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.

Reading about the world economy every day is one thing. Understanding how the pieces fit together is what allows you to ask better questions about your investments, your business, and your future. Where is capital moving? What happens when confidence in government debt begins to weaken? How do political upheaval and war change the outlook for markets thousands of miles away?

Join Martin Armstrong at the 2026 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, December 4–6. This year’s conference will examine sovereign debt, the potential for a bond crisis, geopolitical conflict, political instability, and why interest rates can rise for reasons that extend beyond inflation.

For readers who follow Armstrong Economics, the WEC is an opportunity to step back from individual posts and consider the broader forces shaping the world economy. A shift in confidence can send capital across borders, changing the outlook for currencies, businesses, and entire countries. Understanding those connections means looking beyond the domestic explanations that so often dominate public debate.

This year also offers a particularly compelling reason to attend. Martin has confirmed that he will personally lead a Cyclical Technical Analysis session, exploring the interaction between time and price and how he interprets market behavior. This may be the last time Mr. Armstrong conducts such a session, making it a meaningful opportunity for those who want to learn directly from decades of his work.

There is also immense value in the conversations that happen outside the presentations. Attending in person brings you together with people from different countries, professions, and backgrounds who share an interest in understanding how the world economy works. The Orlando event includes networking opportunities and a cocktail reception, while virtual tickets offer an option for those unable to travel.

Perhaps you have considered attending in previous years but kept putting it off. If you regularly read the blog and find yourself wanting a fuller understanding of the relationships between markets, confidence, and political change, this is your opportunity to take that next step. Bring your curiosity, challenge your assumptions, and join us as we examine the questions that will matter beyond the next news cycle.

Reserve your place at the 2026 World Economic Conference, December 4–6 in Orlando, or join us virtually. In-person space is limited, and registration is open now.

I recently warned that cyberattacks on Europe’s refrigeration systems were only beginning. Hackers had already demonstrated that they could destroy enormous quantities of food without dropping a bomb or firing a shot. Now they have gone after something far more dangerous. France’s national blood service has confirmed that hackers remotely manipulated refrigeration systems at three facilities storing blood plasma used for transfusions and pharmaceutical production. The attackers attempted to raise freezer temperatures to extraordinary levels, with reports indicating that some settings were changed from -30°C (-22°F) to as high as 110°C (230°F). We are no longer discussing spoiled groceries. We are discussing the ability to interfere with medical supplies that hospitals depend upon to keep people alive.

The attack occurred overnight between November 1 and 2, affecting facilities operated for the French Blood Establishment (EFS). Fortunately, monitoring systems detected the abnormal temperatures, and personnel transferred or secured the blood products before any damage occurred. No blood supplies were lost, and hospital services were not interrupted. But that outcome depended upon the vigilance of personnel and the availability of alternative refrigeration. What happens when the next attack occurs at multiple hospitals simultaneously, or when backup facilities are compromised as well? Blood plasma is essential for treating severe bleeding, trauma victims, and patients undergoing certain medical procedures. Destroying those reserves could have consequences extending far beyond the financial losses associated with ruined food.

This follows an extraordinary series of attacks on European supermarkets. In October, hackers reportedly compromised refrigeration equipment at as many as 700 French supermarkets, remotely manipulating temperatures and causing substantial food losses. Another wave struck retailers across Europe this week, affecting stores in Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Some refrigeration systems were reportedly pushed to 50°C (122°F), destroying perishable inventory and leaving businesses with millions of euros in losses.

These are not sophisticated assaults nor are they harmless pranks. Investigators have identified vulnerabilities in internet-connected refrigeration controllers, including outdated equipment that no longer receives security updates. The devices were installed to make operations more efficient by allowing technicians to monitor and adjust temperatures remotely. Yet that same convenience can provide outsiders with access to equipment responsible for preserving food, medicine, and blood products. A hacker sitting thousands of miles away may be able to interfere with essential supplies without ever entering the country.

We have spent decades connecting practically everything to the internet under the assumption that greater automation necessarily represents progress. Refrigerators, warehouses, hospitals, water systems, transportation networks, and electrical infrastructure increasingly depend upon software and remote access. The problem is that every connection creates another potential point of failure. A vulnerability in one commercial supplier can expose hundreds of customers who may not even realize that their equipment is accessible from outside their own networks. The attack on the French blood facilities reportedly involved a refrigeration equipment supplier rather than a direct intrusion into the blood service’s central computer systems. That is precisely why this problem is so difficult to contain.

