E.I.R.STRATEGIC ALERT
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
Volume 35, No. 25, June 24, 2021
Reminder: Schiller Institute
International Conference on June 26-27 An invitation and preliminary program for the upcoming June 26-27 Schiller Institute conference
is attached to this newsletter.
Putin-Biden Summit Marks a Step Forward In the days leading to the June 16 summit between Presidents Biden and Putin, one did not have to be a pessimist to believe that a train wreck was coming. The language directed against Russia from the U.S. side, especially from the Secretary of State Blinken and the President himself, continued the vilifica tion of Vladimir Putin and the characterization of Russia as an autocratic state, with a “malign intent” toward “democracies”.
In the public discussion of leaders at the G7 summit (June 11-13) , and again in Brussels at the NATO summit (June 14), the press dutifully reported on the appearance of a generally unanimous front against the “Russian threat” and the “sys
temic challenge” from China (cf. SAS 24/12). More sanctions were reported to be on the way, to punish the two coun tries for their unwillingness to surrender their sovereignty. The best that could be hoped for, Biden and Blinken repeated,
would be a “stable and predictable relationship.” But something else was occurring outside the bubble of the reported consensus. The momentary brush with nuclear war over Ukraine and Taiwan, and the fragility of the west ern financial system threatened by growing debt bubbles and hyperinflationary monetary expansion, generated dissension from within the “Club”, with at least Germany, France and Italy reported to be less than enthusiastic about geopolitical confrontation with either Russia or China.
Even as the rhetorical buildup against the two countries continued, meetings took place which, in hindsight, may have generated some inkling of understanding that the direction of relations must change. On May 19, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and his American counterpart Blinken had a “cordial and productive” meeting in Reykjavik, no doubt aided by the U.S. decision to waive sanctions against the lead company in
volved in Nord Stream 2 and its CEO. This was followed by a productive session on May 25 between the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, and U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
Of significant note were statements issued in early June by two organizations which include high-level officials from political, military and diplomatic circles in the west and in Russia: the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group, and the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord. Both statements referred to the summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1985, in which the two agreed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
That this exact wording was reaffirmed in the communique from the Putin-Biden summit sent a message that both lead ers wished to step back from the nuclear confrontation which had been brewing in the preceding period.
The War Party Pushes Back
against Progress Made in Geneva
Russophobes in the West must have been shocked and dis mayed to hear that the “Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability” issued by Presidents Biden and Putin after their summit, declares: “Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” That is a clear and rational rejection of the many strategic papers circulating in the Pentagon, at NATO headquarters and in think tanks on the possibility of waging a “limited nuclear war” -- and winning it. The statement also includes an agree ment to establish a bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue to work on resolving outstanding issues.
Other positive developments from the June 16 summit in clude the return of ambassadors to each nation, after they had been recalled in March after Joe Biden called Putin a “killer”, as well as Biden’s reference to the Minsk protocol, indicat ing the prospect of a revival of diplomacy to resolve tensions regarding Ukraine.
Both leaders also agreed to begin “consultations on cyber security”, which is seen as a concession on the U.S. side, after Putin’s denial that Russia is responsible for allowing repeated cyber attacks on U.S. infrastructure and in elections. In sepa rate press conferences, both leaders offered cautious assess ments of their engagement.
The response of the unified war party represented by the U.S and British mainstream media to these developments demonstrates their intent to undermine the fragile progress achieved. President Biden is accused of being “too soft” on his
Russian counterpart (although not nearly as strongly as Don ald Trump was vilified after his summit with Putin in Helsinki in July 2018).
The Economist, speaking on behalf of the City of London monetarists, claimed that Putin needs a form of detente with America, “so he can focus on the more urgent business of repressing dissent and rebuilding his empire.” The article de
scribes Putin as the leader of a kleptocratic regime “dominat ed by violent security services,...[one] that cares more about wealth than ideology, and is preoccupied with its own survival rather than a global contest with America let alone the inter ests of the Russian people.”
Likely in response to this pushback, even on his plane ride back to Washington from Geneva, President Biden presented a less optimistic assessment of the meeting. Then, on June 20, Jake Sullivan announced that a new package of sanctions was being prepared against Russia over the Navalny affair and over the Nord Stream 2 project.
