Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

QUESTION: Why are you pro-Russia vs. Ukraine? Aren’t you on the your side?

Gerald

ANSWER: I have been screaming and yelling at the top of my lungs to the point that I have even been losing my voice. Having a computer that has forecast every geopolitical event might at last start getting through. You will see that Trump will never be given credit for preventing a war, but he seems to be honestly trying. I was asked to write the peace plan and to get it to Putin, which showed me that they were at least serious. I believe Trump has told Xi that the US will not join NATO to invade Russia. I also believe you are now seeing a complete U-turn from NATO, suddenly saying Russia is NOT planning to invade. Make no mistake, Zelensky will keep claiming Russia will attack any day to get more money, and he has been desperately trying to get NATO to invade Russia.

Trump has adopted my warning that Iran would not surrender before the elections. I have disagreed with sending Kushner and and his sidekick. That is all about conflicts or interest and they will probably be torn apart by the Democrats. I believe Trump now also agrees that Zelensky is a threat to the entire world and should be removed from office. I am NOT allowed to have any stock investments when I advise on every continent. I cannot have any conflict of interest whatsoever. I do not need the money. I do not sell advertising and don’t send you countless emails to sell you something. I am just waiting for Scotty to beam me up—and you can’t take it with you. I was NEVER interested in billions, because all that is good for is bribing other people to do shit.

Sorry, I was more interested in accomplishment. I was a programmer. I was also a trader who everyone knew stood against the market manipulators, who are only interested in how many zeros they can add to their cash, pretending that makes them more important than someone else. They surrender their dignity, honor, and reputation all for adding zeros that does not change your lifestyle. Money does something to some people like the new move on Zuckerberg. He will never get his dignity or reputation back.

My family has fought in every war since the Revolution. A lost a lot of friend in Vietnam. War is only justify when actually attacked. We are not pieces on a chess board for their amusement while the military industrial complex baths in tubs full of cash.

If you step back from the propaganda, besides the fact that the West deliberately started this war, this is all part of a plan to get out of the sovereign debt crisis—since governments always default after war. Even the US defaulted on the debts of the Continental Congress, despite the Constitution proclaiming they would honor the debts of the previous government. This is one historical fact as a benefit of war: a version of the Debt Jubilee.

• Russia: 139.5 million to 143.4 million

• Ukraine: 37.3 million to 39.5 million 

Ukraine was never expected to win this war. It was only intended to first weaken Russia for the final kill—to rob it of its assets. Ukraine is at best about 35% of its pre-war population compared to Russia. Many Ukrainians have fled. About 4.4 million Ukrainians have received temporary protection status in the European Union, while the number who fled to Russia is generally estimated to be around 2 million from the Donbas. More than 10% of Ukraine’s population has fled Ukraine and do NOT support Zelensky impersonating some elected president.

The country hosting the largest number, with approximately 1.29 million people—about 29.2% of the EU total—is Germany. Poland ranks second, hosting approximately 939,000 people, about 21.2%. This has contributed to the economic decline in Germany, Poland, and the EU as a whole. They never expected Ukraine to win this war against Russia. That is pure propaganda. Why do you think Boris Johnson rushed to Ukraine to make sure Zelensky never accepts peace?

This is not about picking a side between Russia and Ukraine. This is a world poker game, and you are their fool if you believe the press and ignore the facts. This is like Mexico waging war against the United States. Come on. They are counting on Russia not pushing the button—and it will go down with a loud thunk.

Europe is simply engaging in ethnic hatred and have demonized all the Russian people. What started this was exactly that. The Ukrainians were killing Russians on the streets of Odessa. Finland has shown its hatred demanding to end allowing any Russia to enter Europe. They would probably arrest Putin if he came to a peace negotiation. These people have PERMANENTLY destroyed the world economy. There is no way to ever restore global peace ever again.

Just follow the money. The EU is keeping the Russian assets even if there is peace. They are robbing Russian assets permanently, warning the world that you had better not hold any sovereign deposits in the EU, including Britain or Switzerland, for there is no rule of law.

They intend to start this war, and they have no problem killing millions of their own, because that gets them out of their pension crisis. Pension funds have been used as slush funds stuffed with government debt rather than private-sector investments that grow the economy, instead of lining the pockets of our illustrious politicians. They do not know how to run for office without promising free gifts to people in exchange for their votes.

They are pushing ahead at light-speed to create a new currency in Europe—a CBDC—so they will at last have absolute control over every aspect of finance, reducing the population to mere economic slaves and resurrecting serfdom.

