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.

The bond market is beginning to expose what governments have desperately tried to hide. Britain’s 30-year yield has now reached 6.036%, the highest since 1998. The US 30-year yield reached 5.7041%, its highest level in 24 years, while France’s 10-year yield has pushed above 5%. This is happening across the developed world because governments borrowed endlessly when money was cheap and somehow convinced themselves that interest rates would remain artificially low forever.

This is precisely how a sovereign debt crisis begins. It does not require a government to announce that it is bankrupt. Capital simply begins demanding more interest to lend that government money. The higher the interest rate rises, the more expensive it becomes to refinance the existing debt, which creates an even larger deficit that requires even more borrowing. Government then enters a vicious cycle of borrowing simply to service what it already borrowed.

France is becoming the one to watch in Europe. Citadel’s Ken Griffin said France now has “no room for mistakes.” Investors are beginning to distinguish between European governments rather than treating every euro-denominated bond as essentially the same risk. Money has been moving toward Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands while France comes under pressure. Italy and Spain are naturally being watched for contagion.

This exposes one of the fundamental flaws behind the euro. Brussels created one currency but never created one government, one debt, or one economy. A German bond is not a French bond simply because both are denominated in euros. When confidence begins to crack, capital looks at who actually owes the money. That is when spreads widen and all the political promises about European solidarity mean very little.

The same problem is unfolding in the United States. Washington has accumulated more than $40 trillion in debt and must continuously roll over enormous amounts of old debt while issuing still more to finance current deficits. The Treasury cannot dictate what investors must accept forever. If the market wants 5%, 6% or more to absorb government paper, then that becomes the cost of borrowing regardless of what some politician or central banker would prefer.

This is also why people waiting for the Fed to magically return everything to pandemic-era interest rates do not understand the bond market. The Fed controls the short end directly. It does not simply decree where the 10-year or 30-year Treasury must trade. Those rates reflect inflation, supply and demand for government debt, currency expectations, fiscal credibility and international capital flows. The government can intervene, buy bonds and manipulate the market temporarily, but eventually somebody has to own the debt.

Governments enjoyed decades of declining interest rates and behaved as if that were a permanent feature of civilization. They expanded welfare states, pensions, bureaucracies and military spending while refinancing yesterday’s promises at cheaper rates. Now the refinancing works in reverse. Debt issued at 1% or 2% matures and must be replaced at 4%, 5% or 6%. Nothing new has to be purchased for the interest expense to explode. They are simply paying more for the same old debt.

This is where the political crisis begins because governments will not voluntarily admit that they created promises they can no longer afford. They will raise taxes, cut services, raid pensions, impose regulations on capital, and blame speculators before admitting that the problem was their own borrowing. The taxpayer will be told to sacrifice because politicians spent money for decades without ever asking who would ultimately pay the bill.

The bond market is beginning to answer that question. It is pricing governments according to confidence, and confidence cannot be legislated into existence. When capital starts questioning sovereign debt, politicians can give all the speeches they want. The market ultimately decides what their promises are worth.

The average 30-year mortgage has jumped to 7.49%, the highest since November 2023. This is happening while everyone continues to obsess over what the Federal Reserve will do at its next meeting as if the Fed chairman personally sets the mortgage rate at your local bank. He does not. Mortgage rates are tied far more closely to the bond market, particularly longer-term Treasury yields, and those yields have been rising because investors are demanding more to lend money long term.

The US 30-year Treasury yield has now reached its highest level in 24 years. That is the part most real estate salesmen conveniently leave out when they tell people to wait for the Fed to cut rates. The federal funds rate is an overnight rate. A mortgage may remain on the books for 30 years. Banks and investors therefore care about inflation, Treasury yields, government borrowing, credit risk and where interest rates may be years from now. Cutting the overnight rate does not magically erase those risks.

Washington has also become the largest competitor for capital in the room. The federal debt has exceeded $40 trillion and Treasury must continuously sell enormous quantities of securities to finance deficits and refinance maturing debt. Investors have choices. If they can earn around 5% lending to the US government, they are not going to finance somebody’s house for 3% simply because a realtor says mortgage rates should come down.

