The Rothschild banking dynasty just lost its dominance in the business. Those who are deeply involved in the withdrawal of Asian assets are confirming to have recovered as much as 70% of the Collateral Accounts from the Rothschild dominated financial system, which should explain why…
… as early as 2012, thousands of banking CEOs from all over the globe decided to abandon ship. Some of those who stayed were seen jumping off the rooftops of the regional headquarters of these affected banks.
Since then, all the war chickenhawks like Netanyahu and McCain who can’t fight their own wars are endlessly exploring all possibilities of escalating geopolitical conflicts into a thermonuclear one. The more they move towards this scenario, the more they commit mistakes that could give more impetus for their arrest and they should have been arrested many full moons ago.
Mass arrests is the prevailing consensus of all those who are following these events. We are wondering why it is not happening yet. War criminals don’t negotiate for peace but to regroup and rearmed for another offensive.
Meanwhile, the Vatican has been very busy upgrading its psychological strategies which will now include the anticipated satellite based Blue Beam projection of either a Second Coming or an Alien Invasion. Numerous papal PR stunts were obviously not enough to convince the awakening population about a reforming House of Paedophiles & Cannibals.
US and European military advisers are extensively training Ukraine and neighboring countries’ armed personnel for a possible ground and air confrontations with the Russians. Russia, for its part, has not only upgraded its military infrastructure and doctrine, it has also moved its military contingents to critical areas directly facing NATO forces at its periphery.
We are expecting major showdowns in the next two months. Physical and psychological preparedness are always advised.
‘Inevitable Nuclear Confrontation Is What Is Being Prepared’
Aug. 7—Lt. Gen. Fabio Mini, former chief of Staff of the NATO Southern Command and former commander of KFOR in Kosovo, has warned of an escalation of the current ongoing “world war” into a nuclear confrontation, and has connected this dynamic to the power of financial markets over nation-states.
Mini issued those statements in an Aug. 6 interview with Italian biologist Enzo Pennetta on his website “Critica Scientifica.” Pennetta has authorized EIR to reproduce major excerpts of the interview.
General Mini’s views are not necessarily those of EIR, but we find some of them unusually sagacious.
Q: General, in your book La Guerra spiegata a… (War Explained…), [1] you state that there are no limited wars, or better, that a power engaging in a limited war, in reality is preparing a total war. In the current situation of spreading conflict, which seems to follow a sort of fault line going from Ukraine to Yemen, through Syria and Iraq, should we then expect the breakout of a total conflict?
Mini: The category of limited wars, discussed by Clausewitz himself, was meant to include conflicts with limited objectives and thus, limited instruments and resources to be employed. War should be the minimal [effort] for achieving political aims. War was a continuation of politics. However, the risks that the conflict could degenerate and enlarge, both in response to the enemy’s reaction and to the appetites for war—which increase by eating—were evident. With a careful management of alliances and neutralities, a conflict could be limited in operation, and still have a broader political significance.
Today, a limited war is no longer possible, not even in theory; the political and economic interests involved in each conflict, including the most remote and insignificant one, involve all major powers as well as everyone’s pockets and consciences. War has become a violation of international law and is no longer the continuation of politics, but its denial, its failure. Despite that (or maybe even because of that), the aim of a war is not enough to justify it, and those who start a war demonstrate political incompetence and assume responsibility for a conflict whose aims and outcome they do not know.
With the introduction of global control of conflicts and global management of security (including through the United Nations), all states and all rulers are responsible for conflicts. And all conflicts are global, if not under the aspect of military intervention, definitely in their economic, social, and moral consequences.
Thus, starting with the Cold War launched by the Baltic countries against Russia, to the American ‘covert’ war against Russia itself, to the Russian claims against Ukraine, to Syria, to Yemen, and all other so-called minor or ”low-intensity” conflicts, everything indicates that we don’t have to wait for another total conflict: We are already up to our neck in it.
What is occurring in Asia with the Pacific strategic pivot is perhaps the clearest sign that the prospect of a World War II-like explosion is more probable in that theater. Not so much because aircraft carriers and missiles are being transferred there (which is indeed taking place), but because the preparation for a world war of that kind, including the inevitable nuclear confrontation, is what is being prepared. That is not to say that it will happen immediately, but the longer the preparation goes on, the more resources will go into weapons, and the more Asian and Western minds will orient to that direction. …
Q: Another interesting reflection of yours, concerns the fact that war always leads to a different policy than the one that preceded and prepared the war. Should we therefore be prepared for a different world from the one which is generating current conflicts? And if yes, do you have an idea in which direction we are moving?