The European sovereign debt situation is severe, with rising debt levels and yield pressures. This is also why long-term interest rates are rising. This is a full-blown crisis far beyond 2010. It is more accurately described as a “simmering pressure” concentrated in a few core economies that will drag down the rest.

According to Eurostat data from the first quarter of 2026, the euro area’s overall government debt-to-GDP ratio has climbed to 88.9%, up from 87.2% a year earlier, and well above the 60% Maastricht Treaty threshold—proving they cannot live within their fictional dreams.

Several major economies carry particularly heavy burdens:
Greece: 143.5%
Italy: 138.9%
France: 117.6%
Belgium: 109.1%
Spain: 101.6%

The most acute pressure currently comes from France. Its 10-year government bond yield briefly approached 5% (the highest since 2002), and the spread over German bunds widened to around 140-160 basis points. Fears of “contagion” have pushed up yields in Italy, Spain, and Belgium as well. Yet rather than addressing the underlying problem, policymakers are beating the war drums, because there is no viable path to honoring these debts. There has never been any real intention of paying off national debts. The pattern has been to borrow recklessly and assume the crisis can always be deferred, kicking the can down the road. Europe is running out of road.

If you are so pro-Ukraine, I’m sure Blackrock will be glad to sell you a bridge to nowhere for a non-refundable donation. Their $800 billion fund is expected to get their fingers in the stolen assets from Russia. War – Money – Ethics do not seem to mix very well.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more behind door #3. They are still working behind door #2—shutting down free speech, etc. All governments act in their own self-interest. Like any animal, even a possum will play dead and it will show its teeth when cornered and there is no other choice. I have seen it.

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I think you have forgotten more than these people here in Warsaw ever knew. NATO says it is ready to fight tonight, claiming it has 3.65 million active troops against Russia’s 1.32 million. I asked a question, and they ignored it. Isn’t 50% of that including the USA and Turkey? I’m sure you know the real facts given your contacts. Would you care to comment?

FJ

ANSWER: You are absolutely correct. NATO is by no means as strong as they claim. The United States maintains roughly 1.3 million active-duty personnel. This means the U.S. alone accounts for about 36% of NATO’s entire active military manpower. Then add Turkey’s 395,800 active troops. All of this is also based on conventional ignoring nuclear.

So when you see them claiming 3.65 million  active troops, it is the sum of all 32 members, with the U.S. providing the single largest block by a wide margin.

Poland: 263,600
France: 202,000
Germany: 183,200
Italy: 191,600

Without the United States and Turkey, Europe is close to 50% of active troops compared to Russia.

These warmongering Neocons only look at what they want to believe. They never take into account that they have (1) destroyed the world economy dividing it between SWIFT vs. CHIPS, but that means there is no way this will every reverse. They demonize Russia so much, stole their money, and made it clear they will NEVER be accepted back in trade ever again, so why would you think that nukes are off the table? They have set the very reason why nuclear war can no longer be off the table. There is nothing to go back to, so why should Russia care if Europe still exists? They seem to be advocating their own demise. They have made it absolutely clear they are NOT interested in any peaceful co-existence with Russia ever again. They are now permanent enemies. That is why Rome destroyed Carthage.

The counting of the US and Turkey trrops among their ranks is bravado. NATO is not compulsory, it is voluntary. That means that they do NOT have absolute  control over 3.65 million troops. The bias is exposed when you look closer. They count the entire West, but only Russia in isolation. China and North Korea will join defending Russia and if the US did enter, so would Iran. If we look at the largest army in the world, China maintains around 2.03 million troops across multiple 2026 sources. North Korea possesses one of the most militarized forces globally, with estimates ranging from 1.28 million to 1.32 million active personnel. This represents a very high percentage of its total population—roughly 5%—making it one of the most heavily militarized states in the world .

So, let’s take the 3.65 million claim of NATO and compare to the combined opposition, not just Russia since they combine the West, and what we end up with 4.6 million. Any historian knows that there have been countless battles won even when seriously outnumbered.

Julius Caesar won the Battle of Alesia (52 BC) with an army of roughly 50,000–60,000 men facing the Gallic force of about 80,000 inside the fortress of Alesia. He was then attacked from the outside by a massive relief army estimated at 250,000 warriors. Caesar was effectively outnumbered 6:1 when combining the besieged garrison and the relief force.

