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 establishment continues to dismiss the growing support for socialism among young people as nothing more than college indoctrination. That is only part of the story. If we refuse to understand why an entire generation is losing faith in capitalism, then we are destined to repeat the very mistakes that gave rise to socialism throughout history. The Fox News analysis citing Heartland Institute and Rasmussen polling noted that 53% of Americans aged 18 to 39 said they would support a Democratic Socialist for president, while 76% favored nationalizing industries such as health care, energy, and big tech. The overwhelming motivation is not ideology, it is economic despair.

Young Americans have entered adulthood during one of the most distorted economic periods in modern history. Housing has become unattainable for millions. According to the same polling, 74% of young voters believe America is facing a housing crisis, 62% say the economy is unfair to young people, and 36% describe themselves as struggling financially or in outright crisis. When asked why they supported democratic socialism, the most common answer was simple: housing costs. This is precisely what governments never want to admit. People do not abandon free markets because they suddenly become Marxists. They lose faith when the system no longer appears to reward hard work or provide a realistic path toward owning a home, raising a family, or building wealth.

This is hardly unique to the United States. Across Europe, Canada, Australia, and much of the developed world, younger generations face soaring rents, stagnant real wages after inflation, enormous student debt, and some of the weakest housing affordability on record. Many graduates cannot find careers matching their education, while others remain trapped in temporary work or are forced to live with their parents well into adulthood. Governments spent decades inflating asset prices through endless debt expansion and artificially low interest rates. Those who already owned homes and financial assets became wealthier, while those entering the workforce found themselves permanently priced out. That is not capitalism functioning properly. It is the direct consequence of governments manipulating markets and accumulating unsustainable debt.

The politicians will blame corporations. Universities will blame capitalism. The socialists will promise that government ownership is the solution. They all conveniently ignore that governments created much of this crisis themselves.

History demonstrates that socialism gains support not when capitalism succeeds, but when governments corrupt free markets until ordinary people no longer recognize them. The Roman Empire followed the same path, debasing its currency while expanding state control until confidence collapsed. Every sovereign debt crisis eventually creates demands for greater redistribution because people become desperate. We are watching that cycle unfold once again. The danger is that socialism will not solve the underlying problems of debt, declining productivity, or demographic collapse. It merely transfers more power to the same governments whose reckless policies created the crisis in the first place.

All are welcome to attend the upcoming seminar I am hosting on July 25, Understanding the World Economy. I’ve spoken to a number of people who said they are bringing their kids or nieces/nephews. If you have teenagers or young adults in your family, bring them along. Schools teach theories, but they rarely explain how the real world economy actually functions. Understanding capital flows, debt, history, and the cycles that shape society is knowledge that can benefit every generation. The sooner young people learn how the world truly works, the better prepared they’ll be for the future.

The Federal Reserve minutes from the June 16–17 meeting showed policymakers divided over where interest rates should go next. The official minutes admit the problem plainly. Inflation had “increased further and remained well above” the Fed’s 2% objective, while officials blamed tariffs, supply disruptions tied to the Strait of Hormuz, and demand from the AI boom. That is not a normal business cycle. That is government-created chaos colliding with war, energy, trade barriers, and capital flows.

The Fed voted 12–0 to hold rates at 3.50% to 3.75%, but unanimity on the vote hides the split underneath. The minutes state that “a few participants” saw a case for raising rates immediately, while others thought policy was already “slightly restrictive.” That is central-bank language for confusion. They do not know whether inflation will fade or accelerate, because this is not simply consumer demand. The old Keynesian playbook does not work when prices are being driven by tariffs, war risk, energy shocks, and government deficits.

The minutes also said “many participants” believed elevated commodity prices and supply disruptions could persist longer than expected. That is the key. They keep pretending inflation will return to 2% if they wait long enough. But confidence is collapsing in government itself. Rates are not rising merely because the Fed wants them higher. Rates rise when capital demands a higher return to buy government paper. That is the part the academics never understand.

The Fed even admitted the ownership of Treasury securities has shifted away from “price-insensitive official-sector holders” toward “more price-sensitive private investors.” That is a major warning. Foreign central banks are not absorbing U.S. debt the same way they once did. Private capital wants compensation. This is why rates can rise even with a weakening economy. It is the sovereign debt crisis creeping into the room while everyone stares at CPI.

