The recent ousting of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, following ten days of intense jihadist attacks, has triggered widespread speculation regarding the factors behind this rapid political collapse. Emerging analyses suggest that international political maneuvers may have played a decisive role in this unprecedented event.

Michael Maier, a journalist at the German daily Berliner Zeitung, provocatively asks: “Assad’s fall: A fiasco for Putin or collusion with Trump?” He contends that the swift jihadist takeover of Damascus represents “a clear defeat for Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

Maier asserts that if Russia was caught off guard by these developments, it marks a significant failure of Russian intelligence—on par with its missteps in 2014 during the Ukraine crisis. Citing The New York Times, Maier notes that the rebel offensive was months in the making, with meticulous planning preceding Assad’s ouster.

Maier draws parallels between Russia’s withdrawal of warships from Syria’s Tartous naval base and the chaotic American exit from Afghanistan. He highlights that the implications extend far beyond Syria:

China, reliant on the military strength of Russia and Iran to project influence in the Middle East, now faces a precarious regional situation.

Turkey and Israel emerge as key beneficiaries. Maier argues that both countries have militarily facilitated Assad’s fall and may now pursue territorial gains amidst Syria’s power vacuums.

Maier further points out the shocking ease with which rebel forces advanced to Damascus, seemingly unopposed, as the Syrian army “almost disappeared.” He notes, “Assad was in Moscow for a prolonged period before his downfall. It’s unclear if he ever returned to Syria.” The swift abandonment of previously hard-fought positions by Syrian, Russian, and Iranian forces over the past 13 years underscores the speed of this geopolitical shift.

A U.S.-Russia grand bargain?

Speculation about a possible “grand bargain” between Washington and Moscow is growing. Maier references recent comments from U.S. President Donald Trump, who suggested that America’s involvement in Syria should remain limited. However, the U.S. has simultaneously announced that 900 troops will stay in Syria to secure northeastern oil fields.

Maier posits that Russia might benefit from such a deal by redirecting its military focus to Ukraine, consolidating its territorial gains there, and achieving a more stable negotiating position. He suggests Assad’s overthrow could be part of a broader geopolitical trade-off, allowing Russia to maintain influence in Syria through military bases while opening a pathway to territorial concessions in Ukraine.

Hungary’s role

Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orbán has reportedly contributed to discussions surrounding this “grand bargain.” One potential outcome could involve the repatriation of Syrian refugees from Europe and Turkey, a move that would align with Orbán’s domestic and EU policies.

Maier also speculates that the agreement might curb the regional ambitions of Turkey’s Erdoğan and Israel’s Netanyahu, offering a degree of balance in the Middle East.

According to Maier, these developments could be part of a larger U.S. strategy to drive a wedge between Russia and China. He references U.S. journalist Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, where similar ideas were floated.

Regardless of the underlying motivations, Maier concludes, “Putin has some explaining to do to Chinese President Xi Jinping.”

On December 7-8, 2024, the Schiller Institute, founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche 40 years ago, convened a two-day international conference titled, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren!” The event brought together a remarkable panel of diplomats, former heads of state, prominent scholars, and defense experts to address what they termed the planet’s most urgent crisis since the Cuban Missile standoff: the threat of a new and possibly final world war, versus the possibility of forging a new paradigm of peace and mutual development.

The opening panel, held on Saturday, December 7, focused on the theme: “The Strategic Crisis: New and Final World War, or a New Paradigm of the One Humanity?” It featured prominent figures from across the globe.

The panel was moderated by Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute, who opened the session by referencing the anniversary of the Institute’s founding and the extraordinary peril the world now faces. Speed reminded the audience of the significance of December 7 for the United States—Pearl Harbor Day—invoking the profound transformations wrought by past conflicts and suggesting a parallel with today’s dangerous global escalation.

