HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She’s the founder of the Schiller Institute and the convener of the International Peace Coalition Zoom call, which takes place every Friday morning, 11 o’clock Eastern Time. Today is May 13, 2026. I’m Harley Schlanger and I’ll be your host. You can send your questions or comments to us at questions@schillerinstitute.org or post them on the chat page.
So Helga, we have a lot to cover today: The growing protests to the ongoing wars and military conflicts, the economic breakdown caused by these wars, and a significant increase in diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. Perhaps the most important development on the diplomatic front is the visit of President Trump to China, where he’s scheduled to meet with President Xi Jinping. They apparently met already today. And in addition to discussing what can be done to end the wars, they will discuss a full agenda of bilateral trade and economic issues. This is Trump’s first trip to China since November 2017. What expectations do you have from this trip?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it will be very interesting, because on the one side, Trump is not in the best position given the fact that he clearly lost the war in Iran. That is very emphatically stated by neo-con Robert Kagan in The Atlantic, who basically says Trump completely lost and this was a worse defeat than any other defeat the United States ever had in their history, including Vietnam. Obviously, this is a fact, because Iran for sure did not win the war, because they had to suffer tremendous damages. But the fact that a middle-sized country could withstand the United States, the strongest military machine on the planet, for more than two months, that changes the chessboard strategically completely.
And I think that the Chinese, who fear correctly that not necessarily for Trump, but for the long-term strategy planners in the United States, since at least 2017 and all the strategy papers by the Pentagon, China has been named the adversary number one. And it has been clear since the Wolfowitz Doctrine, that the aim of the United States was to prevent any country from bypassing it economically, politically or militarily in terms of strength. And the only country which is about to do that or has done it already in some aspects is China. So the containment efforts of the United States are directed against China. And for China to now assess that the United States could not defeat a middle-sized power, is I’m sure a topic for strategy reviews of the PLA and of the policy planners. So that’s one thing. Also, it cannot escape the Chinese that the Trump base inside the United States is also dwindling, the MAGA base being split. So I think by China, I do not expect at all that they will take advantage of these demonstrated weaknesses. On the other side, given the fact that China is trying to maintain its own policies, they for sure will analyze all of this and adjust accordingly.
I think it improves the chances that the U.S.-China relationship will become more harmonious, because if the U.S. would drop the idea of using Taiwan as a proxy to really anger and weaken mainland China, it can only help the strategic situation. And I think the United States will have to think about what will happen to the Strait of Taiwan and other straits like Malacca and so forth, if this problem is not calmed down.
Otherwise, Trump has taken a large business delegation with him, who have a big interest to invest in China and obviously improve trade relations. So given the fact that China is putting great importance to the relations with the United States, I’m moderately optimistic that this visit will not be a disaster.
SCHLANGER: How concerned do you think the Chinese are with the Japanese rearmament, which is something that has been pushed by Trump and Europe? What about the inclusion of Japan in the anti-China EU-Australia-U.S.-AUKUS coalition?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that the Chinese have all the right reasons to be concerned about that, because a revival of militarism in Japan is as bad and problematic as the militarization of Germany in Europe. I think both of these phenomena evoke the memory of the role of Japan and Germany in the Second World War. And both China and Russia had incredible losses; I think Russia about 27 million and China even more. People lost both military and civilian casualties. So for both of these countries, the memory of the Second World War is much more alive than in the West. Because in the West, the mainstream media and mainstream political think tanks and so forth have tried to really dilute the memory of these experiences. While the Great Patriotic War in Russia, and likewise, the defeat of Japan and the massacre of Nanjing, and things like that, have been very alive in the memory of the Chinese. So I think they are very concerned to see this inclusion of Japan into—now it’s called JAUKUS, or however you pronounce it. I think this is very worrisome, because there, especially the influence of Great Britain, which is one of the main warmongers, is a reason for great concern.
