Author: Alicia

As saner Europeans wake up to the reality that U.S. and European insane policies have brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war, the LaRouche movement is providing crucial strategic leadership for the policy revolution required to save humanity from extinction.

Last Saturday, June 18th, from France, Belgium and the Netherlands, to Germany, Italy, Denmark, and other countries, LaRouche movement organizers held the first European-wide day of action around the petition, “The Warsaw Summit Prepares for War, It’s Time to Leave NATO Now!” The petition, issued by the LaRouche movement as a non-partisan initiative, is now being circulated by other groups and individuals, as well, raises the alarm on the current countdown to nuclear war and calls on NATO member countries to leave NATO immediately, and “create without delay the conditions for a new global peace and security architecture, based on the win-win cooperation proposed by the BRICS, cooperation which Europe and the United States, in their own interests, should join in.”

Sign & circulation the petition!

The serious response generated is demonstrated in the report from France, where LaRouche associates in the Solidarité et Progrès party deployed 70 people to the streets in 17 cities and towns all over France on Saturday. Nearly 2,300 people have signed the petition in France, and another 250 were collected last this Saturday during these direct street petitioning drives. Intuitively, most people have the intuition something terrible is going to happen and “smell” that NATO stinks. So far, 1,600 signers have used the option of also sending a pre-formatted letter to their elected deputies and senators in their home department (5 to 10 elected officials per department), which says, essentially, “I  have signed this petition, and I want to know where you stand.” That means that between 8,000 and 16,000 emails have been sent to the French elected officials to tell them they should opt out of NATO and its war-mongering campaigns.

Many signers have e-mailed back the replies they received from their officials, ranging from “I’m a Gaullist, so I’m all for it” to “I really don’t agree.” Others, such as former Secretary of State for Foreign Trade Pierre Lellouche, in charge of the Foreign Affairs section of the right-wing Les Républicains party, underlined that his party is working hard to get the sanctions against Russia lifted.

Translated into Dutch by Agora Erasmus, the petition was published by the progressive website De Wereld Morgen, which receives 30,000 visits per day.

In Belgium, among the prominent signers are Socialist Senator Bert Anciaux; diplomat Jan de Moor; former Deputy Speaker (i.e., Vice Chairman) of the Belgian Parliament Lode Vanoost; prominent peace activist Ludo de Brabander (Vrede); and two authors, Mike de Loof and Barbara Y. Flamand. Also signing are Michel Vanhoorne, a medical doctor of the University of Gent, who signed as the coordinator of the Left Ecological Forum, and musician Hubert Boone.

In the Netherlands, the first of the more than a 100 Dutchmen who have signed the petition is Rein Heijne, the director of the Erasmus House of Rotterdam, which sponsors pro-peace events. Heijne commented, “Long live the intellectual legacy of Erasmus.” 

Sign & circulation the petition!

An apparent split within Germany’s governing coalition over NATO’s military exercises and BMD deployments threatening Russia, may actually signify a shift in Germany’s population and institutions, realizing that NATO’s escalation is threatening the very survival of Europe.

The German leader who on June 16 called the NATO exercises “saber-rattling,” and “war cries” against Russia, and called for them to stop, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, currently enjoys the most support of any German politician, according to polls. The subsequent attacks on Steinmeier by NATO’s General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg and others were strongly rebutted as “absurd,” Tuesday, by German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who is reported to be going to Moscow himself next week and meeting with Russian President Putin.

Former NATO Military Committee head (2002-2005) General Harald Kujat (retired, former German Armed Forces Chief of Staff) told German NDR radio in an interview Tuesday morning, that he fully supports Foreign Minister Steinmeier. General Kujat’s stand represents deep consensus among German military and strategic experts, not only that the conflict with Russia originated, unnecessarily, in the West; but also, that an escalation will lead to a strategic nuclear showdown. General Kujat said that in crisis periods like this one, military measures always have the effect of escalation. He posed the obvious question: “Does one want to escalate the tensions, or, does one want to help to reduce the tensions?” For the many conflicts in the world, be they Ukraine, Syria, or Libya, “we need Russia … it is a question of reason which way one chooses and I think the foreign minister [steinmeier] wanted to change things.”

Kujat said the criticism of Steinmeier was “a Pavlovian response to the remarks of the Foreign Minister and completely absurd. I think they should carefully listen to what he said. He is proposing the proper approach.”