Warsh is now trapped. Trump may want lower rates, Wall Street may want lower rates, and politicians always want cheap money. But if inflation reaccelerates, the Fed will be forced to raise because Keynesian economics is the only model they have. They will not admit the real problem is fiscal. They will not admit Washington’s endless borrowing, tariffs, war spending, and regulation are creating the very inflation they claim to fight.

The minutes removed the prior easing bias and said the Committee “will deliver price stability.” That sentence is important. It means the Fed is preparing the public for the possibility that cuts are not coming. The split is no longer between hawks and doves. It is between those who still believe inflation will magically fade and those who can see that the system has changed.

This is what I have explained many times. The Fed does not control the entire yield curve. It can influence short-term rates, but it cannot command global capital. If capital begins to distrust government debt, rates rise. If war escalates and capital flees Europe, the dollar can rise with gold. If inflation comes from energy, tariffs, food, and supply shocks, crushing small business with higher rates will not solve the problem. It will only expose how fragile the debt system has become.

Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Greece are projected to exceed NATO’s new 3.5% core-defense spending target this year, nearly a decade ahead of the 2035 deadline. Lithuania is projected at 5.33% of GDP, Estonia 5.1%, Latvia 4.92%, Poland 4.68%, and Greece 3.65%. These are not small accounting changes. This is the militarization of Europe before the people have even been asked whether they want this future.

NATO pretends this is about “security.” Governments always use that word when they want unlimited money and no debate. The old 2% target was once treated as unbearable. Now they have moved the goalpost to 5% of GDP, 3.5% for core military spending and another 1.5% for cyber, infrastructure, and anything else they can stuff into the war budget.

The nations closest to Russia are spending first because they know Brussels and Washington have turned Ukraine into the excuse for a permanent war economy. Poland and the Baltics are not waiting until 2035 because they understand where this is going. But the real question is never asked: who benefits? The average European cannot afford housing, food, energy, or basic living costs, yet suddenly there is endless money for weapons.

Reuters reported that total NATO defense spending is projected to exceed $1.8 trillion in 2026, with the United States still accounting for nearly 57% of the alliance’s military expenditure. So even after all the lectures about Europe stepping up, America remains the piggy bank. This is why I have said the United States should get out of NATO and let Europe deal with Russia if that is the future they want. America’s real strategic threat is China, not financing another endless European war.

Germany, France, and Britain remain below the new 3.5% benchmark, while smaller nations on Russia’s border are racing ahead. That tells you the whole story. The countries that feel exposed are arming. The larger European powers are talking. Brussels wants a European army, NATO wants more money, and the people get the bill.

I have received numerous requests to host a technical training conference similar to those I conducted in the 1990s. Those sessions were intensive—and at $5,000 per seat, they were not inexpensive. By today’s standards, however, that would be a bargain. Consider that DAVOS currently charges between $27,000 and $35,000 per attendee. I am giving this serious consideration, particularly because I recognize that the need for such training has become urgent as we approach 2032. That said, it is a monumental undertaking. I would need to author an entirely new textbook to accompany the program. Let me reflect on it.

PS Thanks for the photo of my badge from New Orleans

PRIVATE BLOG – Here we Go Into An Unwinnable War for 2027

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/

COMMENT: Well, Marty, Socrates is right again. You even had the week correct. Trump just announced the end of the ceasefire and cannot escape this unpopular war. It is so obvious why mainstream media will not quote you; Socrates puts everyone else to shame.

GH

REPLY: Trump is trapped. He cannot escape without admitting this was orchestrated by the Neocons, and it is Netanyahu’s war. I will write to President Trump. I seriously doubt the Neocon-Deep State will allow it to get to him. When I send it, I will let you know. Perhaps if others write in maybe it will get beyond the Deep State Bubble.

Opinion and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Socrates is unbiased and the only way to see what lies ahead.

QUESTION: Many significant families and individuals gained their wealth through unethical means, e.g., Gates, Rothschilds/Rockefellers…

R

ANSWER: While I am certainly no fan of Bill Gates, starting a company that then makes him a billionaire because of valuations, does not qualify as unethical. Gates’ tactics and seeking to be a monopoly is unethical in my book, but that did not make him a billionaire. His mentor, I believe, was Rockefeller in both creating a monopoly as well as deeply concerned about over-population indoctrinated by his his.

The pursuit of a monopoly was primarily the endeavor of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of the family fortune, rather than the entire Rockefeller family over generations. His methods were effective, but his ambition also led to a famous legal dismantling and a subsequent pivot towards philanthropy.

