Nuclear War, or A New Security and Development Framework?

In yesterday’s remarks to the International Peace Coalition, Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed to the fact that the world is “approaching what you might call the final storm in the strategic situation fairly soon.”

A major escalation towards the point of no return happened throughout the course of that meeting, when U.S. President Donald Trump had posted the following statement on his Truth Social: "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances."

At this point, there has been no official response from Moscow or its press agencies. What is needed, now more than ever, is what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been putting forward as a new security and development architecture, which takes into account the legitimate interests of all nations, and is now the only basis for escaping the suicidal pact of geopolitical warfare in a nuclear-armed world.

The basis for a new security and development framework has already been put forward by the BRICS-plus nations, including Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which has offered initiatives which would free the world from 500 years of colonialism. A Brazilian journalist, Luis Erthal, on yesterday’s meeting of the International Peace Coalition, had pointed to the fact that the BRICS is open to the so-called West, and that he hopes, “for the day when the United States joins the BRICS.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in an Aug. 1 article on the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Act, pointed to the need for a new, indivisible security system in Eurasia: “As a strategic objective, Russia envisions forming a flexible and resilient architecture of equal and indivisible security and cooperation in Eurasia, capable of addressing contemporary challenges. The goal of ensuring indivisible security proved unattainable in the OSCE, yet it can be fully realized within a pan-Eurasian framework open to all continental nations—embodying a new, polycentric world order.”

These remarks represent constructive solutions to the crisis, and relate to the content of today’s discussion.