In Berlin, June 21, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and then warned against the danger fueling tensions between Russia and the European Union.

“We can only solve the problems of Europe and Russia by dialogue,” Sarkozy said. He defined the most serious threat facing Europe as the terrorist groups ISIS and al-Qaeda, both being fought by Russia. 

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told reporters on Monday, that, in addition to the agreements Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will sign next Saturday to facilitate China purchasing Russia’s RD-180 engines (the ones that nuts in the U.S. want to stop the U.S. from using) and Russia’s accessing Chinese micro radio electronics for space use, China has “taken a keen interest” in Russian proposals for “joint experimentation for the development of new pharmaceutical products, for commercialization of this process, for creating possibilities for the protection of human musculoskeletal system…. We can also join our efforts in the development of freeze-dried foods, special diets for the restoration of human metabolism,” Rogozin added.

“What is tested in space, is also fully applicable on Earth,” he emphasized. This will provide “a powerful demonstration that the money invested in space exploration is of major use for the people, because the results of this collaboration will be used in the clinical sense — for ensuring people’s safety and health.”

Russia’s Ambassador to China, Andrey Denisov, expanded on the higher principle driving space collaboration between Russia and China, in an interview with TASS Tuesday. Our countries are not discussing merely securing “a batch of goods” between them, but seek “to organize long-term mutually advantageous cooperation” in space work which will “finally benefit the entire humankind.”

Tass quoted Denisov at some length:

“Our country has substantial potential accumulated in the sphere of engine-making. This is a well-known fact… I would emphasize cooperation in outer space activity as a whole rather than a specific delivery of a batch of goods. The point is not to deliver specific equipment but to organize long-term mutually advantageous cooperation of the sides, which are objectively close to each other from the viewpoint of technical and technological compatibility.

“The Chinese space industry was largely created with account taken of our technical developments. While it has long reached the level of independent development and made achievements in recent years in the sphere of Chinese cosmonautics both manned and unmanned, the field for cooperation remains quite broad. This is, perhaps, the main thing. The delivery of rocket engines is quite possible and is viewed both by us and our Chinese partners….

“In a perspective, cooperation is perceptible in the field of designing a heavy rocket and establishing interaction in the sphere of space stations and long-distance flights.

“This is a very promising sphere in whose development both the Russian and Chinese sides are interested…. This cooperation is of purely peaceful, civilian nature and will finally benefit the entire humankind rather than only the participating states.”

“The aim of the exercise is clear,” said Polish President Andrzej Duda. “We are preparing for an attack.”

The United States population is unaware of the two most important geopolitical factors on the planet. On the one hand, there are the ongoing moves toward global general thermonuclear war, and on the other, the potential to unleash the greatest period of global economic growth in human history. The above statement by the Polish president, in regard to the recent 50,000 troop strong NATO exercise “Anakonda 16” simulating an invasion of Russia, shows the desperation of Wall St. and London, who are moving to provoke a war of annihilation with Russia and China.

There is a pathway for a future of human progress—but it is being set completely outside of the United States—as our political process continues to be strangled by the failed Wall Street monetary system and its panoply of popular circuses and corporate media.  To the contrary, the recent St. Petersburg Economic Forum in Russia which Obama attempted to sabotage, was a total success, bringing in $12 billion of economic agreements among 40 countries, with high-level European leaders in attendance calling for an end to Russian sanctions and war provocations.  Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated at the conference, “We have a lot of other problems and we cannot afford to suffer because of these artificially created problems.  And the strongest should reach out a hand, because the strongest player is Russia, represented by President Putin.”  

What much of the world has already recognized, is that national interest is not based on military aggression or economic warfare, but on the provision of a future for one’s population, including through international collaboration, for increasing living standards and better technologies, as provided by new insights into the universe.  Fundamental to this developmental process, is the space program.  

See: The U.S. Joins the New Silk Road

Lyndon LaRouche has pointed to space pioneer Kraft Ehricke as having “created the very idea of a space program.” Ehricke was solely committed to the principle of progress, and refuted the no-change naysayers, stating, “a no-growth philosophy, which asks human beings to live with less of everything, can regress us to the Middle Ages because a dog-eat-dog fight is bound to break out under such conditions… Life shows us that technological advancement is the road to take.  But based on these technological advances, our species and civilization must advance also.  Then we can proceed.”