The pandemic housing market was an anomaly. The Fed drove rates to zero, bought trillions in securities, and helped push mortgage rates below 3%. Buyers became accustomed to borrowing money at rates that made no economic sense over the long term. That distorted home prices, encouraged speculation and created today’s lock-in problem because millions of homeowners understandably refuse to surrender mortgages carrying rates that may never return in their lifetimes.

Even if the Fed suddenly cut rates to zero at its next meeting, that would not automatically return mortgage rates to 3%. If investors believed such a move would reignite inflation, long-term Treasury yields could actually rise. The bond market is not obligated to follow the Fed blindly, and right now the market is looking at enormous government deficits, higher energy costs, persistent inflation, and an endless supply of new sovereign debt.

Warsh could walk into the Fed tomorrow and slash short-term rates dramatically, and he still could not order mortgage rates back to 3%. He does not control the 10-year Treasury or control what investors demand to hold mortgage-backed securities, and he certainly cannot force private capital to lend money for 30 years at a rate it considers too low. If the bond market believes inflation, government borrowing, or geopolitical risk requires a higher return, long-term yields can rise even as the Fed cuts. Warsh can influence the cost of money at the short end, but he cannot repeal the market. Washington may believe it controls interest rates. Capital ultimately decides what it is willing to accept.

The obsession with the Fed is therefore misplaced. The problem is much larger than one central bank meeting. Government debt is competing for capital, the long end of the bond market is demanding higher yields, and the era of virtually free money distorted housing for more than a decade. Mortgage rates are simply reflecting that reality.

QUESTION: My realtor says the Fed is keeping rates high until the November midterms to punish Trump. He insists inflation has subsided and expects another rate cut to bring mortgage rates down and buyers back. He claims I will have better luck listing the property after midterms. Is there any substance to this argument?

ANSWER: No. Your realtor is asking you to stake a financial decision on his political opinion. Where is his evidence that the Fed is setting rates to punish Trump? The Fed makes monetary policy independently of the White House. You can criticize its decisions without inventing motives. Someone advising you on the sale of your home should understand the financing market well enough to explain why buyers are struggling, instead of blaming everything on a personal vendetta.

Investors consider the future course of inflation, economic growth, interest rates, and the supply of competing investments. The Fed controls an overnight policy rate. A 30-year mortgage must attract money from investors who have other places to put it. They are concerned with what their return will buy and whether another investment offers better compensation. Your realtor cannot make that calculation disappear by circling the next Fed meeting on a calendar.

Treasury debt competes for that same capital. When the government borrows, investors must absorb the securities it issues, and the yield required depends on demand. Mortgage securities must remain competitive with those alternatives. The 10-year Treasury is an important benchmark, but mortgage rates also carry a spread reflecting repayment uncertainty, market volatility, and the costs of making and servicing loans. That spread can widen enough to offset a decline in Treasury yields. There is no rule requiring a lender to pass through a Fed cut point for point.

The borrower also holds an option that costs the investor money. When rates fall, homeowners refinance and repay mortgages that investors would prefer to keep. When rates rise, homeowners hold on to their cheap loans, extending the investor’s exposure to an unattractive yield. Investors demand compensation for that arrangement. Greater uncertainty about interest rates can increase the compensation they require.

Even cutting the federal funds target to zero would not guarantee a return to pandemic mortgage rates. Markets would ask why the Fed had taken such an extraordinary step. If it signaled a severe economic contraction, long-term yields might decline, but lending could tighten and buyers could fear for their jobs. If investors believed the Fed had abandoned inflation discipline, longer-term yields could rise. The Fed cannot order capital to accept a return investors consider inadequate.

People also keep confusing lower inflation with lower prices. The price increases accumulated since 2020 remain embedded in household budgets. Overall U.S. consumer prices are up about 29.9% from January 2020 through August 2026. That calculation uses the BLS index’s rise from 257.971 to 334.980. Slower inflation does not restore the purchasing power already lost, and it does not reverse the increase in the income required to support the same standard of living.

Housing carries an even larger accumulated increase. The national Case-Shiller index was roughly 59% above January 2020 by July 2026. Buyers are therefore confronting a much higher purchase price alongside more expensive financing. A quarter-point reduction in the overnight rate cannot repair that arithmetic. Sellers may remember what somebody paid during the frenzy, but the next buyer must qualify against today’s payment and today’s income.