Then at the Battle of Pharsalus (48 BC) against Pompey, Caesar was significantly outnumbered. His forces totaled around 22,000–30,000 infantry, while Pompey commanded roughly 45,000–47,000. Pompey also had a massive cavalry advantage (roughly 7,000 vs. Caesar’s 1,000). Caesar concealed a fourth line of elite legionaries behind his cavalry. When Pompey’s cavalry attempted to outflank him, the hidden infantry attacked with their javelins like pikemen, routing the enemy cavalry and winning the battle.

So NATO can pound its chest all it wants to put on a show to make sure Europe hands them more money. But any military historian knows that is a dog and pony show. It has no basis in reality or history.

Finland wants the European Union to stop issuing tourist visas to Russians until Moscow ends its war against Ukraine. Finland’s Foreign Ministry says Schengen countries issued close to 500,000 tourist visas to Russians in 2025. Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen declares that “Russian citizens should not be issued tourist visas,” adding, “The same must finally happen at the EU level.” Her argument is that Russians should not enjoy European freedoms while their country attacks Ukrainian homes. But who, exactly, is being held accountable here? The person applying for a holiday visa did not necessarily order the invasion, support it, or possess any means of stopping it.

I question the logic of making someone’s freedom to travel conditional upon a decision made in the Kremlin. What is an ordinary Russian supposed to do to satisfy that condition? Walk into Putin’s office and demand that he withdraw the army? Europe describes Russia as an authoritarian state and then treats its citizens as though they personally control its foreign policy. You cannot have it both ways. If political power is concentrated and opposition is repressed, the responsibility of the individual must be judged by what that individual has actually done.

The people with money have more options. Russian businessmen Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, for example, hold multiple nationalities and have challenged sanctions through European courts. That does not mean wealthy Russians are untouched by sanctions; many have faced asset freezes and travel restrictions. It means a billionaire’s position is very different from that of someone with one passport, a salary, and no team of international lawyers. A blanket nationality restriction is easiest to apply to the person least equipped to contest it.

As for espionage, does anyone seriously believe Russian intelligence depends entirely on Russians arriving with tourist visas and their real identities neatly printed in their passports? Documented cases show intelligence officers operating under commercial and diplomatic cover, as well as covert agents using false identities. Travel restrictions can complicate some operations, but they cannot replace counterintelligence. The Kremlin can recruit people already abroad or use intermediaries. Keeping out an ordinary visitor does not establish that a professional operative has been stopped.

There is also a consequence Europe seems unwilling to consider. Closing ordinary contact can strengthen the Kremlin’s claim that the West despises Russians themselves. A person who might otherwise discover that Europeans distinguish between a government and its citizens instead encounters a policy telling him that his passport is sufficient reason for exclusion. That outcome would serve propaganda far better than diplomacy. If the objective is to weaken hostility between societies, treating an entire nationality as suspect deserves considerably more scrutiny.

In truth, Russians already feel the hostilities from Europe. The arrogance is believing that another restriction on ordinary people constitutes a meaningful blow against rulers who remain in office. Finland is promoting the hatred of Russian people. The distinction between the Kremlin and the Russian citizen disappears.

Once an entire nationality is treated as suspect, people find it easier to dismiss the suffering of its ordinary citizens and harder to imagine any future reconciliation. Demonizing the population makes it politically easier to maintain confrontation. The rulers remain insulated while ordinary people learn to distrust one another. Europe should ask whether closing those human connections weakens the Kremlin or merely gives it another reason to tell Russians that the West hates them.

Brussels apparently believes it can dictate what an industry produces without accepting responsibility when the economics cease to work. Renault is now warning that European production could fall by approximately 300,000 vehicles unless there is greater flexibility around the 2030 emissions requirements. Volkswagen describes the mass market business as under “enormous pressure.” BMW’s global deliveries fell 6.4% in the third quarter, with China down by a quarter. Competition is fierce, customers have choices, and these companies cannot finance a transformation indefinitely by producing vehicles at inadequate margins.

Look at how the target changed. The agreement reached in 2018 called for a 37.5% reduction in new-car CO₂ emissions by 2030 relative to the 2021 target. The subsequently adopted requirement became 55%, an increase of 17.5 percentage points. These are fleet average standards for new cars, but meeting them still depends on what customers actually purchase. A regulation can compel a manufacturer to change its product mix. It cannot compel a family to have the money, charging access, or confidence needed to buy the car.

