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.

COMMENT:  Hello Martin,

Reuters reports (link) – “ Pentagon officials have in recent weeks asked several NATO countries to tone down their rhetoric regarding the threat posed by Russia, arguing that some statements by European leaders and officials have undermined continental security ”.

It looks like the Pentagon is reading what you say about NATO and the EU wanting confrontation with Russia…

P

REPLY: I don’t know if I am too old compared to everyone else, but I remember the cold war and I remember how alliances are formed. I have stressed that these idiots like Kallas engage in her constant hate speech against the Russian people which would completely destroy Europe. There is NO WAY you can destroy Russia and ask China to please wait quietly for you turn. This is World War III and I have been screaming about this to people who seem to have never considered what their hate speech will lead to.

The EU is desperate. They need to create Unity fearing the French election will mean a threat to their existence all because of the LEFTIST stupid policies. The EU leaders were outraged that how dare two member even speak to Putin. My firm is NON-PARTISAN. We have offices from China to Dubai. Yes, I do interview on Russian TV. I like to hear the questions I am asked. How do you answer the question: What do they hate us so much? If you do not understand your enemy, you will lose. Perhaps these people should take at least some online course in military history.

Putin understands what is a stake with war. It will not be good for his people or Europe. Peace is simple. The Roman Empire is the example. It was economically beneficial to be within the empire than on the outside looking in.

Those on the outside made imitations of Roman coins for commerce. They were not counterfeits for the were of equal metal content. They still wanted to be part of the economic system of Rome be it from the Germanic tribes to India. World peace is created NOT by sanctions, but by INCLUSION, and you can quote me on that.

The Pax Romana typically lasted approximately 200 years, from 27 BC (the beginning of Augustus’s reign) to 180 AD (the death of Marcus Aurelius). Even Marcus Aurelius (161-180AD), perhaps the most intelligent world leader, understood war and peace. Read his Mediations. The central appeal I found from his Stoic philosophy, is its unflinching practicality. Aurelius returns again and again to a small set of principles: that only virtue is truly good, that judgment lies within our control while external events do not, and that tranquility comes from ordering the mind rather than ordering the world.

Because Marcus is writing to himself, the tone is not that of a lecturer but of a man coaching himself through the day. He saw TIME as a rushing river, the reminders that fame and grievance alike are fleeting, and the insistence on meeting other people’s failings with patience all retain their force. We allow the wrong people to seek power for it is like Kallas and her fellow Neocons including Zelensky, to carry out a personal agenda at the expense of the world.

Rome claimed to rule the world (orbis terrarum) yet it stood at the opposite end of the world from the strikingly similar Han Dynasty (206BC-220AD) in China, which also claimed to have ruled the world (tianxia). The History Book for Tang Dynasty in China covers the period 618-907AD. It mentions 17 times what appears to be the Roman Empire. It also describes an envoy that the Roman Emperor sent to China. The Roman Emperor was recorded to have been “Anton.” The account of such an envoy who visited the older Han Dynasty predates the Venetian traveler Marco Polo (1254-1325) by more than 1,000 years. This envoy has been attributed to 166AD during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180AD).

This envoy established diplomatic contact at the peak of the Roman Empire, from which a disastrous decline began. Any political-economic aspirations to further such a relationship would then die with Marcus Aurelius. Yet also, both empires would suffer the same fate of barbarian invasions. The Han Dynasty fell in 220AD, emerging from the chaotic period known as the Three Kingdoms (220-280AD) – the division of the once unified Chinese Empire.

Marcus Aurelius’ death marked the peak of the Roman Empire and the turning point that began the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where its monetary system collapsed just 72 years thereafter. His son, Commodus, tore everything his father had done to shreds and in the process, sealed the fate of Rome. We are in danger of the same decline and fall when people like Kallas, Zelensky, and their fellow Neocons, are so filled with hatred, that they rip the ver fabric of society apart at the seams.

The rumors are that European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde has announced her resignation and will step down on February 7, well before a French presidential election that polls show far-right candidate Marine Le Pen is favor to win, all to intervene in the election to try to stop Le Pen. The EU is scared to death that a victory for Le Pen and the rise of AfD in Germany has put a target on the back of the EU itself.

This is the greatest danger of the EU trying to conjure up a false flag claiming Russia will invade to create unity to save itself. This has been why they have been talking with Carney to bring in Canada and for Britain to rejoin the EU. When asked directly whether Burnham would allow the UK to rejoin the EU’s freedom of movement system without a referendum, his answer was a clear “No”. He emphasized that he would “never get ahead of the British public on the Brexit issue.”

It is worth noting that Burnham has left some room for discussion regarding not fully rejoining the EU but merely moving closer to the single market or customs union. Reports indicate that he believes joining the single market or customs union may not necessarily require a referendum, but rather could seek a mandate through a general election. However, joining the single market typically means accepting freedom of movement, and he has explicitly stated that restoring freedom of movement without a referendum is not permitted.