All Men Become Brethren!@SchillerInst International Online Conference
December 7-8, 2024

Registration link in 🧵

"The previously dominant unipolar world has crumbled, and the effort to prevent a multipolar world from establishing itself is futile. That is the main reason for… pic.twitter.com/qqkAxrBzfD

— Schiller Institute (@SchillerInst) December 4, 2024

Among the key speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute; Naledi Pandor, former Minister of International Relations of South Africa; Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana.

Keynote by Helga Zepp-LaRouche: A choice of paradigms

Helga Zepp-LaRouche set the tone: “We are coming together in an extremely dangerous moment,” she said, “one that may be even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.” She warned that the global strategic environment, marked by NATO’s expansion and the ongoing war in Ukraine, has created a climate in which nuclear weapons could be used again, possibly ending human civilization.

Zepp-LaRouche challenged the prevalent assumption that financial and geopolitical constructs must be maintained at all costs. She recalled the late economist Lyndon LaRouche’s insistence that “money is not value,” arguing that the physical economy—productivity, technological progress, and infrastructure—must guide policy. She called for a return to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), urging major powers to cast aside revenge and geopolitics, and instead embrace cooperation for mutual development. “It is urgent,” she said, “that we establish a new security and development architecture, a paradigm that meets the interests of all nations.”

Dmitri Trenin: Rejecting the old Cold War frame

From Moscow, Professor Dmitri Trenin offered a Russian perspective on the evolving crisis. “We are not in Cold War II,” he insisted. “The analogy is wrong.” Trenin stressed that today’s world is far more complex, with multiple power centers and no functioning arms control mechanisms. He warned that the old tools that kept the Cold War ‘cold’—communication channels, treaties, and a shared fear of nuclear weapons—have eroded.

Trenin pointed out that globalization under Western rules is over. The world, he said, is becoming truly multipolar, with regionalism on the rise. He cautioned the United States against attempting to preserve its hegemony at all costs, noting that “attempts to salvage [unipolar dominance] are as dangerous as they are futile.” He urged Washington to learn the lesson the Soviet Union once did: overextension leads to collapse. Now, it is time for nations to realign their priorities, focusing on domestic economic health rather than a vain bid for global supremacy.

Voices from the Global South

Former President Donald Ramotar of Guyana spoke forcefully about the global inequalities driving conflict. He noted that in recent years, the Global South—representing the majority of humanity—has begun to straighten its back and assert its interests. Ramotar criticized policies that keep developing countries locked in poverty and underdevelopment. “The transatlantic powers have made humongous profits from wars,” he said, calling these conflicts “wars for profit” that enrich weapon manufacturers and financiers.

Ramotar praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative and cooperation with the Global South as a model of “win-win” relations that uplift entire regions. He contrasted this with the IMF and World Bank’s conditionalities that perpetuate underdevelopment. “If the West joined in some of these initiatives,” Ramotar concluded, “we might end poverty in our lifetime.”

Ján Čarnogurský: A European perspective

Slovakia’s former Prime Minister Ján Čarnogurský delivered a stark evaluation of European policy. He recalled that in the early 1990s, promises were made not to expand NATO eastward; these were broken. He criticized the West’s reneging on the Minsk Accords, drawing parallels with the deceitful handling of the Yugoslav crisis.

Čarnogurský questioned who truly leads U.S. policy and lamented Europe’s subservience to Washington and London. He noted that European states are suffering under U.S.-imposed policies, losing industries to American soil. Stressing that Russia has no interest in marching west, Čarnogurský argued that the Ukraine war should end in negotiations, not endless escalation. “If the West lost the war in Ukraine,” he said, “it might simplify problems” and pave the way for stable peace negotiations.

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.: Diplomacy abandoned

Ambassador Chas Freeman, a seasoned American diplomat, reminded the audience of the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship. “The humane world order after World War II has expired,” Freeman said. Now, egregious violations of international law occur with impunity. He pointed to the absence of meaningful diplomacy, noting that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had not once visited Moscow, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has not been welcomed in Washington for years. “There are no functioning arms control agreements,” he warned, “and no communication lines.”