My view is that exceptionally cheap money persisted far too long and distorted expectations. The 30-year mortgage average reached 2.65% in January 2021. That year, the Fed added $80 billion in Treasuries and $40 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities to its holdings each month. Direct purchases of mortgage securities supported financing conditions in a way that an ordinary policy-rate cut does not replicate. People took an extraordinary intervention and assumed it established the normal cost of borrowing forever.

That left us with two real estate economies. Existing owners with cheap fixed mortgages possess a financing advantage that a new buyer cannot obtain merely by purchasing their house. Those owners may have considerable equity and little incentive to move, because moving means surrendering the old loan. New buyers must finance elevated prices at current rates. Cash buyers operate under another set of constraints altogether. Talking about “the housing market” as though everyone faces the same circumstances conceals the problem. The low-rate mortgage has become an asset worth holding on to.

Weak employment makes the situation harder. A buyer concerned about losing income will not necessarily take on a large mortgage because rates decline modestly. Lower borrowing costs cannot substitute for a dependable paycheck, and falling rates during a downturn need not produce rising sales. When homes sit longer, sellers have to assess actual buyer demand and competing inventory. Sometimes the adjustment has to come through the asking price. Expecting cheaper credit to rescue every valuation is precisely how people avoid confronting what the market is telling them.

Buyers who need to purchase now must qualify at the financing terms available now, negotiate a price they can support, or choose a less expensive property. Sellers should not base their decisions on another 2% or 3% mortgage boom because, sorry, that was a once-in-a-lifetime event. Nobody can prove those rates will never appear again, but another emergency producing them would not necessarily reproduce the pandemic buying frenzy. Your realtor sounds like an idiot. You are paying the carrying costs while he waits for Washington to deliver the market he would prefer.

Merz, former BlackRock chairman in Germany, I believe has a serious conflict of interest. I know, people point out that he is the grandson of Nazi party official, Josef Paul Sauvigny, who joined the SA in 1933. However, if Ukraine loses the war, BlackRock’s $800 billion fund to “rebuild Ukraine” will become one of the biggest losses in financial history. European Business Magazine, February 28, 2026 wrote: “BlackRock is leading an $800 billion investment framework to rebuild Ukraine, focusing on agriculture, critical minerals, energy and infrastructure. They intend to to inject private capital into reconstruction projects in exchange for long-term concessions and resource extraction rights. Yet, on the other side of the monopoly board, they have nearly $40 billion invested in the military establishment.

BlackRock’s Stake (% of Outstanding)
RTX Corporation (formerly Raytheon) 8.10% $21.1 billion
Northrop Grumman 8.29% $3.9 billion
Lockheed Martin 7.73% $5.78 billion
General Dynamics 6.4%

As I have warned, Ukraine will lose this war and it does not appear it will even be able to survive beyond the Pi target for the 3rd quarter 2029. We see even a major turning point on Blackrock at that time as well. Merz seems to be putting Blackrock before Germany. You cannot claim you are already at war with Russia, risk the destruction of Germany, and have Blackrock making a profit unless you are first trying increase its profit as the Merchant of Death, score a victory, then profit on the $800 billion. We saw Dick Cheney get his old company Halliburton the contracts for the Iraq War and when it came time to investigate, on March 11, 2007, Halliburton announced it would open a corporate headquarters in Dubai and relocate its CEO, David Lesar, there.

I fought against the “CLUB” and they were NEVER actually traders. They ALWAYS sought the guaranteed trades. They routinely rigged markets and bribed officials. As I have said, I was invited to a black-tie dinner where they rented the entire National Galley to put on a dinner for the IMF. I was invited to show me that they had the IMF in their back pocket. This is the real world. You can bet that there is a lot riding on this war and it is NEVER about what they claim – DEMOCRACY. They could care less about that. The EU was established to eliminate democracy. Ursula is appointed – not elected.

Just Follow the Money

Does Ukraine have to Win for the Blackrock $800 Billion Deal?

Has Poland Announced It Will Keep All Russian Money Even if They Agreed to Peace Somehow Connected?

