Wall Street is the Detonator for Thermonuclear War

December 22, 2014

An increasingly unstable slide towards potential all-out war is resulting from the escalating sanctions and provocations of Russia by London, Obama, and NATO. That is plain to see. And there are the smaller details within the picture of the danger of war: Such as stout Angela Merkel, deluded by London and New York into sacrificing Germany, while dreaming that she is successfully taking on the giant of China and Russia!

But what only the most sane national leaders see is that the bankruptcy of Wall Street, looming again, is the driver for this threatened thermonuclear war. As economist Lyndon LaRouche puts it, Wall Street is the bomb. Rather than face the bankruptcy that is rushing toward them now, they will provoke uncontrollable currency crises and set a fuse on nuclear war.

Look what Wall Street and the City of London face. First, European Union in complete economic collapse and deflation. Next, U.S. oil debt bubble suddenly starting to implode at the center of a $2.5 trillion high-yield debt bubble already hemorrhaging losses. American Banker noted today:

"Oil at $50 per barrel will almost definitely create problems for banks in oil-producing regions as well as Wall Street financial institutions."

Major banks' revenues dropped by 17% from the second to the third quarter, and their revenues from loans dropped by 61% because of those bubbles popping. Finally, they face a partnership of China and Russia, accompanied by the BRICS-allied nations, which is far stronger economically. Wall Street's own cheering section, CNBC-TV, has just posted a long economic analysis of China's immense growth potential over four continents, vs. Europe's complete economic bust.

In reaction, Wall Street banks are inflating the huge bubble (financial derivatives) around their failing speculative debt bubbles. They increased their foreign exchange derivatives exposure by 90% in the third quarter alone! Credit derivatives exposure (again, that oil debt bubble) increased by 27%. The speculative loss is thus leading to a much bigger loss. These banks are guaranteeing the big blowout this time is going to be far larger than in 2007-08.

Twice in two weeks has Wall Street forced Congress and bank regulators to eliminate a bank regulation which might leave their speculative losses unsupported -- first the rule which took FDIC insurance away from some of their derivatives speculations; then the Volcker Rule, which is now off until mid-2017, on its way, the bankers say, to mid-2022, when none of us may survive to care.

This doesn't represent power, it represents desperation. And that is why Wall Street and the City of London are driving every form of financial warfare attack against Russia, its currency, its President, driving for a war confrontation.

If we suddenly learn, in horror, that a nuclear war confrontation has begun out of the center of bankrupt Europe, Wall Street will have been the bomb.

Unless we crush Wall Street immediately and quickly, with a restored Glass-Steagall Law and a policy of Hamiltonian credit, and enter cooperation with the BRICS-allied nations to rebuild the economies of the planet.

SEE "Stop World War III"



Dr. Mahathir Warns that the West Is Provoking a World War

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad warned yesterday on his blog that the U.S. and NATO are attempting to provoke a world war. Ridiculing the hypocrisy of Western leaders accusing Russia of "threatening the world," and in particular Obama's saying the Russia is the second greatest threat to the world, "just after Ebola," Dr. Mahathir writes:

"It's mind-boggling. The West is doing everything to alienate countries of the Eastern bloc so as to widen membership of NATO. Clearly this is a threat to Russia. A government elected by the Ukrainians was forced through street demonstrations to resign for rejecting union with the European Union. Russia is now accused of supporting Russians in Ukraine to break away from that country. This support of the West to install undemocratically a pro-West government is okay. But Russia must not do the same for the pro-Russian people in Ukraine.

"When MH17 was shot down, before any investigation was done, the U.S. accused Russia of supplying the missile to the dissidents for the attack. Now we are not sure. Ukraine, Russia and the dissidents all have the same missiles. So how can American be so certain who shot the plane and whether a missile was used. But not to worry. It is a good excuse for applying sanctions against Russia. Clearly the intention is to create problems for the Russian people so that they would overthrow Putin. 50% of Russian foreign earnings comes from selling gas to Europe. Now Russia has lost that income. It should be in trouble. So Russia switched the gas to Turkey. That is provocative. That is a threat.

"Really the Russians should just lie down and starve, hating Putin. But strangely Putin is more popular now with the Russians. The question is who is threatening whom?...

"The world does not need another world war. But this time it is obvious that the West is being provocative by applying sanctions and depriving Russia of its valuable European market."

More Germans Say No Economic Warfare against Russia

Several leading German Social Democrats have come out over the weekend, calling for a new "détente policy" with Russia to cease the dangerous slide into "a military confrontation with unforeseeable consequences for all of Europe." Foreign Minister Steinmeier, Economics Minister Gabriel, SPD Bundestag group vice chairman Rolf Mützenich and others all came out in defense of the sanctions as ostensibly without any alternative, but they also stressed that the idea behind sanctions was not to have economic warfare with the aim of forcing Russia to its knees. The SPD statements are important, because the party after all is the coalition partner of Christian Democratic Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Gabriel said in an interview with the Berlin news daily Tagesspiegel:

"At the end of the day, neither Germany nor Europe can have an interest in Russia sliding into economic chaos. That is why the call for harsher sanctions is wrong. There are saber-rattlers not only in the U.S.A. who even call for a Ukrainian entry to NATO. As if we did not have enough provocations from either side already. This debate must be stopped. The aim cannot be to force Russia to its knees, but to bring it to negotiations for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict. Instead, we should think about a new détente policy in Europe. We need the sanctions to make clear that we do not accept the breach of international law by Russia. At the same time however we need new negotiations for which Foreign Minister Steinmeier is campaigning so much."