Volkswagen, Stellantis, and Renault account for more than 60% of European car production. Their mass market operations rely on high volumes and thin margins. That means even a relatively small deterioration in costs or sales can produce a substantial financial problem. The consequences then move through suppliers, machinery makers, transport firms, and communities built around manufacturing. Nobody should imagine that removing 300,000 vehicles from production would affect only Renault’s accounts.

Europe’s own Council describes the wider automotive industry as supporting 12.7 million jobs and contributing more than 7% of EU GDP. Yet its explanation of the emissions rules promises stronger competitiveness and more jobs in new technologies. Fine. Show the workers where those jobs are, what they pay, and when they become available.

Now the Commission proposes easing the 2030 van target from 50% to 40% and the 2035 tailpipe-reduction requirement from 100% to 90%, subject to compensating measures. The passenger car target for 2030 remains 55%. These are proposals, but they expose the problem with planning an industrial transformation around political deadlines. Companies commit capital, develop products, and reorganize factories while officials argue over which requirements should survive. Who pays when the assumptions change? The business, its employees, and eventually the taxpayer asked to support another rescue.

This obsession with the 2030 target is sheer stupidity when Europe is already struggling with expensive energy, mounting debt, war, and competition from manufacturers who can produce cars for less. Where do they imagine the money for this transformation will come from? They are demanding enormous investment while making it harder for the companies expected to provide it to earn a profit. Keep squeezing those margins and production moves, suppliers close, and the industrial skills accumulated over generations disappear with the jobs. Brussels can congratulate itself for reducing emissions within Europe while Europeans buy vehicles manufactured elsewhere. What has that accomplished for the worker whose factory is gone? A deadline means nothing if reaching it helps destroy the industry that supports your economy. Yet they cling to 2030 as though preserving a political promise matters more than preserving the livelihoods of the people paying for it.

This is a textbook case of how someone can reach the top of one field and still be utterly clueless about everything else. Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg served as National Security Advisor to former Vice President Mike Pence and later as Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. He is Co-Chair at the Center for American Security, America First Policy Institute, USA, which is a Neocon think tank. The man’s ignorance is staggering. He has made no effort to examine the facts—or, more likely, he knows them and deliberately refuses to discuss how Victoria Nuland helped select the interim government that started this civil war and attacked the Donbas on Neocon orders.

He advocates that Zelensky should tell President Trump to go to hell and destroy every refinery in Russia. To illustrate his sheer stupidity: forget the food crisis he would cause in Russia, knowing that would lead to nuclear war—he completely ignores that Africa and the Middle East account for over 80% of Russia’s wheat exports, making those regions the most directly tied to Russian grain. Iran is 100% dependent on Russian grain. That would be a surefire way to make the Middle East explode into a full-blown war, which would then merge with the Russia-versus-EU war, and China and North Korea would join.

It is these Neocons, who simply hate the Russian people, who are cascading the world into World War III over a war they instigated using Ukraine. He would fulfill our model by pushing diesel to the extreme, projecting $8, which would hit the U.S. economy, reduce trucking, and result in a U.S. food shortage. This is what I mean. Expertise in one field does not qualify you to argue about things that will impact the rest of the entire world with zero comprehension of where that leads.

A full-scale war with Russia would very likely cause a severe global diesel crisis, and in many regions, a collapse in supply is a real possibility. The system is already under extreme strain, and a broader conflict would push it past its breaking point. Our computer projects $10+ a gallon by 2032.

The Current Diesel Market Is Already Fragile

Diesel shortages are inflationary and act as a drag on the entire economy. The U.S. Federal Reserve, for example, cannot fix a physical fuel shortage with interest rate policy; it can only try to suppress demand elsewhere, risking a recession. This will fulfill our model calling for stagflation into 2028 on a global scale—all because of Zelensky.

In short, the global diesel system is already in a state of emergency. A war with Russia would not create a new vulnerability so much as it would shatter a system that is already cracking under the pressure of two existing conflicts. If U.S. heating oil closes above 4.78 at year-end, this is going to get worse before it gets better. General Keith Kellogg’s comments demonstrate how these Neocons are oblivious to the world around them. They always think they can destroy Russia and somehow never suffer any repercussions.

People like Kellogg should never be allowed to advise anyone. They are too prone to warmongering and have no regard for the world economy. There are always more civilians who die in wars than soldiers, and they ignore that. Humanity will never live in peace because people like this crave a taste of power and seek such positions to carry out their personal hatreds and love of war. Louis XIV only lamented that he had been a warmonger on his deathbed.

