukkes der for elektriciteten i Gaza, der er hjemsted for 2 millioner mennesker, efter israelsk lukning af brændstofforsyninger over grænseovergangene. Vandforsyningen, der allerede er lav og svigtende, kunne stoppe.
Denne kriseregion og den verdensomspændende virkning af den langvarige pandemi og den forværrede hungersnød, skriger efter samordnet handling fra stormagterne. Der er allerede institutionelle netværk til opgaverne. Nødsituationen gør det dramatisk klart, at der er behov for et møde med lederne for de fem permanente medlemmer af FN's Sikkerhedsråd (USA, Rusland, Kina, Storbritannien og Frankrig) så hurtigt som muligt, som foreslået af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin første gang i Jerusalem den 23. januar 2020.
Putin og FN’s generaldirektør, Antonio Guterres, mødtes i går (online) og opfordrede til at stoppe kampene mellem Israel og palæstinenserne og til handling for at "sikre civilbefolkningens sikkerhed", som Kreml sagde. Guterres lovede specifikt under sit besøg i Moskva, at FN er "fuldt parat" til at genoptage arbejdet i Mellemøsten-kvartetten – Rusland, USA, FN og Den Europæiske Union – for at standse volden.
Den amerikanske modstand mod en fredsintervention er en fortsættelse af den mangeårige britiske udenrigspolitiske drejebog med at anspore permanente spændinger – vanvittigt i en tidsalder med atomvåben. Især den amerikanske udenrigspolitik med at indføre økonomiske sanktioner i hele denne region, og så mange andre steder, ødelægger bevidst midlerne til livets opretholdelse for millioner af mennesker.  I Syrien, eksempelvis, forhindrer de direkte og indirekte virkninger af amerikanske sanktioner, at syrere vender tilbage til deres hjem. En ny rapport siger: "Fra i dag at regne er 2.249.050 syriske borgere vendt tilbage til de steder, hvor de har valgt bopæl", men millioner flere – især som flygtninge i nabolandene – kan ikke gøre dette og lider meget. De mangler mad, rent vand, medicin, byggematerialer og så videre. "Alle opfordringer til at reducere de grusomme sanktioner er hidtil blevet kynisk ignoreret." (13. maj, 2021, "Erklæring fra Den russiske Føderation og den Syriske arabiske Republiks fælles koordinationsudvalg om problemerne med repatriering af de syriske flygtninge og internt fordrevne". http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12361170@egNews)
Samarbejdet mellem stormagterne for umiddelbar intervention for våbenhvile involverer samtidig humanitær nødhjælp med vand, energi og medicin og forpligtelse til udvikling. Der er allerede økonomiske programmer på dagsordenen for regionen. På Schiller Instituttets internationale onlinekonferencer, 2020-2021, blev f.eks. "Project Phoenix" for Syrien og "Project Felix" for Yemen og andre projekter præsenteret og drøftet. “Oasis Plan -perspektivet – præsenteret for årtier siden af statsmanden og økonomen Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. – opfordrer til storstilet økonomisk udvikling i fuld skala i hele Mellemøsten og Nordafrika (MENA), i overensstemmelse med mange specifikke projekter, f.eks. det russisk-egyptiske atom-projekt, der nu er i gang i El Dabaa.
I marts i år besøgte den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi seks sydvestasiatiske lande og præsenterede et fempunkt-initiativ for regional sikkerhed, der involverer økonomisk udvikling i forbindelse med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet. Han sagde udtrykkeligt, at Kina, når det overtager formandskabet for FN's Sikkerhedsråd i maj måned, vil tilskynde FN's Sikkerhedsråd til fuldt ud at drøfte spørgsmålet om Palæstina for at bekræfte tostatsløsningen. Nu er dette løfte blevet den største, mest påtrængende opgave for hele verden.
Her er et uddrag af en briefing, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav til medarbejdere mandag den 17. maj:
”Wang Yi fremsatte et firepunkt-forslag vedrørende konflikten mellem Palæstina og Israel, hvor forslagene først og fremmest består af våbenhvile og ophør med vold som den højeste prioritet; at begge sider straks skal stoppe militære og fjendtlige handlinger; for det andet er humanitær bistand et akut behov; at der øjeblikkelig må være en opfyldelse af forpligtelser i henhold til internationale traktater, hvilket betyder at ophæve alle blokader og belejring af Gaza så hurtigt som muligt; for det tredje skal der være fast støtte til en tostatsløsning, som på dette stadium vil kræve en større indsats; og for det fjerde, tostatsløsningen, herunder oprettelsen af en uafhængig palæstinensisk stat, der har fuld suverænitet med Østjerusalem som hovedstad, baseret på 1967-grænserne, og realisere den fredelige sameksistens mellem Palæstina og Israel. Dette fremlægger Kina i sin egenskab af nuværende formand for FN's Sikkerhedsråd.
”Dette er alt sammen i overensstemmelse med eksisterende FN-resolutioner, og man vil normalt sige, at det er den oplagte løsning. Problemet er imidlertid, at der på grund af mange års tolerance af bosættelserne ikke er en tomme territorium i Palæstina, der ikke har bosætterboliger, så det vil være ekstremt vanskelig at realisere. Hvilket bringer vores grundlæggende punkt tilbage, at man ikke kan løse nogen af disse problemer isoleret. Den eneste måde, man kan have noget håb om at løse Mellemøsten-problemet er, at man udvikler hele regionen, fra Iran til Irak, til Syrien, til Egypten, til Tyrkiet, herunder Afghanistan, som en del af Silkevejen. Kun under disse betingelser kunne man udarbejde en multilateral tilgang for at få tilstrækkelige fordele for alle parter til, at de ville være enige om en sådan løsning. Og jeg tror, at dette forslag ser så godt som umuligt ud, men alternativet ville være evig krig, og i sidste ende bliver Mellemøsten en udløsende faktor for 3. verdenskrig eller i det mindste en større krig”.
Lad os gøre stort brug af dialogen på Schiller Instituttets konference den 8. maj om:"Det moralske sammenbrud i den transatlantiske verden skriger på et nyt paradigme". Præsentationer arkiveres og er individuelt tilgængelige. https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2021/05/07/conference-the-moral-collapse-of-the-trans-atlantic-world-cries-out-for-a-new-paradigm/