As far as Canada is concerned, Carney has explicitly stated on multiple occasions that Canada is “not seeking to become a member of the European Union”. What he is promoting is a “unique alliance” that goes beyond traditional trade agreements but stops short of full membership. He has welcomed the EU’s proposal for “associate membership” and stated in the European Parliament that Canada is “open” to this concept.

The “associate membership” currently being discussed between Canada and the EU is not a legal status that already exists, but rather a special arrangement that is still being conceived. Its core feature is “association without accession”—meaning Canada will not become a formal EU member state and therefore will not be bound by the full body of EU law.

The EU has been trying to create the image of the UK and Canada hoining in some way becoming subordinate to Brussels in a desperate effort to fend off and exit from the EU by Germany and France. Between their migrant policies to ensure that the LEFT will retain a dominant power over Europe and the Freedom of Movement, they have undermined the very culture of the European people all to simply retain power.

Both Legarde and Ursula von der Leyen were board member of the World Economic Forum The appointments to top position in German government and then the head of the EU along with Kristalina Georgieva, the current head of the IMF, is also a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The entire scheme behind the EU has been the idea of a one world government that began with Europe. The COVID scam was used to create unity and the attempt of World Health Organization to dictate lock downs etc, all for climate change.

They flew a 16 year-old to preach to Alberta to surrender their jobs and stop drilling for oil to confirm to this Davos elite agenda.

The warmonger Khaja Kallas who is determined to create World War III has scrubbed her association with the WEF has been alleged to be an effort to hide the war agenda as a conspiracy. Yet, here is a video of Kallas explaining what a past foreign minister of the Soviet Union had to say about Europe. She then extrapolates this to how Russia is today. She seems to want to believe that Russia is still exactly the same as the Soviet Union, but with another name.

“The Foreign minister of the Soviet Union said that the tactics of Russia are actually threefold.

1. First, you present demands and ask for something that has never been yours.
2. Second, you present ultimatums and threats.
3. And third, you just wait, because there will always be people in the West who will offer you something you didn’t have before. So you just have to wait them out, because the Westerners will always fold.

Let’s not give him this.”

She ignores the fact that recent history shows it has been exactly the opposite. NATO has been getting closer to Russian borders, and it’s Russia who has folded. The old days of Khrushchev was a philosophy of Communism would defeat the inferior Capitalism, which all began with Marx trying to defeat the business cycle adopting the view that recessions were the result of flaws in capitalism as if there could be a perfect world. That collapsed. Putin was cheered by the people BECAUSE he was NOT a communist and they did NOT want to return to Communism. The entire foundation of what the USSR once believed collapsed as Marxism collapsed in China. Russia is a capitalist nation even more so than the EU censoring free speech and imprisoning people for what they right on Facebook.

Is it that she’s really incompetent, or is it that her personal hatred prevents her from actually looking at history objectively???? She is a HUGE danger for the EU and should be dragged out of any position remotely close to power. She will destroy Europe for her own Hate Speech. If she said this about an Arab, she would be in prison in Europe by now.

Britain has now committed £35 billion, approximately $47 billion, in military, economic, and financial support for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced another £10 billion package on October 28, the largest single financial support package Britain has pledged to Kyiv. The British government continues promising to support Ukraine for as long as necessary, but nobody seems particularly concerned about how long British taxpayers can afford to finance these commitments. Britain is struggling with enormous sovereign debt, stagnant economic growth, deteriorating public services, and a population that has already endured years of inflation. Yet Westminster continues making financial promises to another government without establishing any clear limit on the total obligation.

The latest package includes £7 billion in economic assistance over three years and an additional £3 billion in export-finance capacity, primarily intended to support military equipment and reconstruction projects. The government has also announced £500 million in additional military assistance for Ukrainian air defenses ahead of winter. Burnham declared, “This is the largest ever package of funding for Ukraine from the UK,” while promising continued support for as long as the conflict requires. Zelensky welcomed the announcement as evidence that Britain would not abandon Ukraine. But the question British taxpayers should be asking is how these commitments are being financed and what additional obligations may follow.

Britain has now committed £35 billion to Ukraine, an increase of £10 billion from the £25 billion reported before October 28. Of that total, £16 billion is allocated to military assistance, including £2.26 billion through the G7 loan arrangement, while another £12.6 billion covers economic assistance and financial commitments, and £6.5 billion represents export-finance capacity for reconstruction and defense projects.

Britain has also pledged at least £3 billion annually in military assistance through 2030–2031 and potentially beyond. Britain is already drowning in sovereign debt, struggling to finance its own public services, and watching the purchasing power of its citizens deteriorate. Nevertheless, its politicians continue making financial commitments to a foreign war that extend years into the future, leaving British taxpayers responsible for obligations they never directly approved and whose ultimate cost remains unknown.