Polish FM Radosław Sikorski who is a huge NEOCON has declared:

• “Kremlin’s assets frozen in Europe and never going back to Russia”
• “They can be used [the assets] now to help prevent further destruction and make future reconstruction cheaper”
• “If the war ends tomorrow, Russia will remain a threat. We cannot afford to once again underestimate the danger of Moscow’s militarism.”

I have never heard such outright lies. They are simply broke and want to rob Russia of everything. They are the threat to World Peace. It was Kiev that attacked the Donbas on the orders of the Neocons. We should NEVER for get that. This is the guy to started this war on orders from the Neocons.

Hurry up – We need a new Pandemic for another Lockdown to Justify Mail-in Ballots Again

Earlier this year, as the energy crisis sent gasoline prices soaring, Washington began waiving the very fuel regulations it had insisted were necessary. The government relaxed summer-blend requirements, expanded the ability to sell ethanol blends, and eventually acknowledged that the country faced “extreme and unusual” fuel supply circumstances. Now diesel has surged to around $6.50 per gallon, and suddenly Washington is scrambling again, this time allowing broader use of dyed diesel that is normally restricted to farms, construction equipment, and other off-road uses.

The EPA acknowledged in August that U.S. operable refining capacity was about 800,000 barrels per day LOWER than in January 2020. Refinery utilization ran above 96%, meaning there was very little spare capacity when something went wrong.

Diesel is far more economically dangerous than expensive gasoline because it is embedded in virtually everything you buy. The consumer may never personally purchase a gallon of diesel, but he pays for it every time something has to be grown, manufactured or transported.

There is already confusion over what dyed diesel actually means. The red dye itself is not some inferior fuel that will suddenly destroy a diesel engine; it is primarily a marker used so authorities can identify fuel that was sold without the highway taxes normally imposed on road diesel. If the underlying fuel meets the same ultra-low-sulfur specifications, the dye itself is not the problem. If government can suddenly waive restrictions when diesel becomes scarce and expensive, how much of the barrier was absolutely necessary in the first place, and how much was simply another layer of taxation and regulation that consumers were forced to pay for when energy was plentiful?

Now we have “blue diesel,” as if another government classification somehow creates more fuel. Red, blue, taxed, untaxed, renewable, off-road, the bureaucracy has turned diesel into a regulatory maze. When an energy crisis hits, they suddenly waive their own rules because trucks still have to move and farms still have to operate. You cannot regulate energy into existence. You either have the fuel or you don’t.

That is why this feeds directly into stagflation. A trucking company paying dramatically more for fuel does not simply absorb that cost forever. Neither does the warehouse, construction company, farmer, or distributor. Those costs work their way through the economy until they eventually appear in groceries, building materials, deliveries and virtually everything else consumers purchase. Meanwhile, businesses facing higher transportation and financing costs begin postponing investment and hiring.

Washington’s answer is now to change the rules again. President Trump has expanded access to dyed diesel and allowed federal excise taxes on its highway use to be deferred through the end of the year. Several states had already begun relaxing restrictions, suspending fuel taxes or changing transportation regulations in an effort to get more fuel into the system. The G7 has also announced plans to release 100 million barrels of diesel.

The government even temporarily relaxed hours-of-service restrictions for fuel truck drivers in September, allowing them to operate longer in an effort to move gasoline and diesel through the system faster. Think about what that tells you. The government is now dismantling regulations one by one because the energy infrastructure does not have enough slack to withstand geopolitical disruption.

There is also something almost comical about watching government waive its own regulations whenever the consequences become unbearable. If these rules can suddenly be suspended because fuel is too expensive, then perhaps someone should ask how much those regulations were costing consumers before the emergency. Government imposes the cost when energy is plentiful, then takes credit for temporarily removing part of that cost when the system begins breaking down.

The energy crisis is exposing something far larger than the price displayed outside the gas station. America has lost refining capacity while geopolitical instability is increasing and governments continue assuming that regulation can substitute for production. It cannot. You can manipulate taxes, blending requirements and trucking rules all you want, but eventually somebody has to produce the fuel.