Billede: MusikAnimal, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Atomkrig er ikke en mulighed – Mobiliser for Schiller Instituttets konference d. 8. maj:
”Den transatlantiske verdens moralske sammenbrud råber på et nyt paradigme”

6. maj (EIRNS) — I forbindelse med organiseringen af Schiller Instituttets konference førstkommende lørdag har arrangører fra den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse i stigende grad erfaret, at det slør af uklarhed, som regeringer og de prostituerede medier har trukket ned over befolkningerne i de transatlantiske nationer, er begynder at trevle op. Den snigende ondskab af den malthusianske 'grønne nye deal' trænger ind – til dels på grund af den vide cirkulation af pjecen "Det store spring tilbage – LaRouche knuser bedraget med den nye grønne aftale". Fremstormen mod militær konfrontation med Rusland og Kina – af endnu mindre bevæggrunde end de ulovlige og umoralske krige, der ødelagde Irak, Libyen og Syrien – er baseret på lignende løgne, og disse løgne bliver i stigende grad tydelige for seriøse mennesker. Selv den krigeriske New York Times bragte en ledende artikel, der kalder Biden-administrationens provokationer mod Kina over Taiwan "dumdristig", og at man risikerer en "katastrofal krig". Og vigtigst af alt spørger forfatteren krigshøgene, hvor mange amerikanske liv de er villige til at risikere, idet han bemærker, at højtstående amerikanske statsmænd (nævner Stapleton Roy og Chas Freeman) nu har advaret om, at en krig med Kina kunne være med kernevåben.

Medierne får heller ikke frit spil. Caitlin Johnston, der i sidste måned udsendte en artikel med titlen: "Den stigende trussel om atomkrig er den mest presserende sag i verden", rapporterede onsdag om det modbydelige interview med udenrigsminister Tony Blinken af Norah O'Donnell på CBS '60 minutter den 2. maj, hvor det var umuligt at sige, om intervieweren eller den interviewede, var mest afskyelig. Johnston anklager O'Donnell med hendes egne ord, ved blot at nævne spørgsmålene, som omfattede: "Har du nogensinde set Kina være så selvsikker eller militært aggressiv?" Og "Beskriv hvad du ser finder sted i Xinjiang, som resten af verden måske ikke ser". Og ”Kineserne har stjålet forretningshemmeligheder og intellektuel ejendom for hundreder af milliarder, hvis ikke billioner, af dollars fra USA. Det lyder som fjendtlige handlinger”. Betragt hykleriet når den kinesiske og russiske presse beskyldes for at være underlagt deres regeringer.