There is also a psychological dimension that governments should not underestimate. Empty supermarket refrigerators and reports of threatened blood supplies undermine public confidence in the ability of institutions to protect basic necessities. The European Commission has acknowledged that these incidents require a coordinated response, while national cybersecurity agencies are investigating. Yet the identity and motives of the attackers remain unknown. No group has credibly claimed responsibility, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a foreign government directed the operations. Some analysts suspect politically motivated sabotage, while others believe an individual or criminal group may be exploiting widely accessible vulnerabilities. The uncertainty itself is troubling because authorities cannot yet establish whether the attacks are coordinated or how far they may extend.

Traditionally, destroying a nation’s food or medical supplies required physical attacks against warehouses, transportation routes, or production facilities. Today, similar disruption may be achieved by manipulating the software that controls storage conditions. An adversary could theoretically target refrigerated medicines, vaccines, laboratory specimens, or other temperature-sensitive supplies. That does not mean these facilities have already been compromised, but the attacks in France demonstrate that the underlying danger is real. The distinction between civilian infrastructure and potential targets for sabotage is becoming increasingly blurred.

This should also concern Americans. In August, refrigeration failures at commissaries on several US military bases prompted an investigation into possible cyber interference. Authorities have not established that those incidents were connected to the European attacks, but the similarities warrant examination. The United States depends upon the same types of interconnected commercial technology used throughout Europe. An outdated controller does not become secure simply because it is installed on American soil.

The attackers have now demonstrated that they can interfere with the systems preserving both food and lifesaving medical supplies. Fortunately, the French blood service prevented any loss of plasma, but that should not diminish the seriousness of what occurred. The next facility may not detect the intrusion quickly enough. The next supplier may have no alternative storage available. And the next attack may affect something that cannot be replaced before patients or consumers suffer the consequences.

Europe is discovering that its vulnerability extends well beyond military installations and government computer networks. The systems sustaining ordinary civilian life are increasingly exposed to remote interference. We have constructed a society dependent upon digital connections without adequately protecting the physical infrastructure those connections control. The attacks on supermarkets were a warning. The attempted destruction of blood plasma shows just how dangerous this form of sabotage could become. The frightening reality is that someone can now threaten a nation’s essential supplies without ever crossing its borders.

Germany is preparing for the possibility of receiving 1,000 wounded NATO soldiers every day in a direct military confrontation with Russia. Siemens Mobility and Lufthansa Technik Defense have announced plans to develop military hospital trains capable of transporting more than 150 wounded personnel, including those requiring intensive care. Each train could accommodate approximately 90 medical personnel and operate without relying entirely on electrified railway infrastructure. Europe is once again planning for mass casualties on a scale not witnessed since World War II.

Germany’s Surgeon General, Ralf Hoffmann, previously warned that a large-scale conflict could produce approximately 1,000 wounded troops daily. That translates into 7,000 casualties in one week and 30,000 in a month if the rate persists. Germany has only five military hospitals and estimates that approximately 15,000 civilian hospital beds could be required to treat wounded NATO personnel. Civilian infrastructure would become an extension of the battlefield, with medical resources redirected toward a war the public never wanted.

The proposed hospital trains are modeled partly on Ukraine’s experience, where drones have made conventional battlefield evacuation increasingly dangerous. Wounded soldiers cannot always be retrieved without exposing rescue personnel to additional attacks. Ukraine has consequently converted passenger carriages into mobile medical facilities, and Germany is examining how to develop a similar system. Siemens would supply railway equipment, while Lufthansa Technik Defense would integrate medical systems compatible with military transport aircraft. The companies have signed a memorandum of understanding, but there is not yet a finalized procurement contract. Nevertheless, the planning reveals the scale of the conflict German officials are preparing to manage.

Germany’s geographical position makes it central to NATO’s military logistics. Troops and equipment would move eastward through German territory, while the wounded would be transported westward for treatment. Railways, highways, airports, hospitals, and industrial facilities would become essential military infrastructure. Those same networks could become vulnerable to sabotage and cyberattacks. Germany is already examining Cold War-era facilities, including an underground hospital bunker in Ulm built in 1979 to accommodate approximately 2,000 people during a nuclear emergency. Infrastructure constructed for a confrontation Europeans believed had ended is once again being reconsidered.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has warned that Russia could develop the capability to attack NATO territory by 2029. That is an assessment of potential military capability, not proof that Moscow has decided to launch such an attack. Yet Germany is already conducting exercises to test the evacuation of wounded soldiers from NATO’s eastern flank. The March 2026 Medic Quadriga exercise involved approximately 1,250 military and civilian personnel, while the Bundeswehr has discussed introducing medical trains by 2028. The government is moving beyond speeches about military preparedness and beginning to organize civilian resources around the possibility of sustained warfare.

There is something deeply disturbing about the return of this mentality to Europe. Germany has struggled with industrial weakness, expensive energy, and growing fiscal obligations, yet it must now consider how to finance military logistics, emergency healthcare, and the enormous economic disruption of a potential war. The country abolished compulsory military service in 2011 and has struggled to recruit sufficient personnel. Now its planners are contemplating casualty levels that would require a fundamentally different military structure. Equipment can be manufactured and trains converted, but experienced soldiers cannot simply be replaced. Nor can a country indefinitely divert productive resources toward warfare without damaging its civilian economy.

