Inledningsanförande vid onlinekonferensen den 25.5 med Schillerinstituten i Sverige och Köpenhamn: Nej till Nato!
Helga Zepp-LaRouche går igenom de brittiska planerna från högsta strategiska nivå, från Malcolm Chalmers vid Storbritanniens äldsta hjärntrust RUSI, på att med kärnvapenhot “koka Ryssland som en groda” och provocera fram en kärnvapenkris för att tvinga Ryssland till en strategisk eftergift i Ukrainakriget. Denna sinnessjuka politik att hota med kärnvapen är den angloamerikanska politiken i det Nato som Sverige nu stöder med sin medlemsansökan.
Här är utdraget ur Helga Zepp-LaRouches tal på engelska där hon berättar om planerna från Malcolms Chalmers och RUSI att ställa till en kärnvapenkris om Krim:
“There was recently an article by Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and they describe themselves as the world’s oldest and leading U.K. defense and security think tank, and they’re closely associated with the British military and Royal Household. [https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crimea] They’re proposing a “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids”—that’s how they call it—which could result from the Ukrainian attempt to retake Crimea, which would make it easier, in their view, to settle the Ukraine-Russia war.
The headline of the article is “This War Still Presents Nuclear Risks—Especially in Relation to Crimea,” and it was published on May 20. Chalmers discusses how Russia could be forced into a nuclear confrontation by sending ever more sophisticated weapons to Ukraine to “boil the Russian frog.” Now, you all know the story, at least so the story goes, if you throw a frog into boiling water, the frog would jump out. But if you put the frog into cold water, and then slowly turn up the heat, the frog gets cooked.
Now, they think that “boiling the Russian frog” you can arrive at by “progressively [increasing] the size and sophistication of the weapons they have been prepared to supply to Ukraine.” Because of those weapons, Ukraine would then be able, “reversing most of Russia’s recent territorial gains, including Kherson and even Mariupol.” Also those weapons and territorial gains could be used “to destroy bridges, railheads, storage sites and air bases” inside Russia. Then they would move to retake Crimea, strike a “tempting target” such as the Kerch Bridge, for example, and now this would lead to Crimea Missile Crisis, Chalmers argues. “A specific threat to use nuclear weapons in relation to Crimea … might be viewed by Putin as a way to restore some of his coercive power, even if he (and the U.S.) doubted whether he would deliver on such a threat. …
“If a red line were not accepted by Ukraine, Russia might then feel that it had to consider a series of further escalatory options, such as putting its nuclear forces on higher alert.” (They are already on alert.) “Faced with the alternative of the likely loss of Crimea, Putin might believe that Ukraine (with U.S. encouragement) would be likely to blink first. It would be a moment of extreme peril, with all the parties seeking to understand the intent of each other even as they looked to pursue their national interests.
“Precisely because of the peril inherent in such a situation, a nuclear crisis of this sort could make it easier for leaders to make difficult compromises. Provided that the war was ended and the blockade of Odessa lifted, Ukraine’s leaders might be willing to postpone a settlement of the Crimea question. For Putin, the failure of the invasion, and the subsequent success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, would have been a massive humiliation. But he would at least be able to argue that the might of the Russian strategic arsenal had, at a moment of great national weakness, successfully deterred NATO’s designs for dismembering Russia. This could be enough for both sides to avoid the worst outcome of all.”
This is absolute, complete insanity. What he calls a “Crimean Cuban missile crisis on steroids,” would mean that the two largest nuclear powers would basically go to the absolute brink of nuclear war! Obviously, this RUSI is only a think tank, but it is one which informs British policy. And therefore, the question is, is this not a violation of Article 2, No. 4 of the UN Charter? Because this is not just some form of incitement to war, but an incitement for nuclear war. And if there is no international legal definition of that, yet, it would be very urgent to make one.
If this nuclear chicken game goes wrong, for starters, all nuclear weapons depots in Europe would be a target, and be reached in a few minutes, and there would be no more Germany.” (läs fortsättningen av talet på länkarna på engelska och danska ovan!)