John D. Rockefeller’s quest for market dominance was a systematic and aggressive campaign to control the American oil industry. His company, Standard Oil, used aggressive tactics to buy out competitors, which was adopted by Bill Gates. In what became known as the “Cleveland Massacre” of 1872, he purchased 22 of his 26 competitors in Cleveland within a few months. By the 1880s, Standard Oil controlled about 90% of U.S. refineries and pipelines.

Rockefeller didn’t just focus on refining. He sought to control every aspect of the oil business, from production to transportation to retail sales. This vertical integration, combined with his market power, gave him an immense advantage. The company used various methods to crush competition, including securing preferential (and often secret) transportation rates from railroads, engaging in predatory pricing, and using its sheer size to pressure suppliers and distributors.

The overwhelming power of Standard Oil triggered a strong public and political backlash, ultimately leading to its breakup. The public outcry against monopolies like Standard Oil led to the creation of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of these laws and ordered its dissolution into 34 independent companies.

While it appeared to be a defeat, the breakup actually increased Rockefeller’s wealth. He and other shareholders retained proportional ownership in all the newly formed companies, such as those that eventually became Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron. As these independent entities began to trade on the stock market, their combined value grew, making Rockefeller even richer.

The Shift from Monopoly to Philanthropy
After establishing his immense fortune, John D. Rockefeller and his descendants largely shifted their focus away from building monopolies and towards large-scale philanthropy, but to push their personal beliefs.

Starting in the 1890s, before the 1911 breakup by the Supreme Court. Rockefeller began to step back from business and dedicate himself to giving away his wealth. His goal was to create a legacy of social improvement to COUNTER his ruthless business reputation. I believe that Gates did the same. While there is no explicit confirmation that Bill Gates has hired a firm solely for “reputation management,” there is strong evidence that the public perception of Gates is carefully managed and is a central objective of his communications strategy. His and his foundation’s activities consistently involve professional communication and PR tactics, from major philanthropic campaigns to crisis response and direct public engagement.The Rockefeller family’s philanthropic efforts established some of the most influential institutions in the U.S. and beyond. These include the University of Chicago, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller University, and the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York. While the later generations, particularly David Rockefeller, built a financial empire through banking, the family’s reputation in the 20th century was more defined by their philanthropy and influence in finance, politics, and culture than by creating an industrial monopoly.

The claim that the Rockefeller Foundation and Bill Gates are collaborating on a hidden agenda to reduce the global population through vaccines is a well-known conspiracy theory. However, even the press has reported on this agenda. They call it a conspiracy theory to discredit the accusation without actually commenting on it or offerring proof that it is nonsense. The evidence shows that while both Gates & Rockefeller organizations have supported population and health programs, they have publicly and consistently stated their goals are to improve health and save lives, not to reduce population size.

The theory that powerful philanthropists are trying to reduce the population is often linked to the ideas of Thomas Malthus, an 18th-century economist. Malthus argued that population growth would inevitably outpace food production, leading to famine and poverty.

The Rothschilds did pursue market dominance, but their approach was markedly different from that of the Rockefellers. Whereas Standard Oil represented a single, colossal monopoly ultimately broken up by the U.S. government, the Rothschilds sought control through oligopolies, market structures dominated by a small number of large players. Thus, they often cooperating with competitors rather than trying to absorb them or put them out of business. This strategy was especially prominent in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were not aiming for the kind of monopoly embodied by figures like Gates or Rockefeller.

Unlike the Rockefellers, who sought to dominate one industry from production to distribution, the Rothschilds wielded their financial influence across multiple sectors to engage in competition. They strategically invested in non-ferrous metals, mercury, nickel, lead, and copper, commodities with inelastic demand and concentrated supply, which made them particularly amenable to control.

They also took over state-run monopolies, such as the mercury mines at Almadén in Spain, through privatization. Rather than acquiring every competitor, they often purchased controlling stakes in market leaders, companies like Le Nickel, Peñarroya, and Rio Tinto. In many instances, they collaborated with other dominant players to form cartels and collusive oligopolies, ensuring high returns for all involved rather than driving rivals out of business.

J.P. Morgan

In fact, the historical records show that a partnership did form, involving J.P. Morgan and the Rothschilds in 1895 to replenish the U.S. Treasury’s rapidly depleting gold reserves and prevent is bankruptcy from the inflationary practices of the Silver Democrats led by William Jennings Bryan.