Mini: I would say yes, but I do not think we can have many illusions about the outcome. We are living in a very important period of historical transition: the global system established by the winners of WWII is cracking; blocs have disappeared; many political regimes created by colonial powers are in a crisis; Africa wakes up one day and regresses the next day; economic issues overwhelm political, social, and military issues; the peripheries of big powers and their satraps are seeking indifferently either greater autonomy or stricter serfdom. Current conflicts are the most evident signs of this process, which will lead to a new formulation of international relationships and balances.
However, it is not self-evident that this transition will lead to a so-called “new world order.” Pushes for change and stability are still weak, and risk-making conflicts and post-conflict situations chronic; the latter are as dangerous as conflicts. There are signs of strong resistance to change in a multipolar sense by some rich as well as some poor countries. The richer countries are again orienting towards a power-policy, especially through military means; the poorer countries are orienting towards resignation to slavery.
The so-called “new order” might be the old order of the colonial model, and armed forces are orienting more and more towards the system of “police armies” (constabulary forces). In many African countries there is nostalgia for the colonial period, or colonial countries are accused of abandoning them. Power and slavery are complementary. A Chinese philosopher said about his people: ”There have been centuries when the desire to be a slave has been satisfied, and others when it was not. …”
Q: In your book, you explain how war has evolved through the centuries. Now a fifth-generation war, or limitless war, has been theorized, i.e. a war that must not be perceived as such, and which includes financial means. Can we say that we are in the middle of such a war?
Mini: No question about it. But even this fifth-generation war is transforming itself into the sixth-generation war: gang war. The aims of such wars are not merely security, and nations are no longer the sole players; we are in the hands of “gangs” with their own aims and without any scruples except for their own prosperity at the expense of others. Gangs move without the constraints of borders and means, without respect, only pursuing profit. They tend to elude international law and legality, they tend to bend states themselves to their interests, and to control states’ policies and weapons. Today, the concern of armies and police apparatuses is not to understand why they work, but for whom. If the state, by definition, must (or should) care for the common good, the gang cares only for the private, non-state, and often anti-state, good.
In 2004, I asked an American colonel what war he was fighting in Iraq, and he replied, “This is a gang war, and we are the biggest gang.” He too, had understood that he was not working for a nation or for the common good, but for something that went beyond his role of defending the public: he was a mercenary, like many others, serving someone who paid. For that reason, he considered himself to be a war “professional.”
Finance is the only really global and instantaneous system and it uses both legal and illegal means: exactly like any modern gang of criminals. The command structure of gangs has two reference models: the paternalist-vertical model and the committee-horizontal model. The latter is prevailing over the former even if, at certain hierarchical levels, there is always someone stronger than the others. The horizontal model is also the one that best succeeds in covering internal and external wars. There are contingent interests that often bring adversaries onto the same side.
Q: The concept of war as “instrument of domination” also emerges from your book, i.e., an instrument to force a certain party to act against its own will. In the recent case of Greece, in which the popular will had to concede to contrary requests from Europe, can we call this an act of war?
Mini: In this case too, we must refer to limitless war and, unfortunately, to gang war. Greece has suffered from a diktat which, by bending the will of the government and of the population itself, is certainly an act of war. However, the real scandal with Greece is not in the diktat imposed, but in the apparent laxness on the side of the very international institutions which should have overseen its financial state.
The financial war against Greece is almost a perfect gang war. Only some fool could really think that Greece doctored its figures without the knowledge of the EU, the ECB, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, or the prosperous and omniscient rating agencies. It is much more realistic to think that, at the moment of the changeover to the euro, political interests in Europe prevailed over the financial,[2] and that it was the financial interests that loaded the most fragile members with the maximum possible debt.
We have a short memory, but well before 2001, the debate on the euro assumed that many countries on the European periphery and next in line to become members (northern and eastern Europe), could not possibly comply with the parameters imposed. It is no accident that only the countries on the periphery were the first induced to go into debt and then into default, or to be “saved” from the frying pan by going into the fire. Ireland, Great Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece have been the most evident examples of a maneuver which was neither carried out nor favored by nations, but run by institutions which call themselves supranational, and are in any case modeled on the private interests of the so-called “market” system.
[1] Fabio Mini, La Guerra spiegata a…, Einaudi, Turin, January 2013.
