The ninth of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s “Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture” states: “In order to overcome the conflicts arising out of quarreling opinions, which is how empires have maintained control over the underlings, the economic, social and political order has to be brought into cohesion with the lawfulness of the physical universe. In European philosophy this was discussed as the being in character with natural law, in Indian philosophy as cosmology, and in other cultures appropriate notions can be found.”
It is precisely because it is out of tune with natural law that the system of geopolitics—including its parasitic military-industrial complex, disintegrating financial system, and anti-human need for an enemy image—is collapsing. This was on full display on Wednesday, at the Dec. 3 NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels, where European “Coalition of the Willing” leaders practically tripped over each other to denounce Vladimir Putin for being against peace and lament that the leaked United States peace plan was, in the words of Finnish President Alexander Stubb, “frustrating,” all the while pledging to support Ukraine on the battlefield down to the last Ukrainian.
“They are still obsessed with the idea of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia,” remarked Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. So obsessed, in fact, that 15 of the 19 EU member states just pledged more money for weapons to Ukraine—financed through borrowing—and that a suicide plan was in place to end all Russian gas imports by 2027. “This will only accelerate the process that has been underway in recent years of the European economy losing its leading potential,” Peskov remarked.
Peskov is hardly the only one noting the collapse. The German Federation of Industry (BDI) just released a report which describes an economy in free fall. “The economy is experiencing its most severe crisis since the founding of the Federal Republic, yet the Federal government is not responding with sufficient resolve,” wrote BDI President Peter Leibinger. “German industry is facing a dramatic low point at the end of 2025.”
Russia’s State Duma Deputy Mikhail Sheremet put it well: “It’s high time NATO ceased its reckless bluster and stopped siphoning billions from the increasingly impoverished European taxpayers.”
Meanwhile, in East Asia, tensions are rising. A cartoon in Global Times showing Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi push a bundle of dynamite toward Asia with the label, “NATO-ization of Asia-Pacific,” captures the view from China. A readout from the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday’s 20th round of strategic security consultation between China and Russia [notes] the “high degree of consensus” between the two countries “on Japan-related issues,” stating that both agree to “firmly counter the attempts by fascism and Japanese militarism to stage a comeback.”
The situation in the Caribbean is no better, though pressure on U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is growing from all sides with regard to the possible war crime “double-tap” strike which killed survivors of a Sept. 2 initial boat strike on an alleged drug boat. War planning continues, with U.S. President Donald Trump having proclaimed in a Nov. 2 cabinet meeting that land operations in Venezuela, and possibly Colombia, were going to start “very soon.”
Both of these simmering conflicts—which could break out at any moment—betray the strategy of empire: When one war threatens to end, fan the flames of the others. None of these conflicts is a thing in and of itself. “You cannot look at these crises individually,” Zepp-LaRouche said in her webcast of Dec. 3. “You have to think about the underlying axioms and correct those mistakes in thinking if you want to avoid a catastrophe.” There is, then, only one approach to end, not just one conflict, but all of the conflicts: “I think we need a different conception, which is why I have pushed since the beginning of the so-called Special Military Operation in Ukraine the idea that we need a new security and development architecture which emphatically must take into account the interests of every single country on the planet. That is why the Peace of Westphalia worked; this is why Versailles did not work, because in the Versailles proceedings and the Paris Treaty of 1919, the Soviet Union, China, and Germany were excluded, and therefore it was just the steppingstone to World War II. If we learned anything from history, we should understand that there can only be inclusive security for everybody, or there will be no security for anybody.”