Russia, China, India, and others, have recognized the inevitable, miserable result of “no-growth” geopolitics, and rejected it, demonstrating commitment to economic projects and space technology which will advance the physical economy and happiness of mankind.  The Kra Canal in Thailand, the improved Suez Canal in Egypt, the Mekong River development, new rail lines in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Chabahar Port in Iran, are just a few of these.  Recently, China has invited international cooperation on their future space station. The Deputy of China’s Manned Space Program, Ms. Wu Ping recently told the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space regarding new space station agreements, “Space exploration is the common dream and wish of humankind. We believe that the implementation of the agreements will definitely promote international cooperation on space exploration, and create opportunities for United Nations Member States, particularly developing countries, to take part in, and benefit from, the utilization of China’s space station.” Russia and China also recently announced fully comprehensive space collaboration. Russia’s Ambassador to China Andrey Denisov explained in a recent interview, “I would emphasize cooperation in outer space activity as a whole rather than a specific delivery of a batch of goods. The point is not to deliver specific equipment but to organize long-term mutually advantageous cooperation of the sides, which are objectively close to each other from the viewpoint of technical and technological compatibility.”

This is the way to the future.  While the United States is plagued by suicide, drug addiction, mass shootings, and economic disintegration, a majority of mankind is moving on to the next level.  The London-Wall St. financial system is dead.  You have only one choice.  War, terror, and economic despair on the one side, or, we dump Obama and everything he represents, and claim a future fit for mankind.

I’m interested, tell me more

In addition to re-airing the April 2016 segment of 60 Minutes on the 28 pages fight, CBS TV Miami’s Jim DeFede conducted a ten-minute interview on Sunday with Sen. Bob Graham, in which Graham delivered one of the sharpest indictments yet of the Saudi Royal Family. Asked to comment on the now infamous paragraph in the final report of the 9/11 Commission, which said there was no evidence of high-level Saudi Monarchy or government support for the 9/11 hijackers, Graham said “I strongly disagree.” He explained that he believed that it went “to the top of the pyramid” and that such an “attack on an ally” could not have been carried out without such top-down approval. He reviewed the fact that the hijackers spoke no English, had no previous travel to the United States and were not particularly well-educated. They had to have received help from inside the United States and that help had to have come from outside the country. “I think it points a very strong finger to Saudi Arabia as the ultimate source,” Graham declared.

Asked by DeFede to comment on a recent letter by Sen. Bill Nelson to President Obama, reporting that he had read the 28 pages and “intelligence reports that debunk them,” Graham said that all of the documentation still classified should come out publicly. He cited the fact that a Federal Judge in Ft. Lauderdale is reviewing 80,000 pages of FBI documents from the Tampa field office on a Sarasota investigation into a wealthy Saudi family that had ties to Mohammed Atta and several other hijackers who spent months in the area.

Graham said that if the 28 pages are made public, he will call for a full-scale re-assessment of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, noting that Saudi Arabia is the number one arms purchaser in the world, with much of the sales coming from the United States. “Do we want to sell arms to a country that was our enemy in the run-up to 9/11?”

Graham called Saudi Arabia a “perfidious, unreliable ally,” emphasizing that the Saudi Monarchy’s “primary goal is survival. They are an absolute monarchy” that is obsessed with how to prevent the kind of Iran-style coup that overthrew the Shah.

Graham referenced the JASTA bill, noting that the 9/11 families have been in court for years against the Saudi Monarchy, but have had the cases dismissed, due to issues of sovereign immunity and the courts finding that the plaintiffs lacked evidence of Saudi Royal involvement. That evidence, Graham noted, “is locked up.”

The third of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve symposia on “Ending Too Big To Fail” was planned for two densely academic panels on bank capitalization levels, by scholars of the Peterson Institute in Washington, but became a debate on Glass-Steagall, due to two interventions by EIR representatives.

See more on Glass Stegall

There are two distinct Federal Reserve “stories” currently: the utter failure of the non-viable zero-interest monetary policy of the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan, and BoE in the real world; and the somewhat Ivory Tower bank-regulation debate on “ending too big to fail” being run by Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari.

At this symposium Kashkari, as luncheon speaker, was completely surrounded by Peterson Institute speakers and a largely IMF/Treasury/Federal Reserve audience of about 60. Their discussion of the impact of various levels of capital in large banks was so arcane that when EIR first intervened to say that Glass-Steagall was the only historically allowed solution to this debate, the moderator had to translate “Glass-Steagall” as “structural reform” for the panelists before they responded.