First, Washington watered down the gasoline regulations because the system was under stress. Now it is scrambling to find diesel wherever it can while prices sit near record levels. The politicians can change the rules overnight, but they cannot repeal supply and demand, and every time they are forced to abandon their own policies in an emergency they are admitting what the free market has been telling them all along: you cannot regulate scarcity away.

Germany’s own intelligence service is now warning that the confrontation with Russia is entering a far more dangerous phase. Martin Jäger, head of Germany’s BND foreign intelligence service, told parliament on October 5 that Germany risks becoming embroiled in a violent conflict with Russia. He described what is taking place across Europe as a Russian “shadow war” that has entered a “new, more dangerous dimension.”

October 5, on that very date, Germany’s intelligence chief is warning that the confrontation with Russia is moving beyond Ukraine. Germany points to drones, cyberattacks, sabotage, espionage and attacks against infrastructure throughout Europe. German authorities have accused Russia of involvement in an attempted drone attack against a Ukrainian transport aircraft at Leipzig airport. Moscow denies conducting such a campaign and insists it has no intention of attacking NATO.

Jäger declared that “Russia is our most dangerous adversary.” He said the danger of attacks against German targets remains “real and imminent” and accused Moscow of testing Germany to see how far it can push. Perhaps most alarming was his warning about what comes next: “Russia could engage in low-intensity military activities, particularly in the Baltic states.” Germany is openly talking about a conflict that could creep across NATO’s borders without beginning with some formal declaration of war.

What concerns me most is that Jäger openly discussed the possibility of Russia conducting limited operations against the Baltic states to test NATO. Not necessarily thousands of tanks rolling across a border, but something deliberately ambiguous enough to determine whether NATO actually has the political courage to respond. What constitutes an attack today? A drone entering NATO airspace? A commercial vessel destroyed in the Baltic? The lines that once separated war from peace have become dangerously blurred.

Germany’s military is issuing much the same warning. Major General Christian Freuding, who oversees Germany’s support for Ukraine, has warned against assuming Europe has years before a confrontation with Russia. He said the question of when Russia might be capable of attacking NATO is becoming almost irrelevant because Moscow already possesses forces and weapons that could be used against the alliance today. “Russia already has the capabilities to attack NATO territory now,” Freuding warned. That does not mean Germany believes Putin is preparing to invade tomorrow, but this constant rhetoric matters. German intelligence warns of a shadow war, its generals say Russia can attack NATO now, and Berlin is simultaneously rearming at a pace not seen in generations. The danger is that Europe is no longer preparing for some theoretical war in 2029. Its own military leadership is telling the public that the confrontation could come much sooner.

Europe helped create this situation by pretending it could wage an unlimited proxy war against a nuclear power while keeping everything neatly contained inside Ukraine. Germany supplies weapons to Kyiv and has become one of Ukraine’s largest supporters. Poland is rapidly militarizing. Finland and Sweden have joined NATO. Lithuania sits beside Kaliningrad and is moving to remove its prohibition on nuclear weapons. Russia responds by strengthening its own defenses, and Europe then points to that response as evidence that Moscow is preparing to attack.

The Baltic is becoming perhaps the most dangerous pressure point. Russia has already warned that any attempt to attack or isolate Kaliningrad could produce a response involving nuclear weapons. Jäger is now warning NATO not to simply wait for 2029, the timeframe often discussed for when Russia could become capable of a larger confrontation with the alliance. Something smaller could happen first.

The War Cycle does not mean someone declares World War III on a particular day. It marks periods when geopolitical pressure intensifies and governments become increasingly aggressive. Europe says it is preparing for war to prevent war. Russia says precisely the same thing. Eventually, with this many weapons, drones, troops and intelligence operations rubbing against one another, all it takes is one mistake to set off something nobody can control. Germany’s intelligence chief is effectively admitting we are getting dangerously close to that point.

We have been watching October 5 on the War Cycle, and what has unfolded around that date deserves attention. This is no longer simply Russia and Ukraine trading artillery across a battlefield. The geographical footprint of this war is expanding, commercial shipping is being hit in the Black Sea, NATO aircraft are being scrambled, air defense is being moved closer to the front, and Europe is openly discussing nuclear deterrence. Nobody needs to invent World War III or exaggerate every drone that crosses a radar screen. What matters is the trend, and the trend is moving in precisely the wrong direction.