This model extended to their banking operations. For decades, a Rothschild-led consortium functioned as the de facto “state banker” for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, operating as a quasi-monopoly. It is essential, however, to distinguish these documented business practices from the many unfounded conspiracy theories that surround the family.

One enduring myth claims the Rothschilds “control the global financial system,” including the U.S. Federal Reserve, an absurd claim repeatedly debunked by historians and fact-checkers and frequently rooted in antisemitic tropes. The Federal Reserve, for instance, is a publicly accountable institution with a presidentially appointed Board of Governors. Allegations of the Rothschilds orchestrating wars, assassinations, or global events lack evidentiary support. While their financial and economic influence was substantial, there is no credible evidence of secret global puppet-mastery.

In short, the Rothschilds actively pursued market dominance by fostering favorable, competition-limiting conditions, largely through oligopolies, but their story is not one of a singular, enduring monopoly like Standard Oil. Their historical power, while real, has been profoundly distorted by myth, making them perhaps the most famous targets of modern conspiracy lore.

I can personally speak to this distinction. In the 1980s, a member of the Rothschild family joined my company as an employee, initially without my knowledge. About a year later, the offer came: they wanted to buy in as a partner, not absorb my firm. That experience aligned perfectly with their preference for oligopoly over monopoly.

Later, a journalist interviewing me about the rise of hedge funds asked why I wasn’t primarily motivated by money, unlike many others. I explained that I saw two separate drivers: one measured success by accumulated wealth, the other by accomplishment. I was often told that when I entered the trading ring, fear showed in their eyes, the difference was clear. I relied on analysis for achievement; they sought only to manipulate markets for profit.

Over the years, I’ve encountered many high-net-worth clients. I would turn away those driven exclusively by money. To them, you’re only as good as your last trade. Those who were in it for the long haul and valued the reasoning behind decisions stood apart from the Gates-Rockefeller mold.

This is a real and well-documented phenomenon. While some wealthy individuals are genuinely motivated by a desire to do good, historians, psychologists, and sociologists agree that guilt, legacy anxiety, and reputational management are powerful forces behind much high-profile philanthropy. Some amass fortunes at any cost, then turn to charitable giving as a means of rehabilitating their past. I have been more interested in leaving behind Socrates as my accomplishment. 

The case against me was used to shield those bankers, as my phone conversations contained evidence of them attempting to recruit me into their illegal market manipulation scheme. The judge ordered all tapes to be turned over, but they were conveniently destroyed in the World Trade Center attack as part of a cover-up.

The politicians are now trying to redefine what victory means because they cannot admit the obvious. CNBC reported that Finnish President Alexander Stubb declared that Ukraine has already “won the war” against Russia because it preserved its independence and sovereignty. He said, “I say Ukraine has won,” while arguing that Russia advanced only 60 kilometers in four years. Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson joined the same fantasy, saying, “Russia is certainly not winning,” and claiming Ukraine is having “spectacular successes.” These people are playing word games while young men are still dying every day in trenches, cities are still being bombed, and Ukraine survives only because the West continues financing the war.

This is the propaganda that has kept this war going. Ukraine did not win. Ukraine was used. There is a very big difference. A country does not “win” when millions have fled, its economy has been destroyed, its population has been shattered, and its government must beg NATO for air defense, ammunition, budget support, and money to keep the state functioning. CNBC itself noted that Stubb still warned Kyiv urgently needs more NATO air defense. That alone exposes the contradiction. If Ukraine has won, why must it still plead for Patriot missiles, NATO membership, and endless Western financing?

Russia has not won either. NO ONE WINS DURING WARFARE! CSIS estimated Russia suffered roughly 1.4 million battlefield casualties through June 2026, including 400,000 to 450,000 deaths. That is a meat grinder. But the fact that Russia has suffered enormous losses does not magically mean Ukraine has won. War is not a football match where one side loses badly and the other is declared victorious by default. Ukraine has suffered staggering losses as well, with CSIS estimating 525,000 to 625,000 Ukrainian military casualties, including 125,000 to 150,000 dead. That is a generation destroyed.