The military spending alone is extraordinary. According to figures provided to Parliament, Britain committed £2.5 billion during the 2022–2023 financial year, £2.3 billion in 2023–2024, £3 billion in 2024–2025, and £3.2 billion in 2025–2026. The total rises when you include contributions through the G7 loan arrangement. Britain has also trained more than 67,000 Ukrainian military personnel under Operation Interflex and committed substantial quantities of drones, missiles, armored equipment, and air-defense systems. This is no longer a limited emergency response to an invasion. It has become a sustained component of British military and fiscal policy.

Public sector net debt has remained near 100% of GDP, while debt-interest payments consume resources that could otherwise support domestic priorities. The government must finance the National Health Service, pensions, welfare, infrastructure, education, and its own defense establishment. Households have faced substantial increases in energy bills, food prices, housing costs, and taxation since the pandemic. The cumulative increase in the cost of living cannot be reversed simply because the monthly inflation rate moderates. Prices remain elevated, and many families have experienced a permanent deterioration in purchasing power.

The government is now asking those same households to accept another enormous international commitment. A £10 billion package represents approximately £370 for each of Britain’s 27 million households, although that calculation is only an illustration of the headline commitment rather than an actual household tax bill. The distinction matters because much of the package consists of financial guarantees and export-finance capacity rather than immediate expenditure. Still, the scale is substantial. British citizens are entitled to ask whether these commitments represent the best use of public resources and how the government intends to account for the financial risks.

What is particularly revealing is the composition of the new package. Up to £5.5 billion will be made available through World Bank guarantees, while another £500 million will contribute to a World Bank crisis facility intended to mobilize additional assistance. The government is also expanding UK Export Finance capacity by £3 billion, bringing the total available coverage to £6.5 billion. These arrangements allow governments to support foreign financing without immediately disbursing the full face value of the commitments. Politicians naturally prefer announcing the largest possible headline figure because it creates the impression of decisive action. But guarantees still carry financial risks, and the public deserves to understand the circumstances under which the Treasury could become responsible for losses.

Britain is also providing substantial humanitarian and economic assistance. The government has committed up to £611 million in humanitarian support for Ukraine and the surrounding region since the invasion, along with hundreds of millions for energy security, infrastructure repair, and economic recovery. Some of these programs are intended to maintain electricity, heating, water supplies, and essential public services as Russia continues attacking Ukrainian infrastructure.

The British government has also entered into a 100-year partnership with Ukraine covering security, trade, technology, and economic cooperation. That agreement demonstrates how far the relationship has moved beyond emergency assistance. London is committing itself to a long-term strategic role in Ukraine’s future while the war remains unresolved. The government argues that such commitments will strengthen security and encourage eventual reconstruction. Yet reconstruction itself will require enormous financial resources, and there is still no comprehensive settlement establishing how Ukraine’s future security arrangements will operate. Britain is assuming responsibilities whose ultimate financial dimensions remain uncertain.

Britain did not start this war, and its citizens should not be expected to accept unlimited financial obligations without a clear explanation of the national interest, the fiscal consequences, and the conditions under which assistance might end. The politicians speak as though £10 billion is simply another number that can be announced at a press conference. For ordinary households, however, government spending eventually has consequences through taxation, borrowing costs, and the allocation of public resources. Britain has now committed £35 billion to Ukraine, and its leaders have made clear that the financial relationship will continue. The fundamental question is how much more Britain can reasonably undertake while its own sovereign debt burden and domestic financial pressures continue to grow. No government possesses unlimited resources, regardless of how often its politicians promise to spend whatever is necessary.

Americans are heading into the November 3 midterm elections with confidence in Congress at historic lows. A new Gallup poll found that only 14% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest approval rating recorded immediately before a midterm election since Gallup began tracking the measure in 1974. Only 15% of registered voters believe most members of Congress deserve reelection, while just 43% believe their own representative should remain in office. That is the lowest reading for support of one’s own representative in Gallup’s final pre-midterm surveys dating back to 1994. Americans have traditionally criticized Congress while maintaining a more favorable opinion of their own representatives. Now even that distinction is deteriorating. The dissatisfaction extends across party lines, with congressional approval at 29% among Republicans, 13% among independents, and only 4% among Democrats.

The economy remains central to this discontent. Gallup found that 38% of Americans identified an economic issue as the nation’s most important problem, including inflation, the general economy, and gasoline prices. Another 26% specifically cited government or poor leadership. These concerns are closely connected. Households are paying substantially more for food, insurance, housing, energy, and everyday necessities than before the pandemic. Politicians continually speak about inflation as though the problem disappears when the annual percentage declines. The average family does not experience the economy through a government statistical release. They see the price of groceries, their mortgage payment, the cost of automobile insurance, and whatever money remains after taxes. Slower inflation does not reverse years of lost purchasing power.