What is especially troubling is the contrast between the scale of these preparations and the difficulty European leaders have had maintaining direct diplomatic communication with Moscow. Finland and Norway recently demonstrated that communication with Russia can take place without abandoning support for Ukraine. Negotiation does not require accepting an adversary’s demands. It is precisely how governments attempt to prevent disagreements from escalating into catastrophe. Yet Europe is investing enormous effort in preparing for the consequences of a wider war while the diplomatic effort to prevent one remains deeply constrained.

The figure of 1,000 wounded soldiers every day should haunt every European leader discussing military confrontation. These would be young men returning without limbs, suffering permanent injuries, or never returning home. Their families would carry the consequences for generations, while governments accumulated debts to finance the destruction. The economic and human costs would extend far beyond the front lines, affecting every aspect of civilian life.

Germany’s hospital trains may save lives if the worst occurs, and preparing medical infrastructure is a legitimate responsibility of government. But the broader picture is ominous. The railways are being evaluated, hospitals are being incorporated into military planning, and old Cold War facilities are receiving renewed attention. Europe is preparing the machinery necessary to manage mass casualties. Its leaders should be devoting equal determination to ensuring those casualties never occur.

Vice President JD Vance has openly blamed the war with Iran for the Republican Party’s devastating defeat in the November 3 midterm elections. Vance wrote on November 4 that the central reason Republicans lost was the war itself. He challenged those defending the intervention to explain whether sacrificing control of the Senate was worth the price and acknowledged that voters who supported Trump and Vance in 2024 had crossed over to the Democrats.

Vance cited polling showing that former Trump supporters wanted the government to “End the war,” “Focus on cost of living/inflation,” “Put America First,” and “Change our relationship to Israel.” The Republican Party has traditionally treated support for Israel as a political obligation, yet Vance is publicly acknowledging that a portion of Trump’s own electorate wants that relationship reconsidered.

When Trump was asked whether he regretted the war, he told the Wall Street Journal, “I did the right thing. I would have done it again.” The president is defending his decision while his vice president is emphasizing its political consequences. Trump campaigned on ending America’s endless wars and avoiding another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Yet the United States entered a direct war with Iran alongside Israel in February 2026.

I wrote back in July how Vance was positioning himself for 2028 by separating himself from the administration’s Middle Eastern policy. At the time, Vance had criticized Israeli officials who opposed negotiations with Iran and questioned their belief that military force could resolve every regional security problem. He asked what alternative they were proposing and pointed out that Israel, a nation of approximately nine million people, could not simply eliminate every threat through military operations. He also urged Israeli leaders to recognize the enormous support the United States had already provided. Those were unusually direct comments from an American vice president, and they demonstrated that disagreements over the war had developed well before the midterm defeat.

Vance had privately opposed the February military operation and had sought independent assessments from American military commanders. According to the New York Times, he became concerned about depleted munitions, the resilience of Iranian forces, and the difficulty of achieving the administration’s objectives. Yet Vance publicly defended Trump after the decision was made. In March, he expressed confidence that the president would avoid the mistakes of previous administrations. Vance may have opposed the war privately, but he remained part of the administration carrying it out.

"The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically over-turn the monetary system of the world... the basic idea was that we could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority... But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world-without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who were never going to agree with you-through technological means... technology is this incredible alternative to politics."
-Peter Thiel, 2010

However, nobody should mistake Vance for an independent outsider who reached Washington without powerful financial backing. His political career is closely connected to billionaire Peter Thiel. Vance worked at Thiel’s Mithril Capital, and Thiel helped support the venture capital firm Vance later co-founded. When Vance entered the 2022 Senate race, Thiel contributed $15 million to a super PAC supporting his campaign. That money helped establish Vance as a national political figure. Trump supplied the endorsement that helped him secure Republican voters, but Thiel’s financial support was instrumental in launching his political career.

Thiel represents a different concentration of economic power. He co-founded Palantir, which has become deeply involved in American military intelligence, surveillance, and government data systems. Palantir has received substantial federal contracts, including an Army agreement with a potential value of $10 billion over ten years. The company provides technology used by military and intelligence organizations, while other businesses associated with Silicon Valley investors depend upon artificial intelligence, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing, and access to international capital. These industries have their own priorities, and a prolonged disruption to global energy markets creates significant economic risks.