Also former chairman of the NATO Military Committee and former Bundeswehr Chief of the General Staff, Gen. Harald Kujat (ret.) spoke out against any further escalation of the conflict over Ukraine, warning that a prolonged crisis may lead "to military escalations." Kujat said that it cannot be in the interest of Germany to work for the "restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine" (i.e., the return of Crimea to Kiev). That did not imply western recognition of Russian control over Crimea, but the recognition of realities, Kujat added.

Agreements between the West and Russia are indispensable, because things should not be left in the hands of the Kiev regime and the eastern Ukrainian separatists, since that implies the "danger of a military confrontation with unforeseeable consequences for all of Europe." Policymakers must see to it that the conflict in Ukraine does not turn into a conflict over Ukraine, Kujat warned.

Postol: U.S. Nuclear Modernization Raises Threat Of Nuclear War

Theodore Postol is Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a well known, sharp critic of U.S. missile defense policy. He argues in a lengthy Dec. 10 article in the Nation, titled "How the Obama Administration Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," that Obama's commitment to a modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal — a program that could, according to at least one study, cost $1 trillion — increases the capabilities of nuclear warfighting and itself raises the threat of nuclear war.

Postol writes:

"The schedule and technical objectives of the U.S. nuclear program are perfectly aligned with the bristling atmospherics associated with the downward spiral of U.S.-Russian relations."

The implication is clear: This program far precedes the current crisis in U.S.-Russian relations involving Ukraine. The Russians know this, they know that much of what the U.S. is working on will never work and so are asking themselves the following questions:

"Do U.S. military and political leaders actually believe that the upgraded systems could serve a useful military purpose? If so, could such ill-informed beliefs lead to a cascade of events that result in a nuclear catastrophe?"

Postol says that the "troubling" answer to both questions is "yes" which leads to an "unsettling" conclusion:

"The modernization program is a reckless policy that directly undermines our safety and national security."

Then he goes through the downward spiral of U.S. technical measures to increase precision and accuracy of U.S. nuclear systems, and the Russian responses to those systems, which are aggravated by the fact that Russia does not have a functioning satellite early warning system—they are dependent on a system of ground-based radars which, while they have been continually upgrading that system, is still constrained by line-of-sight limitations—which reduces the time that Russian leaders have to respond to a threatened U.S. missile attack.

"Everyone on the U.S. side who is properly informed understands that Russia would launch a counterattack before the U.S. warheads arrived. Despite this frightening reality, policy-makers have not attempted to analyze the benefit to U.S. security of pushing the Russians to a higher state of alert. Nor have they asked how an increased U.S. nuclear threat to Russia improves the security of U.S. allies or, for that matter, anyone else around the globe."

Postol concludes by warning that the scale of destruction of nuclear weapons is such that any notion of using them in a limited and controlled way is "completely disconnected from reality."

"In a world that is fundamentally unpredictable, the pursuit of an unchallenged capacity to fight and win a nuclear war is a dangerous folly."

Chinese Foreign Minister: We Stand By Russia And Will Help

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi yesterday reiterated that China views its cooperation with Russia as strategic, and China stands ready to provide any type of assistance Russia needs to face its economic difficulties.

Russia's current "difficulties" being a product of economic warfare waged by the British-Wall Street-Obama group, the Foreign Minister's statement did not go unnoticed by Western media.

"We believe that Russia has the capability and knowledge to overcome the current difficulties in the economy," Wang Yi said. "The China-Russia partnership of strategic coordination remains on a high level. We always provide support and assistance to each other. If the Russian side needs it, we will provide all necessary assistance we can."

Pravda via its website quotes Chinese Minister of Commerce Gao Huchang:

"As for some fluctuations on the stock market and currency fluctuations on the foreign exchange market, some equity investors are likely to be interested in that. As for practical cooperation, we remain calm, actively promoting the development of such cooperation."

Pravda reported that Chinese media are reporting that "most likely, China will not offer direct investment to Russia, but prefer to stimulate joint infrastructure and investment projects to support the Russian economy."

Wall Street's Mouthpiece Admits: China Far Ahead

CNBC-TV, most often a cheering section for Wall Street stocks and bankers, was sobered today. It posted a long economics analysis by Michael Ivanovitch, "Asia builds while the EU talks about it," which acknowledged the superiority in growth and investment of China's economic policy, over any other nation on earth.

Ivanovitch begins by contrasting the EU's pathetic economic failure, with China's and Eurasia's economic growth which has established a beachhead right in the midst of the EU, in the Eastern and Central Europe (CEE) nations. At EU's latest "sanctions summit" this weekend they also discussed EU-wide infrastructure projects: but $315 billion euros in investment was needed and $20 billion was available for the whole continent [!], so they postponed the whole discussion. Europarliament President Martin Schulz "joked" that the EU makes lists of projects it is going to scrap, not build.

But with Chinese Prime Minister Li in the CEE:

"In a stark contrast with the confusion at the EU Brussels jamboree, the European wish-list presented to Chinese investors in Belgrade was clear and precise — ranging from airports, railroads, highways, special industrial zones..."

They were all taken up and will be started quickly — under the EU's nose. The CEE nations, not accidentally, are lukewarm supporters of sanctions against Russia, at most.

And this, in turn, Ivanovitch writes:

"...[is] very little compared to the vast transportation, communications and energy networks implemented and planned in Asia.... It is ... mainly financed by China's huge financial resources, part of which will now be channeled through the 21-nation Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)."

China, he reports, is "by far the world's largest capital exporter," an acknowledgment one doesn't see in western financial press.

This analysis concludes with India and Indonesia as the two largest infrastructure target areas, India in particular intending to "invest $1 trillion over the next five years. The idea of its current and previous presidents was that Asia "invest its savings in regional growth projects rather than in the fixed-income assets of heavily indebted countries. "China is increasingly moving in that direction."

For the Jim Cramers of CNBC-TV, this one must hurt.