Housing affordability has become another major economic dividing line. Younger Americans who did not purchase property before the enormous increase in prices and mortgage rates face a completely different financial environment from those who already own homes. Families with accumulated assets can help their children with down payments or even purchase homes outright, while those dependent entirely upon wages struggle to enter the market. The result is an economy increasingly divided between those who own appreciating assets and those attempting to acquire them. Washington can celebrate economic growth and employment statistics, but those figures do not necessarily reflect the financial circumstances of ordinary households.

The national debt is another issue that cannot be separated from the broader loss of confidence in government. Washington continues financing substantial expenditures through borrowing while interest payments consume an increasing share of federal resources. Both political parties have contributed to the accumulation of debt over successive administrations. The consequences do not disappear when control of Congress changes. The federal government must continually refinance its obligations while funding entitlement programs, defense expenditures, and countless other commitments. Politicians debate how to distribute additional spending while rarely confronting the long-term financial consequences of the obligations they have already created.

There is a historical pattern worth examining. Gallup reports that the president’s party has lost House seats in 11 of the 13 midterm elections since 1974. The exceptions occurred in 1998 and 2002, when congressional approval was comparatively high at 44% and 50%. In every midterm during that period when congressional approval was below 30%, the president’s party lost House seats, although the extent of those losses varied. This historical relationship illustrates how public dissatisfaction has influenced previous elections, but it does not determine the outcome in 2026. Congressional districts, individual candidates, turnout, and local political conditions remain important.

An NPR/PBS News/Marist survey conducted October 19–20 found that 52% of likely voters supported Democratic congressional candidates, compared with 44% supporting Republicans. A Reuters/Ipsos poll completed October 26 reported a similar Democratic advantage of 53% to 44% among likely voters. These are national measurements rather than results for individual congressional districts. They show that voters can express overwhelming dissatisfaction with Washington while still maintaining distinct preferences between the parties.

The Marist survey also found that 44% of likely voters viewed their congressional vote primarily as a vote against President Trump, compared with 21% who considered it primarily a vote in his favor. Another 35% said the president was not influencing their decision very much. Midterm elections frequently become referendums on the administration occupying the White House, even though Congress independently controls legislation, appropriations, and oversight. The danger in reducing every election to a judgment on the president is that members of Congress can escape scrutiny for their own voting records and financial decisions.

The coming election will determine all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 Senate seats, including special elections. Republicans currently hold narrow congressional majorities, meaning changes in relatively few competitive districts could substantially alter the legislative balance. The next Congress will influence federal spending, fiscal policy, trade, oversight, and the administration’s domestic agenda. A divided government could produce greater negotiation or prolonged gridlock, depending upon the willingness of elected officials to compromise. Neither outcome can be established from national polling alone.

What makes this election particularly significant is the combination of economic dissatisfaction and declining institutional confidence. Americans are confronting elevated living costs, an enormous federal debt burden, geopolitical uncertainty, and continuing disputes over the proper role of government. The Gallup findings suggest that many voters are dissatisfied not merely with particular policies but with the performance of Congress as an institution. The political establishment has enormous authority over taxation, borrowing, military appropriations, and the regulatory framework affecting the economy, yet public confidence in its ability to manage those responsibilities has deteriorated dramatically.

The November 3 midterms will provide a clearer measure of how Americans translate these frustrations into political choices. Whatever the composition of the next Congress, the underlying economic problems will remain. Inflation has already reduced purchasing power, the federal debt continues to require financing, and housing affordability remains a major obstacle for younger generations. Washington can change which party controls the committees and who occupies the leadership positions, but that alone does not repair the national balance sheet or restore lost purchasing power. The real test will be whether elected officials can address the economic conditions driving public dissatisfaction rather than simply treating another election as a contest for political control.

QUESTION: Dear Marty,

I sincere hope you are well and sound, i do wrote to you before about starvation in Russia, currently territory called Ukraine, this is the same statment as anyone saying that it was BIG SHORT which cause the crash, if you care please have a look though the prism off the food consumption, that some record was falsified to discredit something else, is The Different story, but in the article below you are stating that Янукович fall was due to army not support him, This is not just incorrect, but contradicting your previous assignment. I always wondered why is this happening? Any particular reason for this. If we assess the whole situation and question the guys in charge at the time , they all waited for orders and Янукович didn’t give those orders, in fact orders was not to engage, dispite the fact that the crowd was way passed peaceful one, but west overthrown elected government, this is blant and short version

Truly your’s

Gleb  R.

ANSWER: Perhaps I over-simplified the event.  Neither of these two factors alone is the whole story. The more accurate conclusion is: Yeltsin standing on the tank did indeed play a crucial role, but the deeper reason for the coup’s failure was that the coup plotters themselves never truly dared to issue a clear order to fire, nor could they guarantee that the troops would execute such an order.

Yeltsin standing on the tank was an extremely symbolic scene that played a huge role in rallying the masses and demonstrating resistance. It gave the opposition a focal point and morale boost, encouraging more citizens to come to the White House to form human shields. However, this was more like a “catalyst“—it ignited resistance but did not directly disarm the coup forces. The true turning point was the hesitation and refusal of the military and security services.