The distinction is not that Thiel’s companies oppose all military spending. Palantir benefits from defense and intelligence contracts, and warfare can generate demand for precisely the technologies it develops. But there is a difference between selling advanced military software and supporting a conflict that drives energy prices higher, threatens supply chains, and increases the cost of capital. Artificial intelligence requires enormous electricity consumption. Data centers, semiconductor fabrication facilities, and advanced manufacturing depend upon reliable power and continued investment. A sustained energy shock can damage the broader technology economy even when individual defense contractors benefit.

Now consider the financial relationships surrounding Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and an important participant in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, has received substantial financing from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, including Saudi Arabia. Bloomberg reported that the firm’s assets reached approximately $6.2 billion at the end of 2025. Kushner also has longstanding political and business relationships with Israel, developed partly through his role in negotiating the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration.

CNN reported in October that Affinity Partners held the largest stake in Phoenix Financial, an Israeli financial services company with investments in businesses supplying Israel’s military. Public filings identified hundreds of millions of dollars in Phoenix investments involving military-linked companies, including Elbit Systems. Affinity reportedly realized a substantial return when it sold part of its Phoenix position. CNN found no evidence that Kushner’s diplomatic activities influenced those investments, and his representatives denied that he directed Phoenix’s investment decisions. Nevertheless, these relationships raise legitimate questions about financial conflicts of interest when private investors participate in negotiations involving governments and industries connected to their investments.

This is where the difference between Trump and Vance becomes particularly interesting. Trump’s administration has maintained close relationships with Israeli leadership while pursuing military objectives against Iran. Kushner’s network is deeply involved in Middle Eastern diplomacy and regional investment. Vance, meanwhile, emerged from the Silicon Valley investment community and has increasingly emphasized the economic and political costs of continuing the conflict. These relationships do not prove that either man’s foreign-policy position is dictated by a financial patron. They do demonstrate that powerful interests surrounding the two politicians are not identical.

Vance’s statement suggests that he understands the political damage this has caused. He is acknowledging that voters who supported Trump in 2024 were unwilling to continue supporting a government they believed had abandoned its original promises.

Vance may oppose the foreign policy interests pushing Washington toward continued confrontation with Iran, but his own political network includes investors whose companies profit from government intelligence and military technology. Vance cannot credibly present himself as independent of powerful financial interests merely because his patrons differ from those surrounding Trump.

The question for 2028 is whether Vance represents a genuine change in American foreign policy or simply a different collection of interests competing for control of Washington. Trump’s political relationships are closely connected to Israel and the traditional national security establishment. Vance has powerful connections to Silicon Valley, military technology, and the expanding surveillance industry. Neither network is free of economic interests, and neither should be exempt from scrutiny.

The American people voted for an end to endless wars and a government that would place domestic prosperity first. They now face the consequences of another Middle Eastern conflict, while politicians and their financial supporters position themselves for the next election. Vance is trying to distinguish himself from Trump’s decisions, but he still needs to prove his political independence. Another interesting aspect is that Peter Thiel portrays himself as a “conservative libertarian” within the Republican Party. I now wonder: will Vance be the third-party candidate our computer has been hinting at who may appear in the 2028 U.S. presidential election?

QUESTION: Marty –

COMMENT: Hi Marty, Even the Lakota from 1976 knew better about our Congress.

REPLY: Compromise does lead to corruption the same as coalition governments.​ We lack integrity, ethics, and principles.​

This is what to expect for the next two years. This is why I say that the system is destined for failure. As long as there are no term limits, there is nobody on either side who will ever address the long-term. The Democrats did block that legislation to stop members of Congress from trading stocks like Pelosi. They will pass it claiming they are fighting corruption next year. The system as it stands is hopeless. This is no way to run a country.

When someone enters office, the become addicted to power and think they will be their forever. They are just a renter – they don’t own the property.

COMMENT: Hello Martin, Here’s a video of Zelensky saying that“Europe is very strong” and that,“with this unity, Europe is several times stronger than today’s Russia. You are stronger. Don’t forget it.”

It looks like he’s feeding the neocons in Europe, especially Macron, the petit Napoleon, what they want to hear – that they are stronger in Russia and that they are able to step in, invade, and get all the $75 trillion in natural resources.

Kind regards,

P

REPLY: Zelensky has been playing the Democrats to ensure there was a blue wave to circumvent Trump who has been trying force a peace deal. That will be off the table and the Democrats want Putin’s blood all for revenge for Hillary. As long as he can play this game, there are no elections. Claiming Europe is 7 times strong than Russia is a real joke.

This is the guy world leaders respect and listen to? Zelensky’s claim that “Europe is several times stronger than Russia” is not a rigorous military data comparison, but a political statement with a clear purpose. He said this in different occasions with different premises, the core logic being: Europe possesses enormous potential (industry, economy, population), but only if it achieves genuine unity and incorporates key military forces like Ukraine, Turkey, and the UK, can this potential be translated into military power surpassing Russia.