New Cold War: Henry Kissinger Issues a Sensible Warning, the Biden Team Sticks to Provocations
For many years, Lyndon LaRouche identified Henry Kissinger as an example of what’s wrong with American foreign policy. While Kissinger’s ego caused him to treat his version of “realpolitik” as novel and creative, LaRouche insisted that he was, at his core, one who always operated within the realm of classical British imperial geopolitics, against the true national interests of the United States.
Kissinger himself acknowledged this in a speech given at Chatham House on May 10, 1982, when he admitted that the British had become “a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never before practiced between sovereign nations…. In my White House incarnation then [as national security adviser], I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department.”
It might therefore be most surprising to his one-time col leagues at Chatham House to hear Kissinger warn, in a speech
delivered April 30, that the present trans-Atlantic policy toward Russia and China –much of which is still scripted by MI6 operatives and their City of London confreres –could lead to a catastrophic war. Identifying China today as a more formidable technological, economic and military force than the Soviets were a during the Cold War, the former Secretary
of State said: “A conflict today with such a high-tech power would be of such colossal input and significance…. It’s the
biggest problem for America; it’s the biggest problem for the world. Because if we can’t solve that, then the risk is that all over the world, a kind of Cold War will develop between China and the United States.”
Given such a threat, he said that while the U.S. must remain “true to its principles,” there must be “continual negotiations with China,” as well as with Russia. It was a mistake, he said, “that we haven’t had serious negotiations with Russia for over a decade.” Diplomacy cannot always resolve the problems, he said, but if it fails, “we have to be sure that we have tried all options.”
In contrast to Kissinger’s sensible conclusion, Biden operatives, Secretary of State Blinken and National Security Adviser Sullivan took to the Sunday blab shows like bulls in the proverbial china shop. On Sixty Minutes, Blinken repeated the standard lies about alleged concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang province, and its “malign” and “aggressive” approach against its neighbors. He insisted the U.S. must defend the “rules-based-order” which China opposes, referring to the unipolar world shaped around Anglo-American interests, saying that we will “stand up and defend it” against China.
As for Russia, while dropping hints that discussion is underway to confirm a Biden-Putin summit, Blinken’s State Department issued a memo, which fully endorsed the charges from the MI6 leak sheet, Bellingcat, that Russian GRU operatives were responsible for the explosion at a Czech ammunition depot in 2014 (cf. SAS 17/21)! The memo described the explosions as “subversive and deadly actions on Czech soil”, to which the U.S. would impose new sanctions in response. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the incident exposes the lengths Russia will go “to conduct dangerous and malign operations in Europe.” As is so often the case in the “blame Russia” game, no real evidence has been presented to back up these charges. Blinken stopped in London on May 3 to coordinate with his British counterparts a strategy for dealing with Russia and China, in preparation for the upcoming G7 summit hosted by Boris Johnson. From there, he is going to Ukraine to whip up more anti-Russia hysteria.
Jake Sullivan for his part defended the «rules-based order», when it comes to climate policy (cf. below).
Taking note of the close Anglo-American cooperation in the context of pressure on Europe to maintain the multitude of sanctions on Russia, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov told an interviewer on April 28, «I still believe that the UK is playing an active and a very serious subversive role…they are trying to influence EU member states’ approaches to Russia….»