[2] In other words, the political decision to eliminate national sovereignty took precedence over financial common sense. As no lesser an authority than former French Presidential adviser Jacques Attali admitted years later, it was known from the beginning that the imposition of the euro would lead to national crises, but this was seen as a necessary step toward forcing total political integration/consolidation in Europe.
More Officials Get the Courage To Tell the Truth
This article appears in the August 14, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
World on the Edge of the Nuclear Abyss: More Officials Get the Courage To Tell the Truth
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
[PDF version of this article]
Aug. 7—Whereas it is no longer possible to ignore the signs that the U.S. Administration and NATO are preparing a military confrontation with Russia and China, perhaps even during this or next month, more and more leading personalities have found the courage, virtually at the last minute before the catastrophe, to break through the orchestrated charade (theater), which is aimed at using black propaganda to prepare the population for the coming war. The “Guns of August,” the build-up toward the third, and, as Speaker of the Duma Sergei Naryshkin put it, humanity’s last world war, is in full swing. But the way out is also within reach.
.
“If the logic of the Cold War is imposed on us, then we have to respond appropriately. And one should be very careful in using words such as ‘redividing the world’ or ‘Third World War.’ Both in our country and abroad. A Third World War would be mankind’last. And the strengthening of Russia’ s defense capabilities, including the funding decisions the Duma makes, is intended precisely to avert such a war.”
—Sergey Naryshkin, in an interview with Izvestia July 30.
It is most remarkable that a former NATO Commander should express himself as follows. The Italian Lt. General Fabio Mini, formerly Chief of the General Staff for NATO’s Southern Command and the Commander of KFOR in Kosovo, on the web-site “Critica Scientifica,” issued a clear warning Aug. 6 that the current “world war” was escalating into a nuclear confrontation, and he linked this dynamic with the control of the financial markets over national states. He warned that today, limited wars are no longer possible, even theoretically, and that all the present conflicts—from the Cold War against Russia in the Baltic states, to Ukraine, to Syria and Yemen, including the so-called “low intensity conflicts”—indicate that we must not expect a totally new conflict, but that we are already in it up to our necks.
“What is occurring in Asia with the Pacific strategic pivot,” Lt. General Mini said, “is perhaps the clearest sign that the prospect of a World War II-like explosion is more probable in that theater. Not so much because aircraft carriers and missiles are being transferred there (which is indeed taking place), but because the preparation for a world war of that kind, including the inevitable nuclear confrontation, is what is being prepared. That is not to say that it will happen immediately, but the longer the preparation goes on, the more resources will go into weapons, and the more Asian and Western minds will orient to that direction.” (see interview excerpts)
On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an array of personalities has spoken out on the urgent necessity to ban and scrap nuclear weapons, due to their potential to wipe out humanity; interestingly, these include Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, but also the likely next leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, as well as Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev warned in an Aug. 6 interview with Spiegel Online that he was very worried about the danger of nuclear war, and that we might not survive the coming year if anyone in this overheated situation were to lose his nerve.
The American journalist Jack Hanick wrote in the New York Observer Aug. 4, under the headline “Can the U.S. Stop a War with Russia?,” that the United States is preparing a war against Russia. But, [in defensive response,] Russia is also preparing for this war and will bring it to America, as the recent flights of the Bear-Bombers off the California coast on July 4 have shown. The American media of all political stripes have offered no critical analysis indicating that it would be necessary to take Russian arguments seriously, if serious consequences are to be avoided.
The United States is edging its way ever closer to a war against Russia; Democrats and Republicans are trying to outdo each other with provocative speeches, but history is full of examples of failed attempts to subdue Russia, Napoleon’s and Hitler’s being only the most recent examples.
Allying with Terrorists
The most spectacular interview, however, next to that of General Mini, has come from the former head of American Military Intelligence (DIA), Michael Flynn, on the “Head to Head” program on Al-Jazeera television Aug. 6. In that interview Flynn confirmed to interviewer Mehdi Hasan, that he had not only studied a DIA Memorandum from 2012, according to which the West supported the creation of an Islamic state in Syria; but that the support by the White House for the radical jihadists—which then morphed into ISIL and al-Nusra—had been no error in judgment, but a conscious decision to play this card.
During the broadcast Hasan read the relevant sections of the 2012 memorandum, which had already been published pursuant to an FOIA court case. One section reads:
“There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria … and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime….