In sum, the Biden-Putin talks by no means guarantee a breakout of peaceful cooperation, that would require a clean break with geopolitics. But they do represent a step back from a plunge over the cliff into inevitable war. Moreover, just days afer the summit, Sullivan announced that there are plans to have a similar summit between Biden and China’s President Xi Jinping. Thus, the “baby-step” achieved in the Geneva summit has opened the door to further diplomatic progress.
China and Russia Wary of Geopolitical Traps From Beijing, the spokesman of the Foreign Ministry Zhao Lijian welcomed the decision by Presidents Biden and Putin to hold a dialogue aimed at reducing the danger of conflict and nuclear war. China, he said, is ready to join all efforts ulti mately leading to “comprehensive and complete nuclear disar mament”. Prior to the June 16 summit, Chinese officials and media had repeatedly noted that one of the major goals of the forces behind the U.S. President is to drive a wedge between China and Russia.
That Vladimir Putin is quite aware of that particular as pect of Washington’s recent opening to Moscow, was made clear in an unusual interview he granted to NBC shortly be fore the summit. Asked repeatedly by interviewer Keir Sim mons whether he was concerned about potential threats from China, the Russian President finally answered: “Can I be completely honest? We can see attempts at destroying the relationship between Russia and China. We can see that those attempts are being made in practical policies. And your ques tions, too, have to do with it.”
He also made the point that the two countries have devel oped a high an unprecedented level of “trust and cooperation in all areas: in politics, in the economy, in technology”, and a “strategic partnership relationship” never before achieved “in the history of our nations”.
After meeting with Putin, Joe Biden himself reflected the war party’s attempt to play Beijing’s interests against those of Moscow. Putin, he claimed, feels “squeezed” by a China that is seeking world dominance while Russia struggles to remain “relevant”. The semi-official Global Times denounced the next day “such a baseless provocation”, noting that one need only look at the eastward expansion of NATO and the sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU and U.S. to understand what real strategic squeezing is.
CO2 Law in Switzerland Rejected
by Young Voters
The big surprise of the vote in Switzerland against the new CO2 law is that a majority of young people voted against it (cf. SAS 24/21). According to a survey commissioned by Ta media and 20min.ch, and published on the latter’s website, 54% of those over 65 voted in favor of the law imposing new taxes and fees on greenhouse gas emissions, while 58% of those under 34 voted against it.
The leading Swiss weekly, Weltwoche wrote that the result signaled a “breaking point in international climate policy”, a “popular uprising” in which the Swiss electorate rebelled “against the dictates of the elites... The Swiss are going on a climate strike, just differently than what those in power intended. They want less government action against climate change instead of more.”
Contrary to a widely-circulated claim, only 2% of those polled said they voted against the law because they felt the measures planned were not strong enough to actually curb the emissions. Rather, the fear of higher costs was the main reason for the No vote -- even among young people.
The leader of the Social Democratic Party parliamentary group, Roger Nordmann, commented that while the climate policy as such was not rejected, the No vote did show that the “the ‘green wave’ has ebbed, that’s clear. The rejected proposal has shown that the policy of big tones, of constant outbidding with even more ambitious climate targets, has had its day.” He called for a climate policy of small steps and not expensive and extravagant “wallet-regulated” ones.
Regional Elections: French Citizens Opt for a Walkout!
More than 65% of French voters abstained in the country’s June 20 local and regional elections, a historic record! The mirror image conveyed by the results confirmed that, after months of stress in dealing with the pandemic, the French nation is in disarray. But the handling of COVID-19 is only the last straw of the long-term decline that has led to the popula
tion’s complete lack of trust in its elites, be they political, eco nomic, intellectual or in the media, which is expressed in the huge abstention rate, which some are calling a civil strike.
For years now, rage has been building against soaring un employment, a severe drop in living standards for the middle and lower classes, higher taxes (compounded by the recent «climate taxes»), a visible decline in the public school system’s previous high standards, badly run immigration polices, and an overall rising sense of insecurity. Added to that is the broad dysfunctioning of the electoral process, due to the outsourc ing to private companies of the distribution of ballots and election material to the voting offices.
