The decomposing hand of the still-undead “Dirty Bertie” Bertrand Russell (1872-1968) seems to have authored Wednesday’s London Economist’s call for thermonuclear war with Russia. “Ukraine is right. The arguments for denying it F-16s are becoming steadily more threadbare. At the start of the war, Ukraine had about 125 elderly combat-capable aircraft, of which a little over half were air-superiority fighters. At least 40% of them have since been lost…. If flying in Ukraine’s airspace becomes less dangerous, Russia could establish air superiority—first over Donbas and then other areas. The chances of Ukrainian land forces retaking territory could evaporate…. As to the self-deterring fear of escalation, fighter jets for Ukraine would send a message to Vladimir Putin about the West’s long-term commitment. He might respond with possibly deniable physical sabotage or cyber-attacks, but few observers think that deploying F-16s would prompt the Kremlin to start World War III.” Really?
The British deftly leave out the small qualifier, that in order for anyone in the world to transfer F-16s to Ukraine, they must receive permission from the United States. Thus, the Brits are proposing to commit the U.S. policy to a military line of action that must cause a direct confrontation with Russia. As to the matter of “Russian air superiority,” Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov announced Monday that “Russian aviation has gained air superiority over the entire territory of Ukraine.” Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it is clear that American pilots, and/or NATO pilots would find themselves manning the aircraft, since it is impossible to train pilots dealing with completely different aircraft adequately in a matter of weeks, and NATO personnel would also be involved in maintaining the aircraft. World War Three is precisely what The Economist is proposing.
On the matter of World War Three, Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian Prime Minister (2012-2020) former Russian President (2008-2012) and Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia (2020-present), speaking to an audience on April 25 at a meeting of the “Scientific and Production Machine Building Association,” responded to a questioner:"you said that Russia would never use nuclear weapons first—but it’s not exactly the case…. There are truly a lot of things wrong with our world…. Our enemies understand only the use-of-force language and do not want to hear or understand anything else except it….
“All these speculations about how ‘the Russians will never do this’ or the other way round—‘The Russians keep scaring us with the use of nuclear weapons’—are worthless. The Western analysts and Western commanders—both military and political leaders—should simply assess our rules and our intentions.”
But what if the Anglosphere has incompetents for leaders? A new bill, the “Ukraine Victory Revolution,” was introduced into the Congress this week, which proclaimed “that it is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the Russian invasion, holds that the peace brought by victory must be secured by integrating Ukraine into NATO, and declares that the United States must work with its allies and partners to secure reparations, reconstruction, justice for Russian war crimes, and accountability for Russian leaders.” Former IAEA weapons inspector Scott Ritter observed that the “irony of a piece of U.S. legislation purporting to defend Ukrainian sovereignty serving as the foundation of the death of Ukraine as a nation seems to have escaped the sponsors of the resolution.”
“Dirty Bertie” Russell, in a March 1959 interview with John Freeman, was asked about some of his earlier 1940s statements regarding “preventive” nuclear war (such as his September 1945 “There is one thing, and one thing only, which could save the world, and that is that America should make war on Russia during the next two years, and establish a world empire, by means of the atomic bomb.") Russell made it clear to the interviewer that “you can’t threaten (nuclear war) unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.” Medvedev, in his April 25 remarks, said of the British: “The situation in the United Kingdom does not give reason for optimism. Particularly when there is, simply to say, a freak show in power. Just look at their latest three prime ministers [Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak.]” The United States “leadership group” is not much better.
The actual driving force underlying what is now continuous war, is the collapse of the trans-Atlantic monetary system, and its inevitable bankruptcy. This species-destructive “cause” may, however, yet prove to be the very means to turn off the infernal war machine. As Pam and Russ Martens of “Wall Street On Parade” point out, since March 15—"the Ides of March"— when the Wall Street Journal reported that “JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo have lost about $91 billion in market value over the past week,” there has been, for the past month and a half, an elaborate, but losing financial game being played. The biggest Wall Street banks, in an effort to prop up the then-already-reeling First Republic Bank, mobilized 11 banks to give First Republic an uninsured fund of $30 billion on March 16. Now since bankers are not known for their altruism, why was this done? The worry from JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo Bank of America and others, was that the $247 trillion derivatives market—of which, over half is owned by the aforementioned four banks—would suddenly be exposed to the world for the worthless fraud that it is, and governments might choose to take action to protect their populations, including by a worldwide imposition of Glass-Steagall on an emergency basis.
This, the orderly dismantling of the largest speculative cancer in world history, the City of London views as a “casus belli,” especially since, in their twisted world, China and Russia, India and Brazil might insist that war take a back seat to securing the welfare of their, and the world’s populations; even more horrific for London, such a policy might become the policy of the United States and other nations of the trans-Atlantic sector. War would no longer be accepted as the primary organizing and mobilizing principle for society by the populations victimized by it, either by death, or by taxation.
The LaRouche paper, “On a Basket of Hard Commodities: Trade Without Currency"; the Ten Principles for a New International Strategic and Development Architecture of Helga Zepp-LaRouche; the LaRouche pamphlet, “The Coming U.S. Economic Miracle on the New Silk Road;” the exposé of the plot to dismantle Russia, and of the International Assassination Bureau, are the heartbeat of a new trans-Atlantic resistance. This international movement, based on the solidarity of the citizens of each nation for the benefit of the other, will allow citizens of every nation to either take back their governments, or to establish republics of principle for the first time. Knowing what is to be done, teaching what is to be done, and appropriating every public forum available to advocate what is to be done, is the only efficient exercise of freedom commensurate with, not only surviving the danger of this moment, but wielding this very dangerous moment as humanity first wielded the dangerous gift of fire, to power our way out of the present darkness to true economic and political freedom for all, and that for the first time in human history.