The coup plotters (the State Committee for the State of Emergency) nominally controlled the military, KGB, and Ministry of Internal Affairs, but in practice they were unable to issue effective orders.

No one was willing to sign a written order to fire: According to recollections, the elite Alpha Group was ordered to storm the White House, but the team members refused, stating they only fought terrorists and not their own people, demanding that whoever issued the order should sign it themselves. More critically, the coup leaders themselves (such as Defense Minister Yazov and KGB Chairman Kryuchkov) refused to sign their names on the attack order, passing the responsibility around like a hot potato. This stemmed from the “Tbilisi Syndrome”—the military had previously been used for bloody crackdowns and then abandoned by politicians, so officers were unwilling to take the fall again.

Troops defected and refused to obey: After Yeltsin stood on the tank, the tank unit he was on (a company of the Tamanskaya Division) defected on the spot and turned their guns around. Other units also wavered, with some senior officers even publicly expressing support for Yeltsin, causing a collapse in military morale. The KGB special forces also refused to carry out the order to storm the parliament building and kill Yeltsin.

The coup organization itself was chaotic: The tanks that entered the city did not even receive clear instructions on what to do, and soldiers idled on the tanks while citizens brought them food and took photos with them, completely lacking the atmosphere of military control.

Vladimir Kryuchkov wrote regarding the August 1991 coup within his broader memoirs, “Личное дело” (Personal File), first published in 1996 while he was in prison awaiting trial, and later reissued with additional material as “Личное дело. Три дня и вся жизнь” (Personal File: Three Days and a Whole Life). It is judged as a historical source. However, I must say that the book is a frustrating yet still a revealing document providing valuable insider access to the mindset of the Soviet security elite. However, it must be realized that it is deeply compromised as a reliable narrative of the coup itself.

Kryuchkov writes providing his own vantage point, rather than analytically. Thus, the book does not offer a sustained, critical examination of the coup’s planning, execution, or failure. What is most telling about Kryuchkov’s account of the coup is what it does NOT tell us. It does not offer a coherent explanation for why the plot failed. You are correct that the historical record demonstrates that the plotters were incompetent, and you are correct that they refused to take decisive responsibility (including signing orders to use lethal force), but I think you attributing too much to that factor while overlooking the fact that the military’s unwillingness to fire on civilians existed, and Yeltsin’s political skill in seizing the symbolic initiative standing on the tank has a critical impact. Kryuchkov’s memoir does not engage with this failure in any systematic way. It is the testimony of a participant who never fully accounts for his own role in the fiasco.

So, Yeltsin standing on the tank was a brilliant political performance that successfully ignited civilian resistance and accelerated military defection. But if the coup leaders had been ruthless enough from the start and issued a clear order to fire (and the troops had executed it), Yeltsin would likely have been unable to stop it by standing on the tank alone. The fundamental reason the coup failed was that this was a “coup without a backbone“—the plotters lacked the will to take responsibility, while the military and security forces, drawing on past lessons, chose to stand still or defect.

My point is that for a revolution to succeed in any country, it turns on the willingness of the military/police to follow orders. If they fail to do so, or even join the people, then the political government will collapse. You are right that the coup FAILED to issue the order to fire, but there were indications that had they done so, the troops would have hesitated. To get the troops to do so, they would have needed to paint Yeltsin as some criminal. Without demonizing your opposition, you create doubt. This is why Europe demonizes Putin to get the people to be willing to kill Russians as evil. The coup failed to demonize the opposition, and this was fatal to the coup.

This is also why governments are desperate to create robots for the police and military. They will follow orders and will NOT be swayed by morality. No demonization is required.

PRIVATE BLOG – Risk of Israeli Civil Unrest

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/

QUESTION: Marty, your computer forecast for civil unrest beginning in 2026 is plainly correct. Is this becoming a global phenomenon?

Jason

ANSWER: I have stressed that the computer has warned that this is (1) Global Civil Unrest, and (2) It is an International political risk assessment against the abuse of Republics.

There is evidence of a widening wave of civil unrest across Europe and parts of Asia, including Serbia, India, and Indonesia. However, it is not one coordinated revolutionary movement. Different countries are experiencing protests over inflation, energy prices, education, corruption, housing, unemployment, and declining confidence in political institutions. Our models forecasting that we are in the midst of an energy crisis also thanks to the hatred of Russia that has spread from Ukraine to the rest of Europe. Some countries want to abandon Ukraine like Italy. This is the smartest thing they can do and they will have to break with the EU.

This rise in civil unrest is a threat to the unity of the EU. This is why the EU must demonize Putin for Russia is the best enemy to retain unity and power they can buy for the money. They will need to act to create the external threat from Russia as if this was still the old cold war of capitalism vs communism. They must act before April when the French elections are coming and they can lose Germany to AfD and France and that undermines the EU’s existence when civil unrest is directed at their policies. This is why the EU is now courting Canada and the UK to join to keep the EU alive and to provide their youth to fight Russia to keep the jobs of bureaucrats in Brussels. They understand this rising civil unrest threatens their existence because of their stupid climate change, COVID, and migrant policies.