The results of the first round of the elections also revealed major discrepancies between “opinion polls” and actual re sults, pointing towards possible attempts to manipulate the results. In recent months, the media have presented a Ma cron/Le Pen duel in the 2022 presidential elections as a done deal, which would mean a second term for President Macron, since the only way to get a discredited politician elected in France since 2002, has been to have him run against bogey man Marine Le Pen.
In last weekend’s elections however, Macron’s party, LREM, came in a miserable last of the five main parties, with barely
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT 2 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER n°25 / 2021
10%, despite the fact that no less than 15 ministers and state secretaries were running on various slates! Le Pen’s party, the National Rally (previously the National Front), which some ex pected would come in first in some 6 regional races, received 10% fewer votes than in 2015. The ecologists also had very
high expectations nationwide, which did not materialize. The «winners» of the regional elections were generally in cumbents, both from the conservative Republicans and the Socialist Party, re-elected by their limited local base. The attempt to recycle the old “Le Pen versus X” scheme has thus blown up in the face of its instigators, something which Jacques Cheminade contributed to producing with the slogan “Neither Marine, nor Manu, but a Free France”. (“Manu” is the nickname for Emmanuel, while the Free French refers to the need to defend the values of the resistance against nazism.) The results presage turmoil ahead for France, since the condi tions that caused the abstention on June 20 are the same that led to the rise of the Yellow Vest movement in 2018, whose demands were never addressed.
Milan Blackouts: EU’s Green Utopia Crashes into Reality
For five days in a row, from June 15 to 19, the city of Mi lan suffered prolonged blackouts, reaching up to ten hours in several districts, and hitting offices, shops and households, with ice cream melting and thousands of cell phones left un charged.
Whereas the provider, Unareti, attributed the cause of the blackouts to the increased demand of air conditioning due to the extreme heat, others point to the “greening” of urban mo bility which, far from being “sustainable”, cannot be sustained with the current energy capacities. In fact, temperatures in Milan have been high but not record-high, and yet, during the week of June 13-20, the top load of the year was reached on the electric grid, which is an increase of 25% over the previ ous week.
Automotive specialists draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the EU’s “green transition” policy, the city of Milan has the highest density of electric cars, scooters, bicycles and busses in Italy, a “green fleet” that must be continually re
charged with 5-7kWh. That includes one of the largest car sharing fleets in Europe. “We are shifting everything towards electrification with an electric grid that has not operated at the same speed as the energy transition”, commented the magazine mowmag.com.
Thus as temperatures are due to increase in the next week – not because of any global warming, but simply because it’s summer – one of the most industrialized regions of Europe faces a nightmare of continuous blackouts.
As such third-world conditions hit Milan, a voice from Japan again exposed the folly of the transition to electric mobility. Toyota director Shigeki Terashi was asked by an investor why the world’s largest carmaker is not targeting all electric vehicle sales by 2040 as other automoble giants are doing, including in Europe. “It’s too early to concentrate on one option,” he replied. In the years leading up to 2050, he explained, dif
ferent options, including hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles, need to compete with one another so that the company can make the best choice.
While the Milan blackouts are an early indicator of the folly
of planning a massive increase of electricity consumption with out producing it, fresh data about the European energy mix show how the idea of replacing coal with “renewables” (more aptly called “interruptibles”) is a utopian proposition. As re ported June 19 by oilprice.com, the use of coal for power and heat increased by 15% this spring in Europe, relative to 2019, despite the carbon tax implemented by Brussels. The reason is that gas supplies are so short that coal has made a comeback, with natural gas stockpiles being 25% below normal levels.
Welcome to the economic zone which has chosen, with the exception of France, to ban nuclear power and fossil fuels.!
The EU’s Energy Policy That Kills:
The Case of Romania
The European Union’s Green Deal and its predecessors have had devastating effects on Eastern European countries in par ticular, in respect both to the phase out of coal mining and to the requirement for all power plants to purchase “carbon certificates” to compensate for the amount of CO2 their pro duction emits. In fact, under the so-called Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which is a financial scam in itself, the price of emitting CO2 from EU power plants has risen from €5 per ton in 2016 to nearly €40 today!