Hasan repeatedly asked during the interview, whether the U.S. Administration had turned a blind eye in respect to the report, in response to which Flynn repeatedly emphasized that this had been a conscious decision. Earlier releases from this DIA report suggested that the U.S. Administration had organized the arming of al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS, in full knowledge that these groups intended to set up a Caliphate in eastern Syria and Iraq, in order to overthrow the Assad regime. Flynn underscored that the DIA had not only produced this memorandum in 2012, but that he had repeatedly spoken with the White House and the National Security Council and warned of the conseqeunces which would occur if these organizations were armed.
The Syrian “moderate opposition” photographed in October 2012. “We told our U.S. colleagues that the most important [thing] is, that up until now, all examples of U.S. instructors training militants, the so-called moderate opposition, on the territory of neighboring countries, resulted in the vast majority of those militants ending up on the extremists’ side.”
—Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, at a Qatar press conference August 3.
This interview was extraordinarily explosive, because three days after the U.S. Congress left on July 29 for its summer recess, President Obama—naturally without the consent of the Congress that the Constitution prescribes—changed the rules of engagement for the U.S. Airforce in Syria, so that it would, from now on, be permitted to defend the American-trained Syrian rebels (55 men!), including against the Syrian Air Force. That is, to all intents and purposes, an open pathway to military strikes against Syria.
Exactly such a decision had been prevented in September 2013, literally at the last moment, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Gen. Martin Dempsey, very well briefed by Flynn, spoke with Obama shortly before the already-ordered military operation against Syria, and warned him, that it would lead to impeachment proceedings, if he did not obtain Congress’s permission for this war. Obama saw that he was forced to consult Congress, and, sensing that he would lose the vote, the President ultimately pulled back from a decision that would have had unforeseen consequences.
One Minute to Midnight
For Flynn, in the current situation, to bring into the open the truth about the background of the evolution of the ISIS terrorists, is obviously of the highest strategic importance. Because today, as two years ago, the attempt to eradicate the Assad government with the help of Islamic terrorists, threatens to provoke a confrontation in the whole region, and beyond. After Obama’s announcement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov immediately warned that military strikes against the Syrian army would complicate the war against ISIS, and remarked ironically, that most of the “moderate” rebels trained by the U.S. end up within a very short time in the ranks of the terrorists.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin at the same time gave Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a sharp warning, that his bombing of the Kurds in Syria endangered the war against ISIS. Russia maintains the Tartus base in Syria, which, in the event of the overthrow of Assad, would fall into the hands of ISIS.
It is literally one minute to midnight, to carry out an open debate on the failed policy in Southwest Asia, if an escalation into the worst-scenario catastrophe is to be stopped. Because the trail of destruction leads from Iraq—against which a war based on lies was started wantonly—to Afghanistan, then Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
Jeremy Corbyn, the probable new head of the British Labour Party, has just demanded that Tony Blair be held accountable for war crimes, if the Chilcot Report proves his guilt in the realization of the war against Iraq. What is proven in any case is the complete failure of the policy of regime change, with the help of terrorists, in this region; terrorists who will then be bombed in order to create new terrorists.
In October, NATO will hold a series of maneuvers among which is one with the name Trident Juncture 15, the largest one of its kind in 25 years. In that maneuver, among other things, a deployment of nuclear weapons against Russia will be simulated. In the same time frame, JCS Chairman Dempsey and a range of other high-ranking military leaders will be replaced by successors, several among whom have already declared that Russia is Enemy No. 1 for the United States.
Mankind has never found itself so close to the edge of its potential extinction. It is of vital importance that Germany and all the other European nations make perfectly clear that they are having no part of a possible war against Russia and China.
There are a whole slew of measures which could be taken. Among them are the immediate ending of sanctions against Russia; the immediate ban and destruction of nuclear weapons—beginning with those stationed in Europe—and an honest discussion about the failed policy in southwest Asia in reference to the DIA memo. Likewise, it is urgent to put on the table the solution to the strategic challenges now threatening all mankind, challenges such as terrorism, the refugee catastrophe, drugs, famine, and so forth,—for whose solution cooperation with Russia and China is decisive. We urgently need citizens who will no longer allow mediocre governments, led by Great Britain and the United States, to sleepwalk into World War III.
EIR
Well, it makes me wonder how there is so much talk about the growth for Nuclear War, There are powers that will not allow a major full scale Nuclear War on this world as this starts to effect beings in other parts of our solar system. They being far advanced that we are, will not permit their area of dominance to be potentially devastated by the actions of some primitive animals who think they are in control of this planet.
We still have this pathetic approach that there is no so-called proof for any life anywhere else outside of our home world, Earth, when the reality is that there are so many, just in our Solar System it is mind boggling!