COMMENT: Marty, I spoke with a diehard warmonger here in Germany. I asked why Russia would want to invade Europe. They actually could not articulate a reason. They resorted to revenge. When I asked what that meant, revenge implies Europe did something first. Then it was silence. There is no single coherent explanation. You are absolutely correct. A significant part of the narrative is fueled by internal European dynamics and the need to justify major policy shifts. Nobody can answer the question you have presented.

WK

REPLY: The Cold War was all about Communism versus Capitalism. Khrushchev’s “We Will Bury You” enraged all the neocons. The whole idea of the Cold War was that Communism wanted to conquer Capitalism. That was why the U.S. entered Vietnam. They assumed Russia was behind it and were wrong, as McNamara admitted before he died.

There is no reason for Russia to invade Europe. They are no longer communist. There is no such philosophical war. The claims that Russia wants to invade boil down to the fact that European leaders are escalating militarily, through rearmament, funding, and potential troop deployments all without a realistic plan for achieving victory or a coherent exit strategy. They dismiss the idea of nuclear war, yet believe they can destroy Russia and break it up, as Kallas proposes. This is all being driven by political posturing, because the EU is collapsing and they need an external enemy, and Russia is the best enemy money can buy. There is ZERO sound strategic calculation.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that the EU is “obsessed” with militarization and is building its defense policy on “confrontation with Russia,” which he called “a dead end” that “leads to nothing good.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called Zelensky’s ideas about a new European military bloc “insane.” NATO needs war for if there is peace they lose their jobs. So they have to beat the war drums or they are unemployed.

Richard Nixon opened the door with China to separate China and Russia. The neocons and Zelensky have done everything to undo Richard Nixon’s legacy that he set out to accomplish. The war in Ukraine has undoubtedly accelerated the economic and strategic convergence between Russia and China. Zelensky has been the tip of the spear in truly destroying Western civilization by “permanently dividing” the world economy, with the help of the neocons.

This is a significant geopolitical reality. Zelensky is accelerating a pre-existing fracture that was set in place by the neocons who controlled the Biden administration—Blinken, Nuland, and Garland. Zelensky has already driven this fissure into a much deeper structural crisis.

War is not historically driven purely by personal hatred, with absolutely zero economic motive. There is essentially also, behind the curtain, some economic benefit. Here, despite all the rhetoric, the economic incentive for war lies with the EU, not Russia. The EU stands to gain $75 trillion in natural resources by conquering Russia, but there is no economic incentive for Russia to invade Europe.

While many conflicts are sparked or fueled by personal vendettas, hatred, or wounded pride, they almost always unfold within an economic context. Leaders may feel personal hatred, but wars require armies, supplies, and resources—things that inevitably tie back to economic interests.

Russia will defend itself, and China, along with North Korea, will join, and you may even see Iran join this party. NATO is planning on getting Canada to come to Europe’s defense, and they are counting on Trump being impeached and are looking forward to the Democrats seizing control, who are pro-war with Russia. There is always an economic incentive, and that lies in the hands of Europe.

Spain’s 10-year borrowing cost is now approximately 75 basis points below France’s. During the 2012 European debt crisis, it was around 500 basis points above. French yields jumped 70 basis points in September, while the premium over Germany reached nearly 160 basis points. France also plans €340 billion in bond issuance for 2027, and its deficit is expected to exceed the government’s 5% target. These figures describe a government needing substantial financing just as investors become less comfortable providing it.

The politicians assume that because France has always been treated as a major European power, its debt will always receive favorable treatment. Why? A creditor is buying a claim on future payments, not a monument to the borrower’s prestige. Spain was once regarded as a threat to the monetary union. Now investors accept less interest to hold its debt than France’s. The reputation changes when the financial position and confidence in its management change. No government is entitled to remain a preferred borrower forever.

Look at the arithmetic behind that €340 billion. An additional percentage point of interest on that amount would mean €3.4 billion in annual financing costs if applied across the issuance. That is an illustration, since bonds are issued at different maturities and yields, but it shows the scale. There is no new hospital, road, or productive investment attached to that extra expense. The government is paying more to obtain the money it already needs. Existing fixed-rate debt does not reprice overnight; the pressure accumulates as old obligations mature and new borrowing is added.

This is the problem with governments that never intend to retire their debt. They assume another buyer will always finance the next rollover. When borrowing is cheap, they congratulate themselves on how manageable the obligation has become. When creditors demand more, the interest bill eats into the budget and the public is presented with another choice between taxes and cuts. The promises were made years ago. The people now paying for them may have had no part in the decision.

