Two US-Russia Summits Seen from Memorial Day
by Bruce Director and Tony Papert -- What’s the difference between President Trump’s July 16, 2018 summit with Russia’s President Putin in Helsinki three years ago, and the upcoming, June 16 summit between Putin and fake president Joe Biden in Geneva? The difference is a very small thing, a very tiny thing. Indeed, it’s far too small for some people--such as nearly all Congressional Republicans--to be able to see it at all. It’s just a tiny little thing called principle. The principle of sovereignty.
Putin will meet in June with the fake president Biden who is the Charlie McCarthy for the cabal of very evil people, still led by the most perverted of the Boomers, who totally destroyed the United States over the fifty years before President Trump’s election in 2016, and have long sought to destroy post-Communist Russia. Not only do they despise and reject national sovereignty in favor of the overlordship of unelected, unaccountable supranational institutions. They go still further. They simply hate and loathe America and its people altogether. Don’t you remember how FBI official Peter Strzok wrote about how our “smell” disgusted him when he visited a Walmart? They would like nothing better than to trade us out for obedient serfs like the West European subjects of the European Union–a/k/a the contemporary British Empire.
Biden’s puppeteers even elevated Victoria Nuland to a top post in the State Department. This is the same Victoria Nuland who was caught on tape in 2014, organizing a neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine, right on Russia’s border. And she didn’t deny it--she gloried in it.
From his side, President Putin has no illusions about “President Biden.” Remember that he already recalled Russia’s Ambassador back from Washington in response to Biden’s wild provocations, and sent more than 100,000 troops to the Ukraine border to deter threatened massacres of Russian-speakers there--at least temporarily. Putin accepted Biden’s offer to meet with his sworn enemies, simply because it was the right thing for him to do as head of the Russian state. Try to sound out the adversary’s intentions, and see whether means can be found to put off the inevitable slide towards military conflict for as long as possible. Hopefully until after the U.S. 2022 Congressional elections, or even the 2024 Presidential elections.
In a similar way, in the 1930s and 40s, although Stalin refused to meet with Hitler personally, he detailed his foreign minister for many long negotiations with Hitler’s foreign minister von Ribbentrop, for analogous reasons. Stalin always knew that the Nazis were going to attack the Soviet Union, even while the Europeans had refused all his appeals for an alliance to stop Hitler. Yet still he hoped that he could buy enough time to reorganize and upgrade his army before that inevitable attack came.
On the other side, as to why Biden’s handlers suggested he call for a “summit”-- that will probably become clear fairly soon. It was certainly not as a venue for unscripted comments from the fake president--still less for him to hold one-on-one meetings with Putin.
Now let us think back to the July 16, 2018 summit of Presidents Trump and Putin in Helsinki. You probably have a vivid memory of the gibbering hysteria of the fake-news media, both on the scene, and everywhere else throughout the US and even the world. That was indeed an unprecedented freak-out. At the time, you probably shrugged it off as simply part of the “Russiagate” hoax against President Trump. But thinking it over again in retrospect–the truth is more the opposite. Namely, that all the campaigns of “Russiagate” lies used to try to remove President Trump from office for all of four years, were actually aimed at strangling the promise which came to light at this summit.
Why? Why? What were they so frightened of?
At the time, the Washington Post implied that it was illegal for the two world leaders to meet privately–for two whole hours, no less--without providing a transcript to their editors. What their masters feared was nothing less than the reassertion of national sovereignty, for which President Trump has waged an unceasing crusade. Could sovereign republics agree among themselves on measures in the common interest of their peoples and others, without Globalist mediation, or submission to Imperial dictate under the guise of “international standards”?
They feared this far more, when the two republics meeting were the United States and Russia–the two nations they wish to destroy above all else. Imperial Britain had considered the future United States the greatest threat to its world rule ever since the Massachusetts Bay Colony of 1628-91, and still more after the events of 1776-88. And at the same time, its imperial geopolitical dogma demanded British control over Russia (as the “heartland” of Eurasia). Yet it was never able to achieve this, except only partially and temporarily.
If these two great land powers were to cooperate as perfectly sovereign nations, then together they would constitute at least the nucleus of a possible future mortal threat to Britain’s maritime empire--just as Lyndon LaRouche had written and spoken of, and planned and conspired for decades before his departure in 2019. (We will discuss his vision below.)
It was President Trump who told the United Nations in 2017: “The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one: Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures? Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?”
He told the same body in 2018, in rejecting the so-called International Criminal Court (created by international criminal George Soros): “We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism. Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from new forms of coercion and domination...
“Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all. When we do, we will find new avenues for cooperation unfolding before us. We will find new passion for peacemaking rising within us. We will find new purpose, new resolve, and new spirit flourishing all around us, and making this a more beautiful world in which to live.”
He told the same UN in 2019: “Looking around and all over this large, magnificent planet, the truth is plain to see. If you want freedom, take pride in your country. If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty. And if you want peace, love your nation.
“Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
In 2020, he told the globalists of Davos that they were on the wrong side of history. “This is not a time for pessimism; this is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process, because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action.
“But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers—and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ’70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
At Davos, President Trump cited Filippo Brunelleschi’s great Dome of the Florence Cathedral, to which Lyndon LaRouche had devoted years of study, as an example which shows that man need not accept limits to his high aspirations.
“Centuries ago, at the time of the Renaissance, skilled craftsmen and laborers looked upwards and built the structures that still touch the human heart. To this day, some of the greatest structures in the world have been built hundreds of years ago.
“In Italy, the citizens once started construction on what would be a 140-year project, the Duomo [cathedral] of Florence. An incredible, incredible place. While the technology did not yet exist to complete their design, city fathers forged ahead anyway, certain that they would figure it out some day. These citizens of Florence did not accept limits to their high aspirations and so the Great Dome was finally built.”
For President Trump, these are no mere words. He has shown that he will stake his freedom and even his life on them, and thus on the interests of the American people and all the world’s people. Ever since he famously rode down the escalator to declare for the 2016 Republican nomination, he has willingly put his own life at risk, as did Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon LaRouche, and all our other national heroes before him. And right now, he is being threatened with imprisonment for his rank insubordination against the empire. Recall also that he was the one and only national leader to quit the genocidal Paris Climate Accords, and that his trade agreement with China was seen as an affront to the British Empire because it linked two sovereign nations, while totally bypassing the imperial World Trade Organization, which American Presidents had earlier rejected for decades precisely as an infringement of sovereignty.
Right now there are several prominent pro-Trump Republicans who are being touted by the press as possible 2024 Presidential nominees, in case President Trump does not run again for some reason. I hope that these Republicans are asking themselves just why it is that the enemy press is now putting them forward in this way. However that may be–where do they stand on this issue of national sovereignty? Some speak in its support; others effectively in opposition.
But of those who say they support sovereignty–how many are ready to give their lives in the support of national sovereignty and the other principles without which our nation, and the world, simply cannot exist-- as President Trump has proven himself ready? “Are you crazy?”, I hear them ask me. “Be practical!”
“Be practical!” How ironic that they should say those words on the one day of this year–Memorial Day–which we devote to those who have sacrificed their lives so that we could be here today to reclaim America’s sovereignty–provided only that we still have the courage to do so. “Be practical!” If our forefathers had taken that advice, their cowardly epigonoi would not be here to give it today.
Lyndon LaRouche, who was unjustly imprisoned for five years at the age of 67 in retaliation for the effectiveness of his fight against the British Empire, re-summarized his scientific forecast for mankind’s future as a community of perfectly sovereign-nation-states, if we make that happen, in a 2009 address which was re-posted to this website for Memorial Day. He calls each of us, as an individual, to use all our force to turn the “little wheel” which we can grasp, in order together to turn the “big wheel” of history to the future which beckons us now.
We can, under government law, we can establish a Federal banking system, or similar thing, in every country. We can also bring these countries together under a common fixed-exchange-rate agreement among their respective currencies. And that is necessary because the great tasks which we have to perform are not simply the recovery tasks.
We have a planet, and the characteristic of this planet is that we use certain resources for mankind. The degree of development of resources requires increases; there is no such thing as a fixed standard, or a society that can exist in perpetuity without any changes. The changes have to be increases in the power of productivity of mankind. And the resources become relatively depleted, so man's power must increase more than the depletion of resources we use. The means for doing this are all there; in science, it's all there. We use a science-driver program, which raises what I call the platforms of economy, on which economies depend. And simply go ahead and invest.
This requires, among other things, an emphasis on the language cultures of peoples, because it is only in the language cultures of people that the history of their ideas can be preserved. And therefore, they may have equality in other respects, but they have to translate that equality into their language culture, which is not just the language, but the language culture. So, they have to express, in terms of the children coming up—what's the language culture of the children? You want the whole society, and its children, to participate in this thing, but you have a unity of a sense of mankind of different cultures, same intention, same mission, same principle, but according to what our cultures let us do.
So you need the independence of the respective cultures as independent societies, but you need also the cooperation among them, in the form of a fixed-exchange-rate system among nations. We need then cooperation among these nations in the great projects which define the foundations for the future of all mankind, as benefits for each part of mankind.