In Romania, which only joined the EU in 2007, coal-fired plants still produce about 25% of the country’s electricity, while coal mining is the backbone of economic life in a num ber of areas. A brief, but shocking, overview of the situation on the ground was given by Romanian-born Alexandra Bellea, an activist of Solidarité et Progrès in Paris, during a June 16 webinar of the German Civil Rights Movement Solidarity.
In 1989, Romania had a population of 23 million, it had industry and was energy independent, she explained. In 2021, the population is down to only 19 million, five million of whom work abroad, while the so-called energy transition has robbed the country of its energy independence. The “most depopulated cities are those in the coal regions” -- and it will get worse under the EU’s energy policy.
Just this past winter, the coal power plant Mintia was sud denly shut down completely, “because it no longer met EU en vironmental standards and was already bankrupt because of the carbon certificates.” Since it also supplied district heating for some 4,700 homes in the city, “all those residents found themselves with no heating and no warm water, and winter is very cold there.”
In late April of this year, in accordance with EU dictates, all coal-fired plants in Rumania had to “spend millions of euros to purchase ‘carbon certificates’. Some of them did not have the means to do so and now have to pay hefty fines.” They may well go bankrupt as well, including the one in Timisoara (where the Revolution began in 1989).
Also in April, miners in the Jiu Valley held a sit-in for several days at the mine to demand payment of their wages, after their employer had been driven into insolvency by the EU imposed fines and fees to pay, while “workers in coal-fired power plants have mobilized for 19 weeks now to demand better working conditions, under the slogan ‘Stop the social genocide in the energy sector’.”
Two counties in Romania will be particularly hard hit by the closure of coal mines, Hunedoara and Gorj. “A study by the
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT n°25 / 2021 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER 3
EU’s Scientific Department predicts a loss of about 25,000 jobs directly, but beyond that, the entire economy of the re gion is based on coal. What’s going to happen to these people, what should they do, should they go to Germany to pick as paragus?”
The EU’s Green Deal, Alexandra Bellea insisted, is a deliber ate policy of deindustrialization and depopulation. It must be stopped now.
Germany’s “Black Zero” Produces
Near Collapse of a Major Bridge
On June 18, a 400 meter long highway bridge nearly collapsed in the city of Wiesbaden. While all traffic was stopped before a catastrophe could occur, comparisons have been drawn to the tragic collapse of a highway bridge in Genoa three years ago. A large section of the A66 Autobahn in Wiesbaden will now remain closed for an indefinite time. This is a vital part of the transport network in the Rhine-Main region, which in
cludes the cities of Frankfurt, Wiesbaden and Mainz and the Frankfurt airport. As the bridge crosses the railway tracks leading to the main station in Wiesbaden, virtually no trains can enter or leave the station. It also crosses over another major highway, at the point at which it enters Wiesbaden, which has been blocked.
This was a catastrophe waiting to happen and the blame can be laid on the “black zero” (zero deficit) policy of former German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, under which funds have been denied to repair and replace the aging infra
structure. In Hessen, where Wiesbaden is located, it has been reported that every tenth bridge is in urgent need of replace ment as similar situations can be found all over Germany.
The editor in chief of the Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz, Friedrich Roeingh, wrote on that daily’s website: “ We can no longer allow ourselves to be satisfied with nice talk about in creasing renovation budgets. More money is of no use as long as the collapse advances even faster. The previous small-small approach must finally give way to programs with billions of euros. And they will only work if planning and approval law is accelerated at the same time.”
The Salzbachtal bridge was built in 1963 for a traffic flow of 20,000 vehicles, and some 80,000 use it every week day today, including many large trucks and tractor trailers. It is one of the many old reinforced concrete bridges in Germany, that are slowly being replaced by steel bridges. Even under the current plan, the south-side bridge (the one that began to collapse) is not expected to be completed before 2024 and the north side not until 2026.