Sharing a currency does not make every government an equally attractive borrower. Investors can sell one member’s bonds and buy another’s without abandoning the euro. That distinction matters because pressure can build inside the monetary union while officials insist that its existence proves confidence remains intact. Confidence in the currency, confidence in a government, and confidence in that government’s debt are separate judgments.

France’s public debt reached €3.5955 trillion at the end of June, according to INSEE, equivalent to 119% of GDP. It increased by €75.8 billion in the first quarter and another €59.6 billion in the second, adding €135.4 billion in six months. At the end of 2019, the debt ratio was 98.2%. Paris has spent years making commitments financed by tomorrow’s borrowing, and now that borrowing is becoming more expensive. Existing fixed-rate obligations do not suddenly reprice, but every maturity brings another financing decision. The government must find money to repay the old creditor while financing whatever spending still exceeds revenue. That is how a country can keep paying its debts while digging itself deeper into the hole.

The euro’s fundamental weakness is exposed in these borrowing costs. Europe combined the currencies without consolidating national debts into one jointly guaranteed obligation. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal surrendered their independent exchange-rate policies while remaining responsible for their own finances. When confidence broke, adjustment fell heavily on domestic wages, employment, budgets, and taxpayers. It would be simplistic to blame every southern European problem on that design, but monetary union removed an important means of adjustment without creating a full fiscal union to replace it. France is now borrowing more expensively than Italy and Greece, while Spain’s 10-year yield sits about 75 basis points below France’s. The ECB’s policy rate cannot erase those differences because investors are lending to separate governments. A French bond is not a German guarantee merely because both are denominated in euros.

France’s political class should remember how readily Europe demanded sacrifices from the south when those countries could no longer finance themselves on acceptable terms. What happens when the promises cease to attract the money? The burden moves onto taxpayers and public services, or the government seeks assistance that comes with conditions. The people who spent the proceeds may have retired by then. The people working today are left financing the interest on decisions they cannot undo.

Germany’s latest arrest-warrant figures raise a basic question about the competence of the people running the country. As of July, 148,311 people are wanted on outstanding warrants as, with only 11.2% holding exclusively German citizenship and another 1.5% holding German citizenship alongside another nationality. Foreign nationals reportedly account for 87.3%. Berlin should explain how this backlog developed, which cases involve dangerous offenders, and what it is doing to find them. Issuing a warrant is only the beginning. If the state cannot enforce it, the paperwork offers very little protection to the public.

Among temporary migrants, nationals of Algeria, Morocco, Georgia, Tunisia, Nigeria, and Albania together represented roughly 2.1% of the population but 15.5% of suspects. Ukrainians represented almost 36% of that population and around 13% of suspects. These figures concern suspects rather than convictions, but the differences are substantial. A competent administration would examine what lies behind them, where repeat offending is concentrated, and which measures actually improve integration and public safety.

Germany identified 197,347 violent criminal suspects in 2024: 112,335 German citizens and 85,012 foreign nationals, putting the foreign share at 43.1%. In 2025, that share remained almost unchanged at 42.9%. Violence against women has been a massive, underplayed problem across Europe. Authorities recorded 6,892 German rape suspects and 4,437 non-German rape suspects, a foreign share of 39.2%. The group rape figures are especially disturbing. Government records show 751 cases in 2025, approximately two a day, with foreign nationals accounting for 53% of identified suspects.

Merkel’s promise that Germany could manage the influx never relieved the government of its obligation to plan for it. Someone had to provide the housing, classroom places, language instruction, and administrative capacity. Someone also had to deal with those who broke the law. Politicians could celebrate their intentions while municipalities worked out how to pay for the consequences. That gap between the announcement and the practical work is where confidence begins to erode. People become angry when they are expected to finance a policy and then treated as unreasonable for asking whether it is working.

Civil unrest is inevitable. The arrogance of these politicians is infuriating. They make the decisions, leave the public to absorb the consequences, and then expect credit for their intentions. A woman whose life has been shattered by an assault does not owe anyone silence to protect the reputation of a migration policy. Neither does the taxpayer financing police, courts, and prisons. The government’s obligation is to protect people, prosecute offenders, and correct policies that are failing. If officials cannot manage that, they should get out of office. There is nothing compassionate about leaving victims to carry the damage while the people responsible for governing congratulate themselves on their moral superiority.