Kashkari’s speech, however, thoroughly rejected the bail-in policy — “it has caused something of a bank panic in Europe this year” — and said the Wall Street banks still need to be broken up in some way, and that the decision had to be made this year. Trying to “resolve” one of the big Wall Street banks in crisis, he remarked, was “like trying to disassemble an aircraft carrier at sea in a hurricane.” Following this, interventions demanding Glass-Steagall by EIR and by a retired Federal Reserve economist in the audience turned the second panel entirely into a Glass-Steagall debate. A number of U.S. and foreign contacts were made as a result.

Privately Kashkari received a full briefing on the necessity of a Hamiltonian credit policy to replace the Federal Reserve’s failed policy, which is sinking the economy.

Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Poland, Sunday, for a three-day visit, following his highly successful visit to Serbia. In an article published in the leading Polish newspaper, Rzeczpospolita, on June 17, Xi referred to Copernicus, Madame Curie, and Chopin as Poles who have made great contributions to mankind’s progress, and who are known and respected in China. He also noted the Polish Jesuit priest and scientist Michal Boym (a loner who tried to defend the last Ming Emperor in the 1640s against the Manchurian Qing, but who also published works on Asian flora and fauna).

Xi praised Poland’s historic collaboration with China, one of the first to recognize the PRC, and the first Central Asia country to join the AIIB. China and Poland are each other’s leading trading partners in their respective regions, with two-way trade of over $17 billion in 2015. There are five Confucius Institutes in Poland, and Xi said that a growing number of Chinese universities are teaching the Polish language.

He pointed out that Poland is on the crossroads of the New Silk Road and the ancient Amber Road (the north-south trade route from St. Petersburg and the Baltic nations through Poland to Venice), and that several Chinese rail routes to Europe either terminate in, or pass through, Poland.

Xi and President Andrzej Duta signed about 40 deals and MOUs on Monday, mostly in construction, raw materials, energy, finance, and science. Duta said he hoped that Poland would be China’s “gateway to Europe,” pointing both to the Gdansk port and the land ports for the rail connections.

Xi and Duta welcomed a train arriving in Warsaw on Monday from China. Polish freight group PKP Cargo operates 20 trains per week between Poland and China, each trip taking 11-14 days, twice as fast as ship and far cheaper than air.

Xi and Duta agreed to upgrade their relationship to a “comprehensive strategic partnership.”

It is notable that, although Poland has been pulled into Obama’s geopolitical military confrontation with Russia, neither Russia nor China view the world geopolitically, but rather as win-win relationships with all nations — what Helga Zepp-LaRouche calls the common aims of mankind. Thus Xi is going next to Tashkent for an SCO summit, where he will meet with Vladimir Putin, and Putin will go on to Beijing after the SCO for a state visit to China.

According to a posting, Sunday, on Zerohedge, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s criticism of NATO’s warmongering was a surprise, because it came from a completely unexpected direction.

ZH shows that Steinmeier hit the nail on the head by quoting the CFR’s Stephen Sestanovich, who tweeted,

Bloomberg News sees Steinmeier’s statement as evidence of a split in the German government coalition.

said Juergen Hardt, the foreign-policy spokesman of Merkel’s parliamentary faction, in a statement on Sunday. Steinmeier’s comments could lead to “misunderstandings or even glee in Moscow,” he said. The public dispute between Merkel’s CDU and Steinemeier, whose SPD is the junior partner in the coalition

On top of this comes Gerhard Schroeder, the former chancellor, also of the SPD. Schroeder, in a June 18 interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, warned NATO that its policies could lead to a new arms race with Russia, saying that they “will help neither to mitigate conflicts with Russia nor restore good relations.” He ridiculed the idea that Russia “may be nurturing a plan to invade NATO-countries,” stressing that the notion is completely out of touch with the real state of affairs. Schroeder also praised Steinmeier’s call to lift the sanctions on Russia gradually. He also argued that it’s inappropriate for Germany top participate in the NATO military build-up in the Baltic states, particularly as the 75th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa—Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941—comes on June 22.

