Obama's Policy on Ukraine Places the World on a Fast Track to Thermonuclear War

February 3, 2015

In Monday's discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that the threat of thermonuclear war is upon us, and that it is a result of the Obama administration's insane British-authored policies. "We're at a doomsday time right now," LaRouche said.

"That war can happen early, now — in the short term, this week, next week, in those terms." LaRouche charged: "Obama is the author of global thermonuclear war!"

The pace of escalation towards war is indeed stunning. Jen Psaki, at the Feb. 2 State Department press briefing, was asked if U.S. providing lethal aid to Ukraine (as is now being actively promoted in Washington) might not lead to a proxy war against Russia. She responded glibly: "I don't think anybody wants to get into a proxy war with Russia." Obama's objective is only "to change the behavior of Russia," she said.

Also Monday, the Atlantic Council, Brookings, and Chicago Council on Global Affairs issued their much-promoted report which calls for the U.S. to up the ante against Russia by sending lethal aid to the neo-nazi government in Ukraine. It does so from the same delusional standpoint of "behavior modification" stated by Psaki:

"The U.S. and NATO should seek to create a situation in which the Kremlin considers the option of further military action in or against Ukraine too costly to pursue... raising risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive... That requires providing direct military assistance."

And DIA director Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart Tuesday told the House Armed Services Committee that Ukraine needs additional help, because Russia and China are "the greatest threats to our nation... existential threats." The Obama administration is now deploying to adopt that dramatic policy shift in short order, including a Feb. 5 trip to Kiev by Secretary of State John Kerry and a Feb. 9 visit to Washington by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who so far continues to state her opposition to arming Kiev.

Lyndon LaRouche commented today that this entire campaign to send lethal weaponry to Kiev is nothing but "a smokescreen for war, for thermonuclear war." Every informed political force on the planet knows that you cannot win a nuclear war in today's day and age, LaRouche elaborated. It will only lead to mutual annihilation.

The remedy, he said, is to dump Obama—that is the only way to avoid such a war. Not that Obama is the only instrument that the British have at their disposal; he is not. And if he becomes too much of a liability, they will seek other ways to ram through the same policies. The British have a "team," LaRouche emphasized, and it would be a mistake to treat a fluid situation like today's as if it were a one-to-one connection.

We should get rid of Obama in the same way that you should always flush the toilet, LaRouche said. But it's not the end of the war.

What really frightens the British Empire, he elaborated, is what is happening in Greece, and Cyprus, and is threatening to spread across Europe. Because that puts their entire global financial system in jeopardy.

Amid all of the back-and-forth around Greece, LaRouche said, it's always important to watch what the hands and feet are doing, and not so much the words that issue forth. Someone has to throw in the alternative, the solution to the crisis, and that is our unique role. What has to be said, is that the entire system is bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt, so what are you bargaining about? Instead of bargaining within a dead system, LaRouche said, national forces have to come together to dump Wall Street and their British and European counterparts, and then participate jointly in creating a new system which will cause the physical economy of their respective nations to survive and develop. Wall Street and the British Empire are a force of evil on the planet that must be destroyed. If we dump Wall Street, we can survive as people, and ensure that our economies go up, rather than down.

So cancel the system entirely, LaRouche concluded, and join in the construction of a real option for the future, that of a Hamiltonian credit system.



Experts Warn of War Risk With Russia

Not everybody in Washington is a lunatic, crazy for war against Russia. There is, in fact, a growing chorus against the US supplying weapons to the regime in Kiev, for reasons that should be obvious to any sane person: it will intensify the conflict on the ground in southeast Ukraine and likely increase the risk of a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power.

AFP ran a column on February 2nd warning that arming Ukraine would be a dangerous move, quoting a number of Western think- tankers to that effect. Nick de Larrinaga, Europe editor for IHS Jane's Defence Weekly in London said:
"The conflict is being portrayed by the Kremlin as standing up to the West, claiming Kiev is a pawn of NATO...Supplying lethal assistance would be fulfilling that prophecy, and could even harden Russia's position."

Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution—who last week hosted an appearance there by Victoria Nuland—warned,
"There is a real risk now that we will end up in a war with Russia...As far as Putin's concerned we're already in one, an economic and financial war, and if we start sending in weapons then we've taken that up a notch."

Balazs Jarabik, of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that weapons aren't the problem, as Ukraine is the world's fourth largest producer of weapons. "Their problems lie in things like leadership, management, logistics," he said, pointing out that Western weapons would require Western trainers and technicians. "If US forces showed up in Ukraine, even if just for training, it would justify everything the Russian conspiracy theorists have been saying all along," said Jarabik.

Pat Buchanan, in a column posted on, also warns that sending US arms to Ukraine risks a broader confrontation.
"Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this [ukrainian] civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end."

Buchanan notes that all Cold War presidents, from Truman to GHW Bush, recognized that what went on east of the Elbe was Russia's business, not the West's. "That Cold War caution and prudence may be at an end," he writes in a column today headed "U.S.-Russia Clash in Ukraine?"

"What would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan think of an American president willing to risk military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over two provinces in southeastern Ukraine that Moscow had ruled from the time of Catherine the Great?"

Were the U.S. to start arming Kiev, Putin would have three options, says Buchanan:

"He could back down, abandon the rebels, and be seen as a bully who, despite his bluster, does not stand up for Russians everywhere. More in character, he could take U.S. intervention as a challenge and send in armor and artillery to enable the rebels to consolidate their gains, then warn Kiev that, rather than see the rebels routed, Moscow will intervene militarily. Or Putin could order in the Russian army before U.S. weapons arrive, capture Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea, and then tell Kiev he is ready to negotiate. What would we do then? Send U.S. advisers to fight alongside the Ukrainians, as the war escalates and the casualties mount? Send U.S. warships into the Black Sea?"