The only policy that makes sense now is to expedite the demolition of the bridge through 24 hour shifts, and launch a crash project to build the new one. That would obviously cost more, but so will the closure of the highway and railway station.
With a New Iranian President,
What May or May Not Change?
Ebrahim Raisi, the hardline chief of Iran’s judiciary and close collaborator of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was declared the winner of Iran’s presidential election on June 19. He was congratulated by the other three candidates -- Mohsen Rezaei, Abdolnaser Hemmati and Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh
-- even before the official result was announced. According to the Iranian news agency IRNA, the turnout was about 49%, i.e,, much lower than the 73% in the 2017 election. Raisi’s victory was seen, at least in the West and perhaps among many Iranians too, as a foregone conclusion once the candida
cies of two reformists, first vice president Eshaq Jahangiri and former parliament speaker Ali Larijani, were banned. According to an assessment published by Al Monitor just before the election, President Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018 was the “death blow” to the re formists supporting current President Hassan Rouhani, who was blamed for the economic crisis that resulted from the reimposition of U.S. sanctions.
Another blow was the assassination of Iranian Quds Brigade leader Major-General Ghasem Soleimani by the Trump Admin istration in January 2020. A clear sign of the shift in support of the conservatives was their overwhelming victory in the parliamentary election later that year.
The election of Raisi is unlikely to put an end to the ongoing talks in Vienna on restoring the nuclear deal (JCPOA). Both the conservatives and moderates are ready to cooperate fully provided the sanctions are lifted and the 2015 status of the agreement is restored. The Biden Administration is keen on forcing Tehran to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities be
fore lifting the sanctions, but apparently does want to keep the door open. However, the new leadership may not have as much patience as the current one.
What is not clear is how the fight for influence in the re gion between the U.S.-British alliance and Iran will unfold. Anglo-American plans to bring about regime change in Syria, undermine the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon and force the Houthis in Yemen into submission make the region vulner able to the outbreak of a larger war at any time, as recently happened in Gaza.
Indeed, for Iranian leaders, in particular the hardliners, it is a matter of moral principle to support President Assad in Syria, the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and the Houthis in Yemen. In Iraq, where the doors are wide open for Iranian military and economic influence, the presence of American troops is considered by the hardliners as a direct threat to their security – and vice versa.
In all these hotspots, there still reigns a balance of terror, including with Israel. Only an intervention at a higher level from international powers such as the UN Security Council P5 aimed at solving the totality of the intertwined crises in the region through diplomatic means, could bring all the now exhausted players to the peace table. But any such move has to be preceded by a declaration that regime change and the implementation of killer sanctions have become both destruc
tive and useless.
E.I.R. STRATEGIC ALERT www.eir.de
Published by: E.I.R.GmbH, Bahnstr. 4, 65205 Wiesbaden Tel.: 0611/73650, Fax: 0611/9740935, Email: info@eir.com Verantwortl. f. d. Inhalt: Dean Andromidas, Claudio Celani Subscription: EUR 3000/ ISSN 0936-7527
© E.I.R. GmbH Alle Rechte vorbehalten, auch die des Nachdrucks von Auszügen, derphotomechanischen Wiedergabe und der Übersetzung, Printed in Germany
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT 4 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER n°25 / 2021
Online International Schiller Institute Conference, June 26-27, 2021
For the Common Good of All People,
Not Rules Benefitting the Few!
U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin emerged from their four-hour summit discussion in Geneva, Switzerland, to present to the world a “U.S-Russia Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability,” whose brief text includes the following central commitment: “Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” That exact phrase was used by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev in their famous November 1985 summit at the height of the Cold War, in the very same location.
Presidents Biden and Putin further agreed to establish a bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue for teams of experts on both sides to begin work on the myriad security-related prob lems facing the two countries, and the world. The summit meeting, both leaders agreed, was constructive, and a first step towards improving U.S.-Russian relations, which have sunk to their lowest level in decades, perhaps ever.
Strategically, this is a step back from the brink, and an ur gently needed one. But it is a small first step, which is not yet secure and which the enemies of peaceful cooperation be tween the U.S., Russia and China will deploy heavily to stop.