On October 5, a commercial vessel caught fire and sank outside Romanian territorial waters after leaving the Ukrainian port of Izmail. Two people died. Zelensky attributed the event to “a horrific strike by two Russian drones on a civilian vessel,” although Romanian authorities did not confirm the cause. Then on October 6, two more commercial vessels were attacked by drones inside Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone. One sank and another caught fire, forcing the evacuation of 18 crew members, two of whom were seriously injured. Bulgaria has NOT established where those drones came from. These attacks cannot honestly be called deliberate Russian attacks on NATO territory based on the evidence presently available. Nevertheless, civilian shipping is now being dragged directly into the military confrontation around NATO’s Black Sea flank.

“This is an unacceptable attack in Bulgaria’s exclusive economic zone. It is a blatant violation of international law and maritime law,” Prime Minister Rumen Radev said.

At the same time, NATO aircraft are being forced into action. Two Spanish F-18s stationed in Romania under NATO command were scrambled after radar detected aerial targets operating in Ukrainian airspace close to the Romanian border. They did not enter Romanian airspace and there was no interception, but Romanian authorities issued warnings to civilians because of the danger of falling objects. These incidents are becoming routine, and that is precisely the problem. Wars expand through mistakes, miscalculations, and reactions to events that politicians insist nobody intended.

Ukraine has meanwhile launched an extraordinary drone assault deep into Russia. Russian authorities claim nearly 900 Ukrainian drones were intercepted overnight across Russia, occupied Crimea, and the Sea of Azov. Moscow’s mayor said 650 drones were directed toward the capital region overnight, followed by dozens more during the day. Two people were killed, while reports emerged that a major fuel installation in the Moscow region was burning. The fuel strike has not been independently confirmed. Zelensky is now warning that intelligence indicates Russia is preparing a massive retaliatory aerial attack. Each side responds to the last attack with something larger, and eventually somebody crosses a line that cannot be uncrossed.

Sweden announced that it will send Patriot air-defense systems and roughly 100 troops to Poland to protect the Rzeszow logistics hub, the primary artery through which Western military aid reaches Ukraine. Lithuania has now advanced a constitutional amendment that would remove its prohibition against nuclear weapons and foreign military bases. Lithuania borders both Belarus and Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. This does NOT mean American nuclear weapons are suddenly being stationed in Lithuania, and another parliamentary vote is required. But Moscow has already warned that moving NATO military infrastructure and potentially nuclear weapons closer to Russia will be regarded as escalation.

Then France test-fired its new M51.3 submarine-launched ballistic missile on October 6. The missile carried no nuclear warhead, and the test was part of the certification of France’s strategic deterrent, so this should not be falsely portrayed as France preparing to attack Russia. Europe is increasingly talking about deterrence, nuclear capability, military readiness, and preparing populations for confrontation rather than negotiating an end to this madness.

Wars do not require somebody sitting in a room deciding that Tuesday morning would be a wonderful time to start World War III. The First World War emerged from alliances and mobilizations that transformed a regional crisis into a continental catastrophe. Politicians create commitments they believe will deter the other side, the other side responds with commitments of its own, and eventually everyone becomes trapped by the very deterrence system they created.

There is much concern over recent developments in the Black Sea. Commercial shipping cannot continually be attacked without consequences. Romania and Bulgaria are NATO members. Poland is becoming increasingly fortified as the principal logistics corridor supporting Ukraine. Lithuania is reconsidering restrictions on nuclear deterrence. Europe is pulling every move to prepare for war.

The War Cycle was never about predicting that politicians would formally declare World War III on a particular day. Cycles identify periods when geopolitical pressure and the probability of conflict rise. What has emerged around October 5 is therefore worth watching very closely. We have commercial vessels sinking, an unprecedented drone assault aimed deep into Russia, NATO fighters launching in response to approaching aerial targets, Patriot batteries moving into Poland, Lithuania opening the door to expanded NATO deterrence, and Russia warning that the continued movement of Western military infrastructure toward its borders will have consequences.