Freeman highlighted the urgent need for an Austrian-style solution in Ukraine, referring to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty which established that country’s permanent neutrality. “Such a Ukraine,” he said, “could serve as a buffer and a bridge,” ensuring Russia’s security concerns are met while guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and prosperity. “Diplomacy must replace demonization,” Freeman concluded, “or we face a nuclear Armageddon.”

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian: Iran and the nuclear dilemma

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian of Iran brought the Middle East dimension into view. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, he said, points to the urgent need for a region-wide approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), abandoned by the U.S. under President Trump, had established robust verification measures ensuring no Iranian nuclear weapon would emerge. Mousavian argued for expanding these principles regionally, applying similar restrictions and verifications across the Middle East, including Israel, to achieve a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

“There is a solution,” Mousavian maintained. “We can have permanent restrictions if all parties agree to uniform standards.” He suggested that if Iran’s neighbors like Saudi Arabia also accept rigorous inspections, everyone would gain security and stability. This approach, Mousavian said, could become “the best objective guarantee” against nuclear proliferation in the entire region.

Professor Zhang Weiwei: Asia’s peaceful development model

From China, Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University noted that while Europe slides into lose-lose scenarios, the China-ASEAN region has achieved a remarkable “win-win” story. He credited Asia’s success to its focus on development, infrastructure, and respect for civilizational diversity. “China and ASEAN have enjoyed peace and prosperity for nearly five decades,” he said, pointing to the emphasis on building roads, railways, and ports—trademark features of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Zhang contrasted this development-oriented model with the West’s approach, which he described as zero-sum. “China stands for unity and mutual benefit,” he said, “not divide and rule.” He recalled the influence of Chinese strategic culture, including Sun Tzu’s ancient wisdom, which emphasizes achieving goals without resorting to war. “The solution to Europe’s problem is clear—join in the Belt and Road Initiative, invest in infrastructure, and build a community of shared destiny,” he concluded.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: From the Pentagon’s perspective

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, spoke bluntly: “The U.S. today is fighting the inevitable shift of global power back to the East,” he said. Wilkerson criticized what he called “the empire’s example”: an American foreign policy trapped in arrogance and ignorance of history.

Wilkerson warned that if a conventional conflict escalated between the U.S. and Russia or China, the United States might quickly find itself losing badly and thus tempted to use nuclear weapons first. “We are so broken conventionally,” Wilkerson said, “we might be the first to use nuclear arms because we’d be taking horrendous casualties.” He stressed that any nuclear exchange would end civilization. The solution? End the empire logic, he urged. Seek balanced and rational diplomacy while we still can.

Scott Ritter: The unthinkable becomes probable

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in a pre-recorded statement, underscored the grim reality: “Today’s situation is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because there is no communication,” he said. Ritter warned that the U.S. provisioning of advanced missiles to Ukraine and talk of a ‘limited’ nuclear war by some U.S. strategists is gambling with planetary survival.

Ritter pinned hopes on a diplomatic shift with the incoming U.S. administration. “We must help ourselves by helping Russia understand that these reckless policies will not continue,” he said. In other words, a strategic reset is urgently needed. If not, the world might stumble into nuclear war by miscalculation.

Proposed solutions

Throughout the session, panelists offered concrete proposals. Helga Zepp-LaRouche suggested reviving the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods, focusing on global development and infrastructure rather than financial speculation. She also recalled Lyndon LaRouche’s old proposal of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), not as a weapons scheme, but as a joint effort by major powers to make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete through new physical principles and massive scientific cooperation.

Dmitri Trenin and Chas Freeman both stressed diplomatic channels. Trenin called for a return to stable negotiations on arms control. Freeman recommended a European security architecture that includes Russia and respects its interests. Both noted that genuine dialogue, free from demonization, is the only realistic path.