To advance this process requires cooperation between leaders of the world’s major nations, especially Russia, China and the United States.
The upcoming June 26-27 International Schiller Institute four-panel conference is the best opportunity mankind has to make this a viable, durable commitment. Political and institu tional leaders from around the world will address the urgency of building an anti-Malthusian alliance to end both the rush to war and the insane “Green New Deal” effort to end progress and depopulate the globe. Most importantly, we will present the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche as the only viable long-term strategy for winning a durable peace.
Today’s small step, to succeed, must now be followed by the implementation of those policies: cooperation to build a world-class health system in every nation on the planet in or der to defeat the pandemic; joint work in space sciences and exploration; and the bankruptcy reorganization of the existing financial system to stop the looming hyperinflationary explo sion from destroying all physical economies.
We welcome questions during the conference. Please send them to questions@schillerinstitute.org
Saturday, June 26
15:00, Panel 1 - Whom the Gods Would Destroy:
War With Russia and China Is Worse Than MAD!
• Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President and Founder, The Schiller Institute: Keynote Address
• Dr. Andrey Kortunov, Director General, Russian International Affairs Council
• A contributor from the People’s Republic of China
• A contributor from the Republic of India
• Col. Richard H. Black (US), former State Senator (Virginia), former head of the US Army’s Criminal Law Division, US Pentagon
• Ray McGovern (US), Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA-ret.), Co-Founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
20:00 Panel 2 — The Real Science Behind Climate Change:
Why the World Needs Seven More Terawatts of Energy
• Megan Dobrodt, President, Schiller Institute USA: “Why the Universe Needs More People” • Dr.Kelvin Kemm, (South Africa), nuclear physicist, former Chairman of the Nuclear Energy Company of South Africa • Prof. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Physicist (Fluid Mechanics), Emeritus Professor, Saarland University for Technology and Economics
• Switzerland speaker, Carnot-Cournot Network
• Paul Driessen (US), Senior Policy Advisor, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
• Prof. Nicola Scafetta (Italy), Department of Earth, Environmental and Resources Sciences, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
• Vincenzo Romanello, PhD (Italy), Nuclear Engineer, Research Center Rez, Founder, “Atoms for Peace,” Czech Republic • Prof. Augustinus Berkhout (Netherlands); member, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau (2008), Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, the Netherlands and President of the Climate Intelligence Group, and Senior Member of the Dutch Academy of Engineering (AcTI) • John Shanahan (US): Civil Engineer, Editor, allaboutenergy.net, MSc. Civil Engineering
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT n°25 / 2021 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER 5
Sunday, June 27
Panel 3, 15.00 — Weimar Germany 1923 Comes Again:
Global Glass-Steagall To End Hyperinflation
• Jacques Cheminade (France), President, Solidarite et Progres, former Presidential candidate • Paul Gallagher (US), Editorial Board, Executive intelligence Review (EIR)
• Dennis Small (US), Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), “Double or Nothing: The LaRouche Program for Mankind’s Sucess ful Survival”
• Mike Callicrate (US - Colorado), Cattleman, Founder of Ranch Foods Direct, Policy Advocate, Operator of Mike’s “No Bull” Blog
• Daisuke Kotegawa (Japan), Former Official, Ministry of Finance, Japan; former Director for Japan at the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
• Marc Gabriel Draghi (France), Economist, jurist, and author
Panel 4, 2pm EDT — The Coincidence of Opposites:
The Only Truly Human Thought Process
• Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President and Founder, The Schiller Institute
• Russian Federation speaker
• Dr. Khadijah Lang (US), Chairman, National Medical Association (NMA) Council on International Affairs; President, Golden State Medical Association
• Marcia Merry Baker (US), Editorial Board, Executive Intelligence Review
• Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former United States Surgeon General
• Diane Sare, Candidate for United States Senate; founder, Schiller Institute NYC Chorus
• Pedro Rubio (Colombia), President of the Association of Officials of the General Accounting Office of the Republic Please register for the conference at: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20210626-27-conference
EIR STRATEGIC ALERT 6 WEEKLY NEWSLETTER n°25 / 2021
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου