The Drive to Nuclear War vs. Russia

Lyndon LaRouche on the Jan 27th Policy Committee Show

See the full video here.

OGDEN: You know, what you just brought up about the North Caucasus war, it actually occurred to me, because I read a biography of Putin that was written around that time, and he was under massive criticism from the Anglo-Americans for his response to the Chechen War, saying, “this was brutal, this was the hand of an autocrat,” so forth. And he said: Look, if I had not responded in the way that I did to that Chechen War, you would have seen the balkanization, or the yugoslavization of all of Russia, and that would have not just been the end of Russia as a nation — as Michael just said, an existential threat to the nation — but that would have been the end of global civilization. And he said: The reason I had to respond, in the way that I responded, was not just to save my name, but to save civilization.

And I think that gets right at the core of what you’ve been saying as strategy. This is not isolated national interest, as such. You have to think about, what is the purpose of mankind, and how can that be advanced.

LAROUCHE: When I was first back in Russia, after the fall of the Soviet Union, I was hailed during that period by leadership in Russia, and also people from Ukraine who had been part of the Soviet system before. And I had quite a career at that point, in terms of my visits to Russia, repeatedly, and that with what the leading circles in Russia in that tumultuously, this had culminated at one point, during the time of Bill Clinton’s Presidency — which I began to regret more deeply than ever, his Vice President; I understand why he took this piece of garbage in, to win the election, but he was regretting that all the way through, but didn’t see a way of getting rid of this bum, without losing his own Presidency. So that led him into traps which were closed in on him.

But during that period, before the trap closed in, at the same time that this charge against him was made, which ruined the rest of his Presidency, he was on the right course: that was in the summer of that year, and it was in September that this crazy operation against him by the frameup, which was a setup! The problem was he did fall for the setup, the trap.

Because somebody was brought into the White House basement, who was never vetted to be there! And this person had a personal record which was doing exactly what she had been doing all along, ever since she was a younger person and was doing it to older men, all the time. So this was used as the way to try to destroy his Presidency. Why?! Because the policy that he, as President was following, during the summer into the beginning of September of that year, was the right policy! And he made a public statement in his own circles to that effect. And said, I’ve been looking at this, he was right! This was on the Russian financial crisis at that time.

And so, that is the kind of reality we have to consider, that what happened was the way — people said, oh, he was a guilty party. Well, he was a fool for being literally sucked into a trap. But the trap had been laid for him by the very people who raised attempt to impeach him! His impeachment was predicted on his being sucked into a trap! Literally!

That changed the course of history, that event, and most people acted like damned fools about the whole issue. I was not given details, directly by Bill, about what he’d been accused of. But I knew he’d been a damned fool to be a sucker! But nonetheless, the weakness that he displayed, in response to his trying to defend his own Presidency and avoid impeachment, was wrong; he was right, if he had just said, “Oh, I’m going to be impeached? Yes, I was sucked into that. And I want to know who got me sucked into it.”

I’m sure that this is not the first time such an incident has happened to an incumbent President. If he’d said that, they probably would have been astonished, and they would say, “what d’you mean! What d’you mean?” “I’m sorry, I can only say, I was sucked into it.” And that would have busted the whole thing wide open! I don’t know what the outcome would have been, but his record as a person, when you know what behavior is that goes on behind doors by Presidents and other leading figures in the United States Senate alone, you could probably impeach about three-quarters of the members of the Senate on any given moment, if their actual record in office were actually displayed!

So, actually the attack on Bill Clinton, while he himself had been sucked into it, was nonetheless, an act which was implicitly treasonous against him! And that was implicitly treason, for him to be sucked into that. It was foolish for him to allow himself to be sucked into, and it was something in the nature of an attack. And that’s the truth of the matter, anyone who really knows the facts of the matter in his immediate circles of his administration, or those who had served with him, and associated with him later, that Bill acted like a damned fool, but he was sucked into it! And that was done to change the course of history for the United States: And that’s the fact!

Today the World stands at the brink of thermonuclear war, a meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system, and an unconstitutional Obama dictatorship in the United States. This week, Lyndon LaRouche has highlighted the 1998-1999 operation that the British Empire ran against then-President Bill Clinton in the form of the Lewinsky affair, as a point of recent departure for World history.

The British Operation

A central objective of the British operation to impeach Clinton was to stop his efforts in the direction of a “new financial architecture” coherent with Lyndon LaRouche’s policy proposals for global financial bankruptcy reorganization, and to specifically assure the elimination of FDR’s Glass-Steagall act with the November 1999 adoption of what should, by all rights, be known as the Graham-Leach-Bliley-Lewinsky bill.

In addition, that British operation also targeted Clinton’s search for a positive strategic relationship with Russia, in which Russia’s Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov was a key interlocutor. Clinton’s efforts in this direction, as in many areas, were sabotaged by his own Vice President, Al Gore, in this case through the long-standing Gore-Chernomyrdin working group on U.S.-Russian relations, all of which was fully exposed by EIR magazine at the time. You will also find here a timeline that summarily recounts that history, including the direct role of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in setting the course toward war.

This is of the highest strategic importance in the current charged environment around the Ukraine provocation. The recent coverage of LaRouche in English-language, and on many other Russian-language websites, with his expose of the British genocidal policy of intended global depopulation being behind the destruction underway across the EU and its drive eastward, should be viewed in the context of those Ukraine developments. Note also that Putin, in his press conference in Brussels yesterday after the foreshortened EU-Russia summit, denounced the racist and anti-semitic character of many in the so-called Ukrainian opposition, and also warned that Russia’s economic deal with Ukraine was contingent on any new Ukrainian government using those funds “to generate a positive development effect,” although “we, unlike the IMF, did not strictly designate the terms of this loan on paper.” He added that if Ukraine is pulled into the European Union, “then we cannot maintain our preferential regime.”

The idea cherished by some in Europe and the United States that Russia is somehow going to just sit by and allow a neo-Nazi, fascist coup to seize control of Ukraine—of all places—is patently ridiculous and dangerous in itself. Supporting terrorists and neo-Nazis to bring about regime-change and splitting up a sovereign country is bad enough when launched against Syria, for example; but when the target is Ukraine, the stakes are even higher—even though in both cases the actual strategic objective has all along been Russia.

Not everyone in the west is quite that insane. Germany’s Alexander Rahr of the German-Russian Forum, who has been speaking out repeatedly about the need to put a halt to the Ukraine provocation and have a positive economic relationship with that country, escalated in an interview with Cicero magazine, in which he warned that any NATO intervention in Ukraine “is to be ruled out. The risk of a military confrontation with the nuclear power Russia is too big.” Likewise, Euro Parliamentarian Pino Arlacchi, a former UN anti-drug czar, told Italy’s Radio 24 that in Ukraine “the street is in the hands of pro-Nazi radicals and of Svoboda nationalists,” and that the EU should stop supporting them. Europe needs to “build a new policy towards the East,” he said.

Both the Rahr and Arlacchi comments are welcome, but they do not propose a substantive solution to the crisis. They cry out for the kind of programmatic answer provided in Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s recent General Declaration of Independence of European Nations, which is now circulating widely in Europe in numerous languages.

This entry was posted in Stopping WW III and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.