Men krigsfaren er håndgribelig. Blinken er i Ukraine og diskuterer processen med at bringe Ukraine ind i NATO, placere krigsmaskinen direkte på Ruslands grænse. Rusland indkaldte til et møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd onsdag for at fremlægge beviser og vidner om grusomhederne begået af morderiske nazi-bander i Ukraine siden Maidan-farverevolutionen i 2014. Første stedfortrædende faste repræsentant, Dmitry Polyansky, kaldte dem "afskyelige begivenheder, som ingen normal person kan være ligeglad med". Svaret fra USA og briterne var en fælles erklæring: "Vi beklager dette bevidste forsøg på at aflede det internationale samfunds opmærksomhed på Ruslands igangværende destabiliserende aktiviteter mod Ukraine gennem de seneste syv år".

Tilskyndelsen til militær konfrontation mellem atombevæbnede magter, repræsenterer sammen med Green New Deal den koordinerede indsats for at genetablere det britiske imperium til sin fordums blodige herlighed, nu med USA som den "dumme gigant", der tilvejebringer musklerne til den forstyrrede britiske hjerne. Malthusiansk affolkning er stadig det erklærede mål for den britiske kongefamilie og dens håndlangere, hvad enten det er ved krig, ved epidemi, ved hungersnød eller med tvungen økonomisk ødelæggelse gennem kolonial plyndring eller dets moderne form i Green New Deal.

Krisen er så enorm, at folk begynder at opgive den vrangforestilling, at ”de”, 'the powers that be', ikke vil lade en sådan katastrofe ske. At skabe den krævede mobilisering af borgere, internationalt, der bryder disse vildfarelser og aktiverer deres kreative kræfter på vegne af menneskeheden og vores eftertid, kræver aktivering af de ideer, der er skabt af Lyndon LaRouche i løbet af de sidste halvtreds år. Bring så mange du kan til videokonferencen på lørdag, hvor disse ideer vil blive drøftet af ledere fra hele verden.


Tid til at være alvorlig – atomkrig kan ske!
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, den 28. april 2021

I sin ugentlige dialog uddybede Helga Zepp-LaRouche de advarsler, som den russiske præsident Putin kom med i hans nationale tale den 21. april. Putin advarede om faren ved at krydse "røde streger", hvilket ville tvinge Rusland til at handle for at forsvare dets sikkerhed og nationale suverænitet. Blandt de trusler han identificerede var vestlig involvering i et planlagt kupforsøg i Hviderusland og et attentat på præsident Lukashenko. I stedet for at tage Putin på ordet og indlede en dialog for at løse uoverensstemmelserne, optrapper vestens krigshøge spændingerne og opfordrer regeringerne til at "hæve prisen" for Rusland for sådan påstået dårlig opførsel, mens de opfinder nye begrundelser for at straffe Rusland, såsom anklagen om, at Rusland stod bag en eksplosion ved et ammunitionsdepot i Tjekkiet i 2014!

Som sædvanlig er britiske propagandaoperationer i spidsen, herunder Chatham House og The Economist.

Hun skar igennem artiklerne, der støtter Annalena Baerbock, den nye kanslerkandidat for det Grønne parti i Tyskland, og påpegede, at de Grønnes program ikke kun er anti-industri og for afvikling af moderne energiproduktion, men også aggressivt anti-Rusland/anti-Kina, i tråd med Davos-kredsens kampagne for den store nulstilling (Great Reset) og den grønne New Deal. Dette hænger sammen med kampagnen for radikal befolkningsreduktion, hvilket altid har været det vigtigste engagement for dem der står bag den grønne bevægelse.

Hun opfordrede vores seere til at tilmelde sig Schiller Instituttets kommende konference den 8. maj, for at hjælpe os med at vække befolkningen til den virkelige fare, der konfronterer os, som kommer fra en bande fanatikere, der har forpligtet sig til at reducere verdens befolkning gennem krig, hungersnød og sygdom.

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?