-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Linda Minor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, August 12, 1999 4:33 PM
Subject: World War over Kashmir, Dagestan?
> Linda,
> Attached is statement.
> -Brian
>
LaRouche's Committee for a New Bretton Woods
www.larouchecampaign.org
For More Information
For Immediate Release
call Brian Lantz at
August 12, 1999
713-541-2907
CAMPAIGN STATEMENT:
IS WORLD WAR III COMING?
By
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
[Lyndon LaRouche, economist and statesman, needs little introduction. He is a
candidate for
the Democratic Party's Y2000 presidential nomination. LaRouche is currently posted by
the
Federal Elections Commission as one of three major candidates vying for the
Democratic Party
nomination. LaRouche's campaign committee has passed the one million dollar
fundraising
mark, and is expected to file for federal matching funds shortly.]
Among those who are paying attention to reality, one of the two big questions
of the day is,
"Is Nuclear World War III Now Inevitable?" My answer is, that I believe it is not
inevitable; but,
the danger is serious enough that serious people will ask themselves that question.
The drive toward a nuclear world war comes from the British monarchy, as the
policies of
the current Prime Minister and 1931 Ramsay MacDonald look-alike Tony Blair typifies
this
impulse. However, although the British monarchy is by far the world's dominant
financial
power, and also the world's presently leading political power, the thrust for war
depends upon
that monarchy's ability to push the world's leading military power, the U.S.A., into
adopting
London's current geopolitical adventurism.
It is from this standpoint, that we must understand the significance of madman
Zbigniew
Brzezinski's current policies, which are more or less identical to those of Brzezinski
crony and
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. For maniacs such as Blair, Brzezinski,
and Albright,
the orchestration of the recent war against Yugoslavia was only the prelude to a
nuclear
confrontation with Russia, in Transcaucasia and Central Asia more widely. Blair,
Brzezinski,
Albright et al., are depending upon their belief that this drive toward a nuclear
confrontation with
Russia is a strategic bluff, to which they are confident that Russia will back down.
London's
attempt to orchestrate a nuclear attack on India, by London controlled assets in the
Pakistan
military, is part of the same post-Balkan-War thrust. There, in brief, lies the risk
of an actual
nuclear World War III.
What these nuclear maniacs, such as Blair, Brzezinski, and Albright, assume,
is that Russia
could not win such a war. They have asked themselves the wrong question. Perhaps
Russia has
no hope of winning such a war; but, perhaps the U.S.A. has no hope of winning it,
either. Even
if the U.S.A. might appear to secure a victory in such a showdown, just as the famous
King
Pyrrhus defeated the Romans in one battle, perhaps the U.S.A. would not long outlive
the end of
such a military confrontation.
Go back to 1905, where we may find a comparable case. Recall the discussions
between the
two cousins, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and Czar Nicholas of Russia, discussing the
need to
spoil their uncle's, King Edward VII's, clear intent to push them into war against one
another.
When the two cousins failed to prevent the British from manipulating them into war
against one
another, the result was that both lost the war, and the Czar lost more than that.
The British monarchy's use of its assets in Turkey, to orchestrate a
post-Balkans spread of
warfare throughout Transcaucasia, and into Central Asia beyond that, has already
erupted into
open warfare in the north Caucusus, and threatens to pull fools in NATO into military
deployments against Russia, in both Transcaucasia and in Central Asia. This would
constitute a
threat to the very continued existence of a Russia which is still a thermonuclear
power. Russia's
warfare capability would then go on alert status.
When one presents a chosen adversary with an absolutely hopeless situation,
that adversary
may find itself impelled to strike back in absolute desperation. As every qualified
military
professional since Machiavelli knows, what NATO is implicitly threatening to do,
creates
precisely the kind of military situation, in which the unthinkable may become the
inevitable.
When the fires of hatred are stoked to the highest possible degree in the passions of
the intended
military victim, all ordinary strategic and diplomatic calculations, especially the
calculations of
madly desperate fools such as Blair, Brzezinski, and Albright, are no longer
controlling. There
lies the short-term risk of an actual, early outbreak of nuclear war-fighting.
Now, look at another crucial element of the same strategic equation: the
current world
economic situation.
It is an open, repeatedly verified fact, that, since 1989, the U.S.A. and NATO
as a whole,
have lost the ability to conduct regular warfare. The chief reason is economic. As
in "Desert
Storm," and as is shown in the resumed war on Iraq, and the recent war against
Yugoslavia,
NATO is not capable of fighting war to win with military force on the ground. The very
adoption of the lunacy of "Air-Land Battle 2000" by the U.S.A. attests less to what
the U.S.
military forces can do, than what they have lost the capability of doing.
In the war against Yugoslavia, NATO did not fight war; indeed, both NATO and
the
President of the U.S.A. insisted, that this was a punishment expedition, not an actual
war. What
NATO's bombing attacks did, was to destroy the economy of most of the nations
bordering the
Danube west of Vienna. Once the British monarchy prevailed upon President Clinton to
abandon the reconstruction perspective he had announced earlier, that entire region of
southeastern Europe has been transformed into a bloody mass of attrition which will
soon
destroy, chain-reaction style, the entire economy of both northern and western Europe.
To assess the larger strategic realities in which the Blair-driven search for
nuclear
confrontation with Russia are situated, the war-threat becomes more immediately
ominous than
would be implied by the facts I have referenced thus far. We must take into account
the strategic
military implications of the presently onrushing meltdown of the world's financial
system,
including that of the U.S. economy.
Significantly, the British state apparatus (representing a much higher level
than lackey Tony
Blair), has announced a special security program, named operation "Surety," to go into
effect,
beginning September 9, 1999. This operation is designed to anticipate a deadly social
crisis's
eruption under the conditions of the world financial meltdown expected for the
interval between
Sept. 9, 1999 and the close of the year. No one I know --and I do have many high-level
sources
in various parts of the world-- can give me a definite date, other than "soon, perhaps
next week,
perhaps October," for the expected date of the chain-reaction collapse of the world's
financial
system. However, that kind of collapse, of a kind far worse than October 1929, is
already
onrushing; it is not something which could happen; it is something which, in fact, is
already
happening.
The intervention of the effects of this world financial collapse into the
present strategic
situation, automatically and immediately changes all of the determining parameters of
the
worldwide strategic situation. No existing government could last long enough to carry
out a
pro-warfare posture effectively under such circumstances.
Notable is the situation in Russia itself. Whatever else may happen there,
and there are
many possibilities, virtually all extremely dramatic ones, the present situation in
Russia is not to
be expected to last past the end of September, if that long.
Were I President of the U.S.A., I would know how to deal with this mess.
Given the very
advanced state of sundry presently ongoing world crises, I could not guarantee
success, but I am
the only figure who might have a change of success.
30-30-30
Paid for by LaRouche's Committee for a New Bretton
Woods