Youth-led demonstrations are spreading across Europe, particularly in France, Belgium, Italy, Albania, and Serbia. We are witnessing global protests  activity in Indonesia and other countries outside Europe. The victory of Serbian youth is encouraging others around the world. I have always said that civil unrest becomes a CONTAGION that often results in revolutions.

The common economic theme is significant: rising living costs and declining expectations are bringing younger generations into confrontation with established political systems. This is the fall of Republics that I have been warning about.

Countries experiencing significant unrest in Europe and the Balkans

France Education, cost of living, government spending, police confrontations Severe, expanding
Belgium Student demonstrations, education funding, police clashes Elevated
Italy Education, inflation, energy costs, labor demonstrations Elevated
Serbia Student-led anti-corruption movement, political accountability Major political upheaval
Albania Corruption, living costs, government accountability Elevated, sometimes violent
Spain Housing affordability, evictions, economic dissatisfaction Large-scale mobilization
Portugal Housing costs, public services, police responses Elevated
Greece Education, austerity concerns, living costs Active demonstrations
Austria University funding cuts Significant demonstrations
Germany Education funding, military service, youth dissatisfaction Mobilization increasing
Ireland Student fees, university funding, housing affordability Notable protests

France is currently one of the most serious flashpoints. Reuters reported hundreds of thousands marching on October 24, with violence developing in Paris and Marseille after largely peaceful demonstrations.

Serbia is particularly important because its student-led movement has already demonstrated the ability to alter the political balance. The movement developed over a longer period and should not simply be characterized as an extension of the recent French protests.

Asia and Southeast Asia

Indonesia Fuel prices, subsidy cuts, forest fires, government spending Renewed protests
India Youth unemployment, education, voting rights, policing Expanding movement
Pakistan Fuel inflation, economic hardship, political tensions Persistent unrest
Nepal Corruption, economic hardship, political reform Continued instability
Bangladesh Political transition, party tensions, fuel costs Localized instability
Sri Lanka Living costs, fiscal pressures, corruption concerns Vulnerable to renewed unrest
Philippines Corruption, accountability, economic grievances Significant recent protest history
Timor-Leste Youth-led political grievances Significant recent protest history

The clearest new development is Indonesia. On October 28, students demonstrated in Jakarta against rising prices, energy-subsidy cuts, and the government’s handling of major forest fires. Similar protests have occurred in other affected regions.

India is another important country to watch. Reuters and The Atlantic describe growing youth mobilization involving employment, education, and allegations concerning electoral administration.

From what our sources in Asia have revealed is that there are more than 1,200 demonstrations across South Asia connected to the economic effects of the Iran and Ukraine conflicts that have developed since the February start of the Iran war. This has been particularly pronounced issues that have increased in Pakistan and Nepal. This is evidence of a regional pattern our computer has warned about. The danger here is that a further escalation of this energy crisis will destabilize the world as a whole.

The most important connection between Europe and Asia is economic rather than organizational. The combination of higher energy prices, fiscal pressures due to the Sovereign Debt Crisis accelerated by the rise in interest rates, stagnant real incomes because of increasing taxes, housing affordability problems as capital has fled government bonds to private assets, and distrust of political elites over corruption and the lack of ability to address these concerns by any democracy process, is creating similar grievances in countries with otherwise very different political systems.

Young people are particularly sensitive to these conditions because they often have fewer assets, weaker employment security, and greater exposure to housing costs. The socialists want to impose wealth taxes and attack capital but that sends investment into hiding resulting in even less employment.

The Ukraine/Iran-related energy shock is a common source of pressure. However, it would be incorrect to attribute all these demonstrations to that conflict alone. Serbia’s movement, for example, developed well before the latest European protest wave over corruption. The energy crisis accelerate the discontent.

What the computer has shown is that the international pattern deserves serious attention, particularly where economic grievances are combining with demands for political accountability. France, Serbia, Albania, India, and Indonesia are especially important to monitor. But large demonstrations are not necessarily revolutions, and the majority of documented protests remain peaceful.

The strongest evidence of further escalation would be sustained nationwide strikes, repeated violent confrontations, defections from governing coalitions (military/police), and/or a breakdown in normal government operations. Zelensky’s attack on Russian refineries will reduce Russian exports of wheat and the Middle East relies on 80% of their grain from Russia while Iran is 100%. Our computer forecasts for the continued escalation in energy prices and just now as Qatar is restricting its LNG exports, the fragility of the world political economy is being torn apart and this is what 2032 is all about.

Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini is openly challenging the policy of sending billions of euros and military equipment to Ukraine indefinitely. Salvini was reelected leader of the League party on October 25, securing 465 votes against 146 for his challenger, and immediately declared that he intends to bring the issue before Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government. Europe has spent more than four years financing a war with Russia, and now members of the Italian government are publicly questioning how long their citizens should be expected to continue paying for it. The political disagreement is significant because Salvini is not an opposition politician shouting from the sidelines. He is a deputy prime minister whose party is part of Italy’s governing coalition.

“We must work towards peace,” Salvini told the League’s party congress. “Over the past five years, we have supported the Ukrainian people in every possible way.” He then declared that the League should seek a mandate to present its position to the Council of Ministers: “We cannot continue to send money and weapons to Ukraine.” The Italian government has already authorized packages of military equipment, and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirmed on October 26 that another package is ready for delivery.

Salvini has been making this argument for some time, but his language has become increasingly direct. Speaking in Brussels on October 14, he said, “We have given a lot. Italians, the French, and Europeans have given a great deal.” He questioned whether the assistance had always reached its intended recipients rather than becoming entangled in corruption. He added, “We certainly cannot go on indefinitely gifting billions to Ukraine,” before concluding, “Now is the time for diplomacy.” That last statement raises a question the European political establishment has been reluctant to confront because they WANT war to prevent their inevitable economic crisis.

The issue with corruption is particularly refreshing to hear from a European politician. Ukraine has experienced major investigations involving government officials and public funds. In November 2025, an investigation into an alleged $100 million energy corruption scheme prompted Zelensky to seek the dismissal of two cabinet ministers. Salvini responded at the time by questioning whether additional Italian financial assistance could be misused. Taxpayers are entitled to demand accountability for public money, particularly when governments are making commitments without a clearly defined endpoint.

Italy has its own serious financial problems. Its public debt remains above 130% of GDP, one of the highest ratios in Europe, and the government must finance public services, pensions, infrastructure, and interest payments while facing persistent economic pressures. Italy is also part of the eurozone and cannot independently create its own monetary policy to accommodate every new fiscal obligation. The war has contributed to enormous changes in Europe’s energy markets, while sanctions and the reduction of Russian energy imports have imposed additional adjustment costs on European businesses. The precise economic burden differs among countries, and Russia’s invasion itself was a major cause of the disruption. Still, Italian households and manufacturers have a legitimate interest in the financial consequences of a conflict that continues year after year.

Salvini has also raised the question of restoring economic relations with Russia after the fighting ends. He argued that Europe should eventually resume purchasing energy wherever it is most economical. “Once the war ends, we need to buy where it costs less,” he said. Italy was among the European countries heavily exposed to Russian natural gas before the invasion. Replacing those supplies required changes to import infrastructure, commercial contracts, and energy procurement. Energy security has an economic price, and governments must decide how much their populations should pay for particular foreign-policy objectives. Salvini’s argument reflects the concerns of businesses that want greater predictability in energy costs and international trade.

His position is not new. Only months after Russia invaded Ukraine, Salvini declared, “The most powerful weapon will be diplomacy, not missiles or warheads.” He called for diplomats rather than additional weapons shipments and repeatedly warned against allowing the conflict to escalate into a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. Salvini has also faced criticism for his earlier political relationship with Moscow and his reluctance to condemn Putin as forcefully as other European leaders. Those associations remain part of the political debate surrounding his position. Nevertheless, the question of whether military assistance should continue indefinitely can be examined on its own merits, regardless of the politician raising it.

Italy is already drowning in sovereign debt, struggling with stagnant growth, and facing enormous obligations to its own citizens. Yet Brussels continues treating European taxpayers as though they possess unlimited funds to finance a foreign war with no defined conclusion. Why should an Italian worker struggling to pay his electricity bill, or a pensioner watching inflation destroy his purchasing power, be expected to finance another government’s military expenditures indefinitely?

Italy did not invade Ukraine, and its citizens should not be handed an open-ended financial obligation for a conflict their government cannot independently resolve. There is a legitimate argument that supporting Ukraine serves European security, but that does not eliminate the need to establish limits, calculate the costs, and obtain the consent of the people paying the bill. Italy’s government was elected to represent Italians, not to write blank checks on behalf of Brussels or Kyiv. A nation that cannot adequately finance its own domestic obligations must seriously question how long it can continue borrowing to finance a war abroad.

Pakistan has taken the extraordinary step of attempting to restrict Taiwanese commercial airlines from using its airspace in support of Beijing’s One-China policy. Defense Minister Khawaja Asif told Bloomberg that Pakistan’s aviation authorities recognized only mainland China, declaring, “We have permitted only Chinese airlines to fly over Pakistan.” Within days, China Airlines and EVA Air began rerouting flights between Asia and Europe, with at least a dozen aircraft reportedly flying over Russia instead.

Pakistan appeared to be taking a harder position against Taiwan than China itself, which permits Taiwanese commercial airlines to use its airspace. However, the situation became even more revealing when Pakistan’s own newspaper, Dawn, reported that documents subsequently authorized the Taiwanese carriers to use Pakistani airspace through March 27, 2027. This is what happens when geopolitical alliances begin interfering with ordinary international commerce.

