Remember that after the crime of the two atomic bombings of Japan, nuclear weapons were never used during the Cold War—although there were many near-misses and lucky breaks. U.S. troops never fought Russian troops. Although U.S. and Chinese troops fought in Korea, the two nations were never actually at war. We had a very close call in the Cuban Missiles Crisis—civilization was only saved by the soon-to-be-assassinated President Jack Kennedy. But somehow, for forty years, the madmen who were legion on both sides were ultimately contained—often just barely so.
But are they contained now? Is this what you see in the current government shutdown, or in Durbin's obscene libel? Just the opposite! The meaning of "the Resistance" is that the lunatics have taken over the asylum, as in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether." Their "strategy" is "bring it on!" "The worse the better!" Especially now when facts are about to be made public which explode the whole "Russiagate" hoax against President Trump and the Constitution. They hope against hope, that if they simply turn everything upside down and throw it out the window, maybe, somehow, that will lead to the removal of the hated President Trump.
A man who used his brains fully while living half of his adult life in the Cold War is Lyndon LaRouche. With uncanny accuracy, he forecast the way out from under the shadow of thermonuclear holocaust. The Belt and Road, the New Silk Road, is nothing but today's form of his vision going back to the 1960s. Even though it was never properly adopted by both the superpowers—although we came very close to that—his Strategic Defense Initiative nevertheless brought the Cold War to an end at the close of the 1980s, as LaRouche had so precisely forecast. LaRouche and his method, with his Four Laws which incorporate the SDI within his whole career as a groundbreaking scientist and economist, can bring us through this crisis in time to escape the disaster which threatens.
'Sharp Power' is NED Creation for a New Cold War
Jan. 22, 2018 (EIRNS)—"Sharp Power," the geopolitical neologism now being bandied about by the likes of Republican Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) against Russia and China, finds its roots in the bowels of the geopolitical thinktank, the National Endowment for Democracy. On Dec. 6, 2017, the NED held a day-long seminar, "Sharp Power, Rising Authoritarian Influence," which defined the parameters of the thought-object for a new generation. Earlier postings by the group indicate that the imperialists had been thinking along these lines since at least September of last year.
Until recently, during a previous Cold War, conflict between the superpowers had been characterized as either "hard," meaning military, or "soft," meaning cultural or academic efforts of subversion. Finding those descriptions too limited for today’s situation, the term "sharp" power was settled on—in their words, literally as a "catch-all term" for any form of influence which is not otherwise classifiable as hard or soft. As described in the conference literature,
"authoritarian influence efforts in young and vulnerable democracies are sharp in the sense that they pierce, penetrate, or perforate the information and political environments in the targeted countries."
By this description, then, Russia’s efforts at manipulation through media sources such as RT (or alleged Presidential election-rigging) are just as "sharp" as China’s efforts to raise the poor out of poverty, increase productivity by infrastructure construction, or improve living standards for the entire planet. From an article, "The Meaning of Sharp Power: How Authoritarian States Project Influence," by (conference participants) Christopher Walker and Jessica Ludwig, in Foreign Affairs from Nov. 16, 2017:
"The serious challenge posed by authoritarian sharp power requires a multidimensional response that includes unmasking Chinese and Russian influence efforts that rely in large part on camouflage—disguising state-directed projects as the work of commercial media or grassroots associations, for example, or using local actors as conduits for foreign propaganda and tools of foreign manipulation."
Lavrov, Peskov Blame U.S. Opposition for Worsening Relations
Jan. 22, 2018 (EIRNS)—Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov blame U.S. opposition for preventing U.S. President Donald Trump from improving relations between Russia and the United States.
In an interview with Russian daily Kommersant, Lavrov said Trump was being forced to make anti-Russian decisions under the pressure of his national political opponents.
"When U.S. President Donald Trump received me in the White House, when he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg and later they held telephone conversations, I did not see U.S. President Trump’s charge [mandate] for any sort of actions, which could undermine his election campaign slogans that he wanted good relations with Russia,"
Lavrov said, reported TASS. Lavrov attributed the U.S. stance towards Russia to three factors: the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the outside-the-system character of Donald Trump, and the need to explain why everything does not goes well for the United States in the international arena. Trump is forced into making anti-Russian decisions under such conditions, according to Lavrov.
"One should probably understand that under conditions, when bills are passed by the majority of votes (95%), the President comes to think not about the essence of the draft law, how real it is, legitimate or decent, but that his veto would be eventually overturned,"
"We are comforted that recently some members of the Congress, political circles in the United States and some diplomats acknowledge quietly in their confidential talks the absolute abnormality of such situation and the need to improve it."
Speaking on a TV show on the Rossiya 1 channel, Peskov blamed the domestic atmosphere in the United States as the cause preventing Trump from establishing good relations with Russia.
"I think so.... We are certain about it, because, while, let’s say, we are barely in a position to give estimations of internal politics inside the U.S., but, nevertheless, it is quite obvious that the internal climate, let’s put it this way, is rather unfriendly regarding our country,"
China's Strong Response to U.S. Provocations
Jan. 22, 2018 (EIRNS)—China’s Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry both issued strong objections to the violation of the 12-nautical-mile limit of Huangyan Island in the South China Sea by the missile destroyer USS Hopper, Global Times reported yesterday in an unsigned editorial. Global Times is published under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily newspaper. Global Times sets out the evidence of growing U.S. alarm about China’s rise: 1) the U.S. National Security Strategy called China a “rival”; 2) the Pentagon gave more importance to competition with China and Russia than the fight against terrorism in its Jan. 19 National Defense Strategy, and 3) U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the U.S. “mistakenly” supported China’s WTO membership in 2001. Global Times goes on, that the U.S. “needs to reckon with the returns and losses and take a high-stake move to turn its diplomacy with China from a controllable process into a gamble.
“Neither China nor the U.S. will win if they enter into a Cold War. Those who advocate it, underestimate its repercussions on the U.S., which is unprepared for the risks and pain required to ‘Make America Great Again."...
“China’s pursuit of a win for all is not understandable to all Westerners, and may even be taken by some Americans as a scheme to evade U.S. containment. We should just let it be in terms of ties with the U.S.
“With fewer cards, the U.S. finds it difficult to confront China, and sending a naval vessel in the South China Sea is something easier.”
China can handle it, the editorial continues, and
“the U.S. is doomed to fail in this respect.... China is able to send more military vessels as a response and can take steps like militarizing islands. This can by no means bring honor to the Trump administration.”
Countdown to State of the Union: Will Trump Renounce Geopolitics?
With only eight days to go until the State of the Union, the battle for the soul of the Trump Presidency continues to rage. Despite Trump's personal inclination towards cooperation with Russia and China, the National Defense Strategy summary just released by Secretary Jim Mattis runs directly contrary in its inflammatory language towards those countries, stating that "great power competition" will be the primary focus of US national security. With this, rather than an end to geopolitics and a new era of "great power cooperation" as Helga LaRouche has demanded, this document fans the flames of a new Cold War which could swiftly provoke a thermonuclear WWIII.
Voices from across the political spectrum are warning of this danger, from former Defense Secretary William Perry, Stephen Cohen, to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Helga LaRouche today called for President Trump to renounce this inflammatory National Defense Strategy, fire Mattis, and for Tulsi Gabbard to be appointed as the Secretary of Defense in his place. The Russiagate coup must be defeated, and the United States must finally embrace the new strategic paradigm of peace through development and win-win cooperation to achieve the common vision of mankind.