Donald Ramotar and Professor Zhang Weiwei pointed to economic development as a peace strategy. The Belt and Road Initiative’s “win-win” framework can uplift the Global South and transform war-torn regions into hubs of commerce. Economic corridors might replace battlefields if the West abandoned zero-sum thinking and joined cooperative ventures.

Ján Čarnogurský and Hossein Mousavian highlighted specific frameworks, such as making Ukraine a neutral state and building a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Čarnogurský’s reference to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and Mousavian’s concept of region-wide nuclear verification both illustrate how carefully crafted treaties can diffuse tension.

Larry Wilkerson and Scott Ritter underscored the urgency. Without a massive shift in U.S. strategic thinking—from seeking hegemony to embracing multipolarity—the world risks stumbling into global conflict. They urged immediate steps: cease unrealistic objectives like “strategic defeat” of nuclear-armed adversaries, open channels of communication, and reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war.

A call for a cultural shift

A recurring theme was the idea that cultural values must underpin policy shifts. The conference’s motto, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren,” evoked the notion that moral uplift and aesthetic education could guide politics. Zepp-LaRouche invoked classical composers and poets to stress that universal human values transcend power politics.

The Schiller Institute’s emphasis on great art, classical music, and poetic drama is not ornamental. As Zepp-LaRouche reminded participants, Schiller believed in improving citizens through culture, enabling them to think of humanity as one family. Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” from the Ninth Symphony embodies the ideal of universal brotherhood—an ethical vision that stands in stark contrast to nuclear brinkmanship.

The panelists agreed: to avoid catastrophe, citizens must pressure their governments to return to reason, respect international law, and prioritize human development. Helga Zepp-LaRouche urged that the ten principles her Institute has advocated—centered on sovereignty, development, and the common aims of humanity—be taken up widely. She called on people worldwide to reject the Carl Schmitt-type friend-enemy distinctions and adopt a principle of the “One Humanity.”

In the words of Naledi Pandor, who was unable to speak fully at this panel but whose excerpted statements were acknowledged, “BRICS and the Global South can forge a more just multipolar order.” As developing nations rise, they demand a seat at the table. This could be the key: integrating new powers into a cooperative framework for security and development.

A last chance for humanity?

The grim warnings of these statesmen, diplomats, and scholars spoke to a moment of profound danger. Nuclear arsenals loom, conflicts rage without dialogue, and powerful states push brinkmanship to extremes. Yet, the panel also projected a sense of hope. A new paradigm—one that rejects zero-sum geopolitics and embraces mutual respect, economic cooperation, and cultural renaissance—was the through line connecting all speakers.

“We have a choice,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded. “Either we continue down the path to a final world war, or we rise to the occasion and build a new paradigm of the One Humanity. Let’s choose life, not death.”

According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Ukrainian officials are engaging with the incoming U.S. administration to address key differences regarding the resolution of the ongoing conflict with Russia. These efforts come as Donald Trump prepares to assume office as President of the United States.

The report highlights that Ukraine aims to send a clear message of its readiness for peace. However, the emphasis is on achieving a sustainable peace rather than a temporary resolution.

Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, has reportedly visited Washington to establish communication channels with Trump’s team. Meetings involved U.S. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, Mike Waltz—expected to serve as Trump’s National Security Adviser—and Keith Kellogg, anticipated to be appointed as Special Envoy to Ukraine.

Sources reveal that Ukraine seeks to underscore its willingness to negotiate, provided the outcome ensures long-term stability. One source stated, “An unstable and temporary peace would not serve the interests of either the U.S. or Ukraine.”

President Zelensky, in an interview with Sky News, expressed openness to a ceasefire agreement under specific conditions. He suggested that peace could be viable if Kyiv-controlled areas were placed “under NATO protection,” adding that territories currently under Russian control might be recoverable through diplomatic means.

On December 3, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte urged Ukraine to delay peace negotiations until it secures sufficient military support from Western allies. Rutte emphasized that the decision on the timing of talks should remain solely with Kyiv.