The initial restriction was significant because Pakistan became the first country reported to have excluded Taiwanese commercial airlines specifically on the grounds of the One-China policy. Pakistan has recognized the People’s Republic of China since 1951 and consistently supported Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China. But recognizing Beijing diplomatically and preventing civilian aircraft from crossing national airspace are entirely different matters. Pakistan was effectively extending its political recognition policy into commercial aviation, creating additional costs and operational complications for airlines carrying ordinary passengers between Europe and Asia. The fact that Islamabad subsequently authorized flights does not erase the significance of its defense minister’s statement. It demonstrates how quickly political decisions can disrupt international transportation.

The economic consequences were immediate. Flight-tracking data showed China Airlines and EVA Air avoiding Pakistan beginning around October 25. Some flights were redirected over Russia, a route Taiwanese carriers had largely avoided since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Others faced the possibility of longer southern routes through regions already affected by the war in the Middle East. Every additional hour in the air means more fuel, higher operating costs, additional crew requirements, and potentially greater scheduling complications. Airlines operate on relatively narrow margins, and the cost of political confrontation ultimately finds its way into ticket prices and commercial expenses.

What makes this particularly interesting is Pakistan’s relationship with China. Beijing has invested billions through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a major component of the Belt and Road Initiative. The corridor includes transportation infrastructure, energy projects, and facilities intended to improve Pakistan’s connectivity with international markets. China is also Pakistan’s largest supplier of military equipment. Chinese-made aircraft played a prominent role during the May 2025 confrontation between Pakistan and India, illustrating how deeply the military relationship has developed. Islamabad increasingly depends upon Beijing for investment, technology, and strategic support, particularly as tensions with India continue.

China has become an important creditor and financial partner. When a nation depends upon another country for infrastructure investment, military equipment, and financial support, foreign-policy decisions inevitably become intertwined with those economic relationships. This does not prove that Beijing ordered Pakistan to restrict Taiwanese aircraft. There is no publicly established evidence of such an instruction.

The One-China principle has become one of Beijing’s most important diplomatic demands. China maintains that Taiwan is part of its territory and that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. Taiwan, which has approximately 23 million people and its own elected government, rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims. Most countries recognize Beijing diplomatically while maintaining varying degrees of unofficial economic relations with Taipei. Pakistan has adopted a particularly firm position in support of Beijing, repeatedly opposing Taiwanese independence and supporting China’s position in international organizations.

This is where the broader War Cycle becomes important. Taiwan is one of the most dangerous geopolitical flashpoints because any military confrontation could involve China, the United States, and regional powers. The consequences would extend far beyond the island itself. Taiwan occupies a critical position in international semiconductor manufacturing, while the surrounding waterways carry enormous volumes of global trade. A serious military confrontation would threaten shipping, insurance, energy transportation, electronics production, and financial markets. Countries are already being pressured to determine where their loyalties lie, and the Pakistani airspace dispute demonstrates that this confrontation is no longer confined to military exercises or diplomatic statements.

There is considerable irony in the fact that Taiwanese airlines began using Russian airspace after avoiding it for more than four years. The Western confrontation with Russia has already complicated aviation routes between Europe and Asia. The war involving Iran has created further disruption across the Middle East. Now Pakistan’s initial decision threatened another important corridor. Airlines cannot simply fly wherever they please. Every country controls access to its sovereign airspace, and international routes depend upon a network of permissions and agreements. When geopolitical conflicts close several corridors simultaneously, the remaining routes become increasingly important and expensive.

India’s position adds another dimension. Pakistan and India have fought multiple wars, while India maintains an increasingly complicated relationship with China. New Delhi has expanded commercial and technological engagement with Taiwan without establishing formal diplomatic relations. Pakistan’s alignment with Beijing therefore carries implications beyond the Taiwan Strait. The China-Pakistan partnership gives Islamabad strategic support against India, while Beijing benefits from a regional partner positioned along important transportation and economic corridors. The relationship reflects national interests rather than mere diplomatic symbolism.

The larger issue is that the world is increasingly dividing into competing geopolitical blocs. China is expanding its diplomatic and economic influence, Russia is strengthening relationships outside the West, and the United States is attempting to maintain its strategic position in Asia. Pakistan is closely aligned with Beijing while simultaneously maintaining important relations with Washington. These relationships are not always compatible, and countries are being forced to make decisions that carry consequences for trade and investment. The more governments use economic infrastructure to enforce political positions, the more fragmented international commerce becomes.

Beijing continues to insist upon its territorial claims, Taiwan continues to reject those claims, and governments throughout Asia are calculating the consequences of taking sides. The international War Cycle is unfolding through economic and diplomatic pressure as well as military confrontation. The Pakistani aviation dispute is a small incident compared with the potential consequences of a war over Taiwan, but it demonstrates how easily geopolitical conflicts can begin disrupting the systems upon which international commerce depends.