Senator Dianne Feinstein and former Congresswoman and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher jointly wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Saturday, June 18 edition of the New York Times, demanding a halt to the planned production and deployment of the new Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSW), a new generation nuclear weapon that greatly increases the danger of thermonuclear war.  The authors warned

Feinstein and Tauscher cited former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, who warned a year ago that the deployment of the LRSW would increase the risk of nuclear war by blurring the lines between conventional and nuclear weapons (the LRSW could use both nuclear or conventional warheads).  The two authors of the New York Times op-ed demanded that Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter provide a detailed public accounting of the plans for the LRSW, including whether it would be considered as a potential offensive weapon, rather than an added element of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.  They cited estimates by the Federation of Atomic Scientists (FAS) that the new weapons system could cost $30 billion:

  They also stressed that

The authors noted that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review called for the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and the increased reliance on conventional systems like the Air Force’s Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missile, which do not carry the risk of nuclear escalation. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke for several hours on the final day of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. He confronted head-on the realities of the present strategic crises which are being thrown at the new paradigm being created by Russia and the other BRICS nations.

In an interview after the summit, with Fareed Zakaria, he also deftly disposed of statements that he supported Donald Trump, by pointing out that he was misquoted by journalists such as Zakaria, who are not analysts, stressing that we “are ready to work with the United States,” no matter who is elected its next leader. He pointed out that “Trump has stated that he is ready to restore full format Russia-U.S. relations…. We all welcome it.”

In his statement on the final day of the summit, Putin said that the United States could be of benefit to the world, including Russia, so long as the U.S. would not interfere in the affairs of other countries:

“We need [the United States]. But we don’t need them constantly interfering in our affairs, telling us how to live, and hindering Europe in building relations with us.”

Putin pointed out that the Obama Administration told its European partners to endure sanctions against Russia, which had devastating consequences for Europe, but not the United States.

Putin said that European business circles in France, Germany, and elsewhere have expressed a willingness to cooperate with Russian and now it is up to politicians “to show wisdom, foresight and flexibility.”

“We do not hold a grudge and are ready to meet our European partners halfway,” Putin said to the forum. He pointed out that Russia had not initiated the present “breakdown” in relations between Europe and Russia caused by the sanctions. “All our actions have been and remain solely retaliatory.”

Putin continued, “Our recent meetings with representatives of German and French business circles have proven that European business is willing and ready to cooperate with our country. Politicians need to meet the business people halfway, and show wisdom, foresight, and flexibility. We need to regain trust in Russian-European relations and to restore the level of interaction.”

Putin also took head-on NATO’s expansionist policy, saying it makes no sense: “The Soviet Union is no more, the Warsaw Treaty [between the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries] has ceased to exist, so why does NATO need to constantly broaden its infrastructure and move towards Russia’s borders. Now they’re taking in Montenegro. Who has threatened Montenegro?” Putin asked, laughing at the absurdity.

He charged that NATO had “an absolutely slapdash attitude to our position on anything,” noting that it was the United States that had unilaterally quit the missile defense treaty, which was initially signed to “provide strategic balance in the world.” Putin went on to reassure the world community that he does not want to proceed to a new Cold War, as “no one wants it.” “However dramatic the logic of the development of international relations might seem on the outside, it’s not the logic of global confrontation.”

Putin stated that the U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe constitutes a threat to the balance of power. “We will perfect our missile strike capability, to preserve balance, only because of that.”

Putin pointed out that problems in the world could be dealt with as is happening now in Syria. In that case, he said that nations in the world, including Russia and the United States, are working together to help solve the crisis in Syria. He confronted the regime-change policy, insisting that Syria’s integrity must be maintained, as the top priority. Putin said bluntly that the disintegration of Syria would be a “destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world.”

He stated that peace can only be reached in Syria by a political process: “If we want to promote the principle of democracy, let’s do so with democratic instruments,” he told the forum.

He stated that the Ukraine crisis was deliberately created by the Obama Administration to provide a reason for NATO to exist, and that is not how situations in the international arena should be handled: “After the Arab Spring, [the United States] sneaked up to our borders. Why did they need to support a coup in Ukraine? … Chances are, the opposition that is currently in power could have reached it through democratic elections, and we would have been working with them, just the way we worked with those who were in power before President Yanukovych. … But no,” Putin continued, “they had to lead it to a bloody coup with victims, to cause civil war.”

Putin said that these developments “scarred” Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population in the southeast and Crimea, giving Russia no alternative but to take measures “to protect certain groups of people.”