Watch the Black Sea. Watch Poland and Lithuania. And above all, watch what Russia does in response to this enormous Ukrainian drone attack. If the next retaliation spills deliberately onto NATO territory or kills NATO personnel, we will have moved into an entirely different phase of this war.

Merz does not care about the fate of Germany or its people. Here we are on precisely the week of October 5th and Merz is saying that Russia staged some armed attack on Leipzig airport. He is publicly stating that Germany is effectively at war with Russia. The EU is crumbling and the AfD has beaten Merz to a pulp, so its now time to go out with a bang and declare war has already begun.

Here is Merz declaring that Brussels is indeed very concerned about the rise of of what they call far-right parties that are anti-EU with the common thread being their migrant policies. The nature of that concern has also now shifted significantly. The current anxiety in EU institutions is not just about the imminent “exit” threat, but also I hear they fear a growing strategic objective by these parties to weaken and obstruct the EU from the inside.

They don’t worry the exit scenario, since they are pros at manipulating elections as they did in Italy, UK, Hungary and Romania or use the courts to block separatists as in Barcelona. They are now also examining the draft strategy document from AfD lawmakers, which shifts away from calling for an immediate German withdrawal from the EU and eurozone. Instead, it proposes prioritizing the reform of the EU into a “union of sovereign nations,” and advocates for a membership referendum only if those reforms fail. In other words – take back power like over migration.

This shift is partly pragmatic. The AfD is currently isolated in the European Parliament, and more moderate right-wing parties, like Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, have openly criticized the AfD’s “anti-European” stance. Dropping the exit demand makes the AfD a more palatable ally for these larger far-right groups.

This strategic change creates a more difficult problem for the EU than a simple exit campaign that they can fight with rigged elections. Here, a referendum requires a party to convince a majority to take a radical step. In contrast, internal disruption only requires enough power to block, dilute, and redirect policy from within the system. The EU’s existing tools, which were designed to reassure citizens about the benefits of membership, are ill-suited to counter this kind of internal gridlock. This is why they rigged both the Romanian and Hungarian elections.

Parties like the AfD and Hungary’s Fidesz can exploit unanimity rules to veto EU-wide decisions. For example, Hungary has blocked crucial sanctions and loans for Ukraine, and the far-right Patriots for Europe group has worked to dilute the Green Deal and the Migration Pact. This dysfunction then becomes campaign material for these parties, who position themselves as defenders of national interests against a “paralyzed” Brussels. This was why the Hungarian government has repeatedly accused Ukraine of interfering in its elections to remove Orban. Sources in Washington reveal that Ukraine is also interfering in US elections funding the opposition of anyone in Congress who is against sending money to Ukraine. Israel has been doing the same.

The European Commission is aware of the broader threat posed by anti-Brussels movement. Its response has focused on security and rule of law, rather than direct political confrontation. Through Europol and the EU Knowledge Hub, the Commission is coordinating cross-border efforts to combat anti-EU protests and sharing information on proscribed groups.

The Commission has proposed reforms to its next long-term budget that would make EU funding conditional on member states respecting the rule of law. This is designed to impose financial costs on governments allowing the people to vote for organizations like the Afd. This is a very anti-democratic position but this is what governments do to retain power.

In short, Brussels’ concern is focused on a more subtle and persistent threat of a coordinated effort by these anti-EU parties to hollow out the EU’s ability to function from within its own institutions.

This is why the EU faces a rising threat that will dissolve the centralized government returning sovereignty to individual member states, or start World War III with Russia not just as a distraction, but to forge a unity bond with the classic rally around the flag.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) was trying to create the one-world government some call globalization, where the pandemic some believed would create the unity to create this globalization. However, the manufactured pandemic actually accelerated pre-existing trends toward deglobalization, nationalism, and the “balkanization” of technology. WEF discussions acknowledged that globalization was “already under attack before COVID” and that the pandemic posed new questions about nationalism that were exactly opposite of the expected unity. The WEF’s stated concern was that a retreat from globalization and that multilateralism damaged their efforts to create their communistic form of government where you own nothing and you’ll be happy.

Here war is being used to create the UNITY with the Rally around the flag in an effort to defeat the agenda of AfD and others and in the process solidify the EU as a permanent European federal government.