Total Collapse or a New Architecture: The Choice We Face | EIRNS

by Jason Ross (EIRNS) — LaRouche Organizations proposed World Landbridge as a solution to the the collapse of the West.

The world’s crises, from Ukraine to Gaza to rising tensions in East Asia, trace back to the same source: an international order that seeks to use conflicts in its efforts to maintain dominance. The breakdown is visible everywhere. Kyiv’s chief negotiator falls amid corruption raids after vowing never to compromise; the UN system is all but paralyzed as Amnesty International documents ongoing genocide in Gaza; and Japan’s dangerous rhetoric on Taiwan forces Washington to quietly urge de-escalation, while domestic politics in the U.S. descends into xenophobic theatrics.

These are not isolated events. They are the symptoms of an illness, of a rotten geopolitical framework that is disintegrating financially and morally, but which seeks to use confrontation to preserve its authority.

While the U.S. becomes increasingly financialized and as Europe (most notably, Germany) sabotages its industrial base, an alternative is emerging. This alternative should be seen in the context of the decades of organizing by the LaRouche movement for a new development paradigm, a World Land-Bridge, and international relations based on mutual development.

Proposals now coming from China, Russia, and nations of the Global South envision a security and development intention based on joint efforts to develop, as the surest path to lasting peace. Local peace agreements are not enough. The gathering financial storm must be addressed and a paradigm of development put into place. Structural reform, beginning with the separation of productive credit from speculative chaos, is essential, or no peace framework could endure.

The world faces a choice: To remain trapped in a collapsing paradigm, or to create a new system in which diplomacy, economic development, and long-term security come together as a single goal of human advancement.

The possibility of such a future exists.

It is important to recall that extended European culture embodies far more than the errors of the present. The Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, demanded an end to reprisals and a commitment to promote the benefit of the other. Aeschylus had expressed the same principle in his Oresteia: the Furies, bent on vengeance for past misdeeds, are not defeated but rather transformed into the Eumenides. Their fierce commitment to “justice” is redirected from endless retribution to safeguarding the future of Athens.

Our task is not to cheer for the victory of one bloc over another. It is to achieve a coincidence of seeming opposites, by bringing the nations of the “West” into a clearer understanding of their own true self-interest, within a global order oriented toward development and peace.