SCHLANGER: Now, also on China diplomacy, there was a very important trip made by Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi to Beijing last week after he had met with Putin and carried out negotiations with the Pakistanis, Oman, and others. Did China play a role, you think, in Trump’s decision to halt Project Freedom, given the effect especially of the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz on shipment of oil to China?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, I’m sure that China was the key diplomatic force behind the Pakistani efforts to mediate. And China also has a longstanding direct relationship to Iran. And actually, with the upcoming visit, I’m 100% certain that this was very high on the agenda for China.
SCHLANGER: Now, we’ve been covering at Executive Intelligence Review, the actual costs of the war, which you get the absurd figure from Hegseth and the Pentagon of $25 billion. But we put the figure at more like $4 trillion when the overall effect on the economy, on trade and future investment is considered. How serious is this in terms of the threat to the world economy? And is this partly what might be pushing the emphasis on diplomacy coming from the Trump administration?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Even for the so called industrial countries who are now becoming more and more de-industrialized, as in the case of Germany, the high energy cost already is a blow. In Germany, every 12th firm is afraid of insolvency. In France, the situation doesn’t look much better.
In the United States, the fuel prices have gone up and are hitting naturally the poorer segments of the population. So for the so-called advanced countries which are not so advanced anymore, the cost is already extremely painful. But it is devastating for poor countries in Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Modi in India, for example, has called for an energy emergency, telling people to stay home, work from the home office wherever that is possible, advising people for one year not to take long-range air travel if it’s not absolutely necessary. Many restaurant owners closed down. People in the cities go back to the countryside just to make a living, because the costs are less than in the cities.
So this already has devastating effects. And it’s the combination of the actual military cost, which is significant, but then you have to add to that the cost for the non-production which is taking place as a result. Things are not being produced. Pharmaceuticals, health devices have become more expensive. Fertilizer, a lot of farmers are using no or only small amounts of fertilizers, so that you can count on losses in the harvest in the coming season, and this can actually lead to famines.
So this is all accumulating from all sides. And I’m sure that Trump will feel the heat, both domestically as well as from so-called allies and other countries from across the world.
SCHLANGER: We’re speaking with Helga Zapp-LaRouche. This is the discussion on May 13th. And I would urge people to look at Executive Intelligence Review, because we will be doing a continuing investigation of the effects of the Iran war on the economy overall.
Also, Helga, let me take a moment to just emphasize, this Friday will be the next EIR Emergency Roundtable. The topic will be the Iran war and the controlled disintegration of the world economy. So you can get that through the Schiller Institute at 11 a.m. Eastern Time on Friday.
Now, I was asked by a reporter from Iran to ask you for your view of the role that the Global South is now playing in the overall diplomatic work on trying to end the war, get a peace agreement. She asked about the Saudi warning to Trump, that Trump would not be allowed to use Saudi airspace or the Prince Sultan Air Base for logistical support for the attack on Iran. How effective do you think this was given the extent to which Trump has posted or put his post-war hopes on the Saudis in terms of the Abraham Accords and long-term strategic relations in Southwest Asia?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the Gulf cooperation countries are all scrambling because not only is their business model practically ruined, because it was based on the idea that they would have high income for a small population; all the physical work would be done by guest workers; and the U.S. would protect them with their military bases. Now, this present non-provoked war of aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran, has proven that the United States bases are not a protection, but a liability, because it made these countries a target, but the United States did nothing to protect them.
So, there is right now in several of these countries a re-evaluation, and even among those who are the most pro-Israel and the most pro-U.S., there is a rethinking going on where they may not like it, but they don’t get around the fact that Iran will be a neighbor for eternity to these countries, while the United States will be, I think, 7,000 miles away. So, these are geographic realities you have to live with. Similarly, Germany will forever be in the vicinity of Russia, and people had better realize that. So, the present policies may not be so wise if you forget geography. But maybe some of the politicians who are pursuing these policies were absent in school when geography was taught.
SCHLANGER: You would think so. Now, there are some questions about Ukraine, because this is still an unresolved situation. Does it seem to be a potential for change there?
You had Zelenskyy threaten a swarm of drones attacking Moscow to disrupt the Victory Day celebration, and yet the Russian response to that was very strong from President Putin, as well as the Ministry of Defense, which said that they would launch a hit on central Kyiv if, in fact, the Ukrainians tried to disrupt the Victory Day celebration. And then this apparently was a topic of discussion between Trump and Putin in their last call.
So, here’s the question that came up. “If Trump was able to convince Zelenskyy to accept a three-day ceasefire, why is it that he’s done so little to counter the Europeans in continuing to fund the war?” And in fact, the U.S. is continuing to fund Ukraine. “What’s the disconnect there between Trump and Ukraine on this? And is this something that he’s been talking with Putin about?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I’m sure that this was brought up by Putin in this discussion. I think that the relationship between the United States and Europe on these matters is extremely sour. You know, Trump is very infuriated against Starmer, against Macron, against Merz. I think the German government is behaving completely—I don’t find the right word—like adventurous, careless, stupid. I could probably come up with 20 more like that. Here you have Pistorius, who is going to Ukraine and basically making a kind of weapon partnership with Ukraine, promising all kinds of joint weapon production facilities to be developed and set up.
I mean, the reality is, there is right now a gigantic propaganda war to convince the public and everybody that Ukraine is on the march forward, that Russia is suffering severe defeats. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you listen to some of the more honest military experts, they all say it’s a matter of complete impossibility, given the disproportionate sizes of the Russian and Ukrainian armies. Even if the Ukrainians make a couple of, maybe a 100-meter advances here and there, it was pointed out that the Russian military conception always looks at the totality of all aspects of the battlefield and the efficiency of the army. And that the changing character of the war is in the direction of more and more technology, more and more AI, etc. The rules of the war have changed, and it is clearly demonstrated that the Russians are not losing; in fact, to the contrary. And I don’t think Trump is always on top of things.
SCHLANGER: Now, there has been another development from Ukraine in the last couple of days, which is a corruption trial, looking into arms purchases through Zelenskyy’s office, especially around his former top aide, Yermak. This seems to show that the corruption scandal, which has always been there in Ukraine, has not gone away. Is this going to have an impact at all in terms of the European relations with Ukraine? Or are they just going to continue to send taxpayers’ money for the purchase of luxury houses?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It will probably continue until the next election, when these politicians who are throwing taxpayer money out of the window for corrupt circuits in Ukraine are driven out of office. And I think the anger of the population is getting higher and higher, given the fact that in Germany, for example, everything is being cut. All medical services are cut, hospitals are closed. They complain, Merz himself was attacking the working population that they’re not working enough, that there are too many people reporting health problems and not coming to work. And then on the other side, they’re cutting the money spent on, for example, psychological therapy, while the overwork and being burned out and just being completely worked to death is one of the reasons why so many people are sick.
So it’s stupid in every respect. It does not care for the well-being of the population. And I think the recent polls are showing that this German government is probably not going to last very long. They just had a coalition meeting, which did not produce a press conference, apparently because they didn’t agree on all the important points. The AfD is increasing in the polls everywhere. So I can only say, since these people don’t seem to be capable of learning from their mistakes, I think the only answer can be to vote them out of office at the first opportunity.
SCHLANGER: And it seems to be that there’s a momentum shift as well in the U.S. Congress, as you now have a group of mostly military veterans who are Democratic Congressmen, calling for a cutting of funds. Do you expect this will grow in terms of the U.S. response to the money being thrown out the window?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, because I think that the economic impact is accumulative. And therefore, the longer this takes, the more that opposition will grow. And I think that Trump seems to have lost connection to his own base. I think he looks very bad for the midterm election, that’s still six months ahead of time, but a lot can happen in between. But I think that the Trump administration is already becoming a lame-duck one.
SCHLANGER: Well, and your analysis is confirmed in one country after another in Europe. We have Starmer circling the drain, Merz’s popularity is at record low, Macron; Orbán was voted out also. So it looks like a tough time for incumbents.