The reason, he said: NATO “needs a foreign enemy, otherwise what would be the reason for the existence of such an organization.” Putin said that the whole conflict was forced on Ukraine “to substantiate the very existence of the North Atlantic alliance.”

The translation of the full speech and Q&A can be found

Incidentally, current geopolitical tensions are related, to some extent, to economic uncertainty and the exhausting of the old sources of growth. There is a risk it may increase or even be artificially provoked. It is our common interest to find a creative and constructive way out of this situation.

[There are] enormous existing and growing potential of digital and industrial technologies, robotics, energy, biotechnology, medicine and other fields. Discoveries in these areas can lead to true technological revolutions, to an explosive growth of labour productivity. This is already happening and will happen inevitably;…

In fact, even today we can see attempts to secure or even monopolise the benefits of next generation technologies. This, I think, is the motive behind the creation of restricted areas with regulatory barriers to reduce the cross-flow of breakthrough technologies…. One can control the spread of certain technologies for a while, but in today’s world it would be next to impossible to keep them in a contained area, even a large area. Yet, these efforts could lead to basic sciences, now open to sharing of knowledge and information through joint projects, getting closed too, with separation barriers coming up.

…. we can develop effectively only together, by building cooperation. We believe that such cooperation can be effectively built as part of a flexible and open integration environment that encourages competition in scientific research, a variety of technological solutions that allow the participating countries to fully employ their competence and their potential….

We are aware of the impressive prospects of cooperation between the EAEU [Eurasian Economic Union] and other countries and integration associations. Over 40 states and international organisations have expressed the desire to establish a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union. Our partners and we think that the EAEU can become one of the centres of a greater emergent integration area….

As early as June we, along with our Chinese colleagues, are planning to start official talks on the formation of comprehensive trade and economic partnership in Eurasia with the participation of the European Union states and China. I expect that this will become one of the first steps toward the formation of a major Eurasian partnership. We will certainly resume the discussion of this major project at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok in early September….

Friends, the project I have just mentioned — the greater Eurasia project — is, of course, open for Europe, and I am convinced that such cooperation may be mutually beneficial. Despite all of the well-known problems in our relations, the European Union remains Russia’s key trade and economic partner….

I also understand our European partners when they talk about the complicated decisions for Europe that were made at the talks on the formation of the Trans-Atlantic partnership. Obviously, Europe has a vast potential and a stake on just one regional association clearly narrows its opportunities. Under the circumstances, it is difficult for Europe to maintain balance and preserve space for a gainful maneuver.

As the recent meetings with representatives of the German and French business circles have showed, European business is willing and ready to cooperate with this country. Politicians should meet businesses halfway by displaying wisdom, and a far-sighted and flexible approach. We must return trust to Russian-European relations and restore the level of our cooperation.

We remember how it all started. Russia did not initiate the current breakdown, disruption, problems and sanctions. All our actions have been exclusively reciprocal. But we don’t hold a grudge, as they say, and are ready to meet our European partners halfway. However, this can by no means be a one-way street.

Let me repeat that we are interested in Europeans joining the project for a major Eurasian partnership. In this context we welcome the initiative of the President of Kazakhstan on holding consultations between the Eurasian Economic Union and the EU. Yesterday we discussed this issue at the meeting with the President of the European Commission.

In addition, it would be possible to resume dialogue between experts at the technical level on a broad range of issues, such as trade, investment, technical regulation and customs administration. In this way we could create the groundwork for further cooperation and partnership….

Naturally, we consider it important to continue cooperation on major research projects, such as the ITER thermonuclear plant and the x-ray free electron laser, to name a few. Joint efforts will allow us to seriously increase the technological competitiveness of both Europe and Russia. It is enough to note that in 2015 Russia invested 1.2 billion Euros in high-tech joint projects with Europe….

A presidential council for strategic development and priority projects will be created in the near future. It will be headed by your humble servant, while the council presidium will be led by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev….

The world needs such a powerful country like the United States, and so do we, but we do not need it to constantly interfere in our affairs, tell us how to live, and preventing Europe from building a relationship with us.

FROM THE Q&A:

I do not want to believe that we are moving towards another Cold War, and I am sure nobody wants this. We certainly do not. There is no need for this. The main logic behind international relations development is that no matter how dramatic it might seem, it is not the logic of global confrontation. What is the root of the problem?