The UN reported that since the 2022 full-scale invasion, at least 15,172 civilians were killed and 41,378 injured by February 2026, and the real figures are likely higher. Civilian casualties continued rising in 2026, with April marking the highest monthly toll since July 2025 and May becoming the deadliest month for civilians since April 2022. This is not victory. This is the complete failure of diplomacy, the failure of NATO expansion policy, the failure of European leadership, and the failure of anyone who believed war could be managed like a public relations campaign.

Ukraine has only held off Russia because the West turned it into a proxy war. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that the United States made available $195 billion in Ukraine-war-related spending by March 31, 2026. The EU Council states total EU support has reached €215.2 billion, including €77 billion in military support. Ukraine is now seeking another €6.6 billion from the EU’s peace fund while its own officials say total defense needs for the year are about €136 billion, with the domestic budget covering only about €53 billion. That is a state kept alive by foreign taxpayers.

Stubb is wrong because he is measuring survival as victory. Kristersson is wrong because “spectacular successes” do not change the strategic reality. Ukraine has launched impressive drone strikes and disrupted Russian energy infrastructure, but Russia is still fighting, still advancing in places, still bombing Ukrainian cities, and still forcing Kyiv to rely on NATO for survival. Ukraine may have prevented Russia from taking the whole country, but preventing total defeat is not the same as winning a war.

The neocons never cared how many Ukrainians died. If Ukraine were winning, there would be peace. If Russia were defeated, the war would be over. Instead, we have a devastated country, a shattered generation, an endless funding pipeline, and NATO leaders pretending that attrition is victory.

Spain’s latest position perfectly illustrates what has become one of the great contradictions within NATO. Madrid wants Europe to build its own military capable of acting independently of Washington, yet Spain has consistently resisted NATO’s higher defense spending targets while expecting the alliance to continue providing collective security.

Spain is again championing the idea of a European army while insisting it can meet its NATO obligations without matching the spending commitments accepted by virtually every other member. Europe cannot demand strategic independence while simultaneously asking someone else to pay the bill.

I have said for years that Europe has always dreamed of becoming an independent military power. Long before the war in Ukraine, Brussels was discussing a unified European army, common procurement, centralized command, and eventually a foreign policy independent of Washington. Every crisis has been used to advance that objective. The migration crisis expanded Brussels’ authority. COVID centralized health policy. The Ukraine war accelerated fiscal integration through joint borrowing and massive defense spending. Now the argument is that Europe needs its own army because it can no longer rely entirely on the United States. That has been the destination all along.

Ironically, Spain is making the argument while remaining one of NATO’s weakest contributors. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected the alliance’s new goal of spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, insisting Spain can fulfill its obligations while spending only about 2.1% of GDP. That position has frustrated allies who argue collective defense cannot function if some members continually expect others to shoulder the burden. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has repeatedly argued that Europe’s security environment now requires substantially greater investment across the alliance.

Europe must ultimately decide what it wants. If it genuinely intends to build an independent military capable of defending the continent without American leadership, then it must also accept the enormous financial burden that comes with that decision. A modern European army would require hundreds of billions of euros in new spending, integrated command structures, common procurement, expanded ammunition production, satellite capabilities, cyber warfare, missile defense, logistics, and nuclear deterrence. None of that comes cheaply.

The greatest long-term strategic challenge is no longer Europe. It is the Indo-Pacific. China is rapidly expanding its navy, modernizing its nuclear arsenal, increasing pressure on Taiwan, and competing directly with the United States across technology, manufacturing, shipping, and finance. America cannot simultaneously concentrate the majority of its military resources in Europe while preparing for a potential confrontation in Asia.

If Europe believes Russia represents its primary existential threat, then Europe should take primary responsibility for confronting Russia. That is neither anti-European nor isolationist. It is simply strategic reality. The United States should remain an ally, but not Europe’s permanent security guarantor. Washington has carried that burden since the end of the Second World War. Meanwhile, European governments repeatedly criticize American foreign policy while relying upon American aircraft carriers, intelligence, logistics, nuclear deterrence, and taxpayers whenever a genuine crisis emerges.

The post-1945 order is fragmenting. Nations are increasingly pursuing regional spheres of influence rather than a single American-led global system. Europe seeks strategic autonomy. China seeks dominance in Asia. Russia seeks influence over its near abroad. The United States must decide where its vital interests truly lie. If Europe wants its own army, then let Europe build it. America’s focus should increasingly shift toward maintaining stability in the Pacific, where the balance of power over the next several decades is far more likely to determine the future of the global economy than another generation of underwriting European defense.