So there’s a question for you from a longtime supporter. “Isn’t this the time for the LaRouche program of physical economic investment, credit policy, scientific and technological investment? Isn’t this the time for parties in Europe to adopt this program? Wouldn’t this be popular?” You would think, huh?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I’m actually moderately optimistic, because since the opposition against Lyndon LaRouche over the decades has been so massive, the effort to keep his ideas out of the political scene is still strong. But it’s like when you have a cover over your bed, and you have long legs and long arms and so forth, and the cover is too small, you’re trying to cover the legs, and then you pull it to cover the arms. So it’s like they’re trying to keep the influence of LaRouche out of the picture, but it’s popping up here, and it’s popping up there.
So I’m actually moderately optimistic that we will, not very far in the future, see that these policies are openly discussed. Because we find now people in all kinds of countries who say, yeah, yeah, they studied this for a long time, and now is the time for these ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. So, you know, while it is not yet the total breakthrough which is necessary, I think simmering below the surface, there is momentum building up big time.
SCHLANGER: Well, on that topic, there was a proposal from a supporter in Serbia, who complained to me. She said, “After I hear Helga on the weekly dialogue, I’m excited, I tell my friends to look for it, and they can’t find it.” And she writes, “I know your videos disappear, I can’t find them. I know about censorship and shadow banning. How can they get away with this? Couldn’t you pull together an alliance of all different parties and independent media to wage a concentrated campaign against censorship, because the EU is moving to make it even tougher?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, that’s for sure a good idea. We have attempted that in the past. And then people basically thought that if they pursue their own interests, they would do better. But I think many of them realized that that is not exactly working out.
So I will definitely keep your proposal in mind. And you should just help by taking these podcasts, webcasts, you can take video segments, as long as you give credit to where it comes from, and use it; send it around on all social media you have access to, and help us to be part of such a growing network. And I definitely will discuss your proposal again with my colleagues.
SCHLANGER: Now, on that we have, just to mention it again, this Friday, the next EIR Emergency Roundtable: These have become increasingly important events for pulling together the kind of forces in opposition that don’t necessarily agree on everything, but are willing to have an open discussion. What’s the plan for the meeting this Friday?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This will be an extremely important meeting, because it’s the fourth of our EIR Emergency Roundtable meetings. We had one in January, one in March, and one in April. And this has become an institution where we have top-level government officials, acting ambassadors, former members of parliament, professors, experts.
And this time, the focus will be on the effect of the danger of a new world depression coming out of the consequences of the war against Iran. So we will have important speakers. I think we will have Professor Falk from the United States, who obviously is a very important voice of resistance against many of the policies which are haunting the world. Then, you know, we have a very important city council member from Germany, from one of the cities affected by the cut-off from Russian oil. I think we have a top economist from Brazil. We have an important ambassador from the Middle East region, and many others.
So please come in, help us to make the event as known as possible, get as many people as you can. Because we have to get people not only the right analysis of the problem, but also what the solution is. And that has to be a new security and development architecture, which must take into account the interest of every single country, or it will not work. And I get many responses from people who realize that what they thought was a utopian idea when I mentioned it the first time four years ago are now saying, “Well, the present order is clearly disintegrating. So this is now the time for this conception.”
So tune in to it, because as long as you participate, you can bring in your ideas and not be somebody sitting on the sidelines, which is a bad idea in times like this.
SCHLANGER: And I think, Helga, you’ve also noticed that we’re beginning to bring younger people in from Africa and South America, maybe even the United States and Germany. Isn’t this the time for youth to show at least the courage to their depressed parents and grandparents to inspire a growing movement?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, as you say, we have a lot of young people from developing countries, from Mexico, from Africa. As a matter of fact, they are in one sense much more courageous and active than it seems the youth in the so-called advanced countries. For example, this coming Friday, there will be a very famous young journalist who is exceptionally well known in terms of his investigations and so forth. So maybe young people should take an example of what young people in the Global South are doing.
SCHLANGER: And maybe they should do what we did when we were young.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, we were the first generation of the LaRouche Youth Movement.
SCHLANGER: And we’re still trying to stay young. All right, Helga, thank you for joining us. And again, people put this on your calendar, Friday morning, 11 a.m. Eastern Time. It’s your opportunity to participate in making history. So we’ll see you then.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I hope so.