I will tell you. I will have to take you back in time. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we expected overall prosperity and overall trust. Unfortunately, Russia had to face numerous challenges, speaking in modern terms: economic, social and domestic policy. We came up against separatism, radicalism, aggression of international terror, because undoubtedly we were fighting against Al Qaeda militants in the Caucasus, it is an obvious fact, and there can be no second thoughts about it. But instead of support from our partners in our struggle with these problems, we sadly came across something different — support for the separatists…,  information support, financial support and administrative backup….

The Soviet Union was no more; the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist. But for some reason, NATO continues to expand its infrastructure towards Russia’s borders. It started long before yesterday. Montenegro is becoming a [nato] member. Who is threatening Montenegro? You see, our position is being totally ignored.

Another, equally important, or perhaps, the most important issue is the unilateral withdrawal [of the U.S.] from the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty was once concluded between the Soviet Union and the United States for a good reason…. The treaty was designed to provide a strategic balance in the world. However, they unilaterally quit the treaty, saying in a friendly manner, This is not aimed against you. You want to develop your offensive arms, and we assume it is not aimed against us.

You know why they said so? It is simple: nobody expected Russia in the early 2000s, when it was struggling with its domestic problems, torn apart by internal conflicts, political and economic problems, tortured by terrorists, to restore its defence sector. Clearly, nobody expected us to be able to maintain our arsenals, let alone have new strategic weapons. They thought they would build up their missile defence forces unilaterally while our arsenals would be shrinking.

All of this was done under the pretext of combating the Iranian nuclear threat. What has become of the Iranian nuclear threat now? There is none, but the project continues. This is the way it is, step by step, one after another, and so on.

Then they began to support all kinds of colour revolutions, including the so-called Arab Spring. They fervently supported it. How many positive takes did we hear on what was going on? What did it lead to? Chaos.

I am not interested in laying blame now. I simply want to say that if this policy of unilateral actions continues and if steps in the international arena that are very sensitive to the international community are not coordinated then such consequences are inevitable. Conversely, if we listen to one another and seek out a balance of interests, this will not happen. Yes, it is a difficult process, the process of reaching agreement, but it is the only path to acceptable solutions….

Why did they have to support the coup in Ukraine? I have often spoken about this. The internal political situation there is complicated and the opposition that is in power now would most likely have come to power democratically, through elections. That’s it. We would have worked with them as we had with the government that was in power before President Yanukovych.

But no, they had to proceed with a coup, casualties, unleash bloodshed, a civil war, and scare the Russian-speaking population of southeastern Ukraine and Crimea. All for the sake of what? And after we had to, simply had to take measures to protect certain social groups, they began to escalate the situation, ratcheting up tensions. In my opinion, this is being done, among other things, to justify the existence of the North Atlantic bloc. They need an external adversary, an external enemy  otherwise why is this organisation necessary in the first place? There is no Warsaw Pact, no Soviet Union who is it directed against?

If we continue to act according to this logic, escalating [tensions] and redoubling efforts to scare each other, then one day it will come to a cold war. Our logic is totally different. It is focused on cooperation and the search for compromise. (Applause.) (transcription not complete)

President Vladimir Putin addressed the Plenary Session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) with a powerful political and economic vision for the future of Eurasia, and by implication for the world, countering it to Obama’s belligerent war preparations. He posed that the geopolitical tensions were in fact driven by the economic crisis. He made a strong appeal for the EU nations to end the destructive sanctions regime, identifying the fact that they were the result of Obama’s manipulation. He pointed to the German and French business leaders who have opened up to the restoration of relations with Russia, and called on political leaders to meet them halfway, to reestablish trust between the EU and Russia.

Putin said the world, and Russia, need a strong U.S., but not one which interferes and hinders Europe in building ties. On the TTIP, he said Europe would be severely restricted if tied down to a single regional association. He repeated several times that his vision of a “greater Eurasia,” together especially with China, was open to all—and emphatically to the EU nations.

He reviewed in detail his plans for rebuilding the Russian economy, based on manufacturing, application of technologies to industry, 3 million new jobs in S&M sized industries by 2020, and even more focus on sci/tech in education.

This is what Obama calls his successful “international isolation” of Russia.

In preparatory discussion for the Friday webcast, Lyndon LaRouche made the following comments, paraphrased:

LPAC’s June 17 Friday webcast featuring Jeff Steinberg, Matthew Ogden, Jason Ross and members of the LPAC Policy Committee.