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.

China is now conducting one of the largest ocean mapping operations in modern history, sending dozens of research vessels across the Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans to gather detailed data on the seabed, water temperature, salinity, and currents, and while this is being presented publicly as scientific research, naval experts are openly warning that this data is critical for submarine warfare against the United States and its allies.

The data being collected allows war submarines to navigate more effectively, avoid detection, and position themselves for both offensive and defensive operations, and more importantly it allows for the detection of enemy submarines because sound propagation in the ocean depends entirely on environmental conditions, which means whoever understands the ocean best controls the battlefield beneath it.

China has already deployed hundreds of sensors and is building what has been described as an underwater surveillance network, often referred to as an “Underwater Great Wall,” designed to monitor submarine movement and control access to key maritime regions. This is the same principle the United States used during the Cold War with its SOSUS system, but what we are seeing now is a far more advanced version integrated with modern technology.

The scale of this effort is what should concern policymakers. Reuters identified more than 40 research vessels operating over multiple years, systematically mapping strategic regions including waters near Taiwan, Guam, Japan, and the Malacca Strait, which is one of the most critical choke points for global trade. These are not random locations. These are future battle zones.

This ties directly into what I have been warning about regarding the shift into a war cycle. As confidence declines domestically, governments turn outward, and the preparation for war begins long before the first shot is fired. The Economic Confidence Model has been pointing to rising geopolitical tensions into this period, and what we are seeing now is the infrastructure of that conflict being built quietly beneath the surface.

Submarine warfare is fundamentally different from traditional warfare. It is about stealth, detection, and control of information. The side that controls the undersea environment controls communication cables, energy pipelines, and the movement of naval forces. Roughly 95% of global data travels through undersea cables, and those cables are vulnerable targets in any conflict scenario. This is why seabed warfare has become a central focus among major powers.

China is expanding its submarine fleet, including nuclear-powered submarines that provide greater range and endurance, and is integrating mapping data with surveillance systems to create a comprehensive picture of the underwater battlespace. The nation displayed their new submarines and underwater drones last year at its historic military parade where it wowed the world with its technological advances.

The United States has historically held the advantage in submarine warfare because of decades of accumulated knowledge about the ocean. That advantage is now being challenged directly. Mapping the ocean floor does not make headlines like missile tests or troop movements. But it is far more important because it determines who controls the environment in which submarines operate.

This is why the distinction between civilian and military research is meaningless in this context. China’s strategy of civil-military fusion means that scientific data is immediately available for military use. What is being collected today under the guise of research becomes tomorrow’s combat capability. Even Chinese researchers have openly stated their intention to transform scientific achievements into military applications.

The real issue is that this is happening while Western governments remain focused on short-term political concerns rather than long-term strategic positioning. Mapping the ocean floor may seem like a technical exercise, but it is in fact the foundation of modern naval warfare.The next conflict will not be decided solely by ships or aircraft. It will be decided by who understands the ocean best.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has now called for a nationwide energy-saving campaign, urging citizens to take shorter showers, reduce car usage, and adopt a list of government-defined conservation practices, while public institutions have been instructed to cut back on vehicle use and businesses with high energy consumption are being pressured to scale down operations, and Lee himself made clear the urgency by stating that the government must “mobilize all available resources” and act immediately rather than hesitate, which reveals how quickly policy shifts once a crisis narrative is established.

The justification is rooted in supply disruption tied to geopolitical tensions, particularly the near halt of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which South Korea depends on for roughly 70% of its crude imports, and despite holding approximately 190 million barrels in reserves, officials have acknowledged that those reserves may not last even two months under current demand conditions, which exposes just how fragile the system has become after years of policy decisions that prioritized ideology over stable supply.

If this were simply about energy, then the solution would be focused on restoring supply and stabilizing markets, yet instead the burden is immediately shifted onto the people, which is always the telltale sign that governments are no longer managing the economy but are instead attempting to manage behavior, and this is where the climate narrative becomes relevant because it provides the perfect justification for telling people how to live under the guise of necessity.

I have said many times that climate change policies are part of a broader trend where governments seek oversight and influence over individual behavior. As we saw in the US with the Inflation Reduction Act, governments will request billions if not trillions all in the name of saving the planet. Once you begin dictating how long someone can shower, when they can drive, or how much energy they are allowed to consume, you are looking at tyrannical control measures.

The pattern is identical to what we saw during COVID, where the initial response was framed as temporary and necessary, followed by escalating guidance that quickly turned into mandates when compliance did not meet expectations, and South Korea is already signaling this trajectory by describing current measures as voluntary while leaving the door open for stricter enforcement, which is always how these policies evolve.

When governments lose the ability to influence outcomes through traditional economic tools, they turn toward direct intervention in society, and energy becomes one of the most effective levers since it underpins transportation, housing, and basic daily function. This is not about the normalization of control, because once the authority to regulate behavior is established under one crisis, it can be expanded and applied under another, and history shows that governments rarely relinquish powers once they have been obtained.

What we are witnessing is not simply an energy-saving campaign, but part of a larger structural change in how governments interact with their populations, and that shift is being driven not by necessity alone, but by the opportunity that crises provide to expand control.

Rumors are beginning to circulate that the government’s next control tactic will be energy lockdowns. I would not put anything past government.

The Neocons running the Trump administration, as always, are a complete failure when it comes to thinking strategically about Iran or even the Middle East in general. Emails we receive from industry colleagues often mix statements with reality, and uncertainty about the future of a conflict is causing historic supply disruptions and upending industry planning. If Trump declares victory and pulls back the U.S. military, Iran would then say that it owns the Strait and declare victory. Rumors have circulated that Iran would then impose a tax on any ship passing through the Strait, perhaps resulting in a resumption of this crisis.

The overall U.S. and Israeli strategic objectives for Iran remain questionable. What I do know is that there was a private phone call in which Netanyahu manipulated Trump, stressing that he could “make history” by toppling the Ayatollah regime and taking revenge for Iranian efforts to assassinate him, which was central in Trump’s decision to strike when he did.

The classic Neocon claim that America can fight a markedly limited war, and engage in airplane targetry, has never worked even once, and it only demonstrates their dishonest lack of strategy to sell these endless wars. Claiming that naval protection of ships is absurd, for that would prove an impossible challenge and leave major vulnerabilities for the US Navy. That is no more invincible than Israel’s Iron Dome.

Trump’s threats to target Iran’s energy sector over the Strait of Hormuz would have only escalated tensions if Iran had not reopened the Strait in 48 hours. He had to back down and then claim he was in talks with Iran, which they instantly denied. I have some info that Trump has gone to Pakistan to present a 15-point peace proposal, which may sidestep Netanyahu. However, I have sources who have also said IRAN will no longer deal with Steve Witkoff, or Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both of whom are Jewish, and clearly a very serious affront to Iran and a major appearance of a conflict of interest. They have to be the worst possible people to negotiate with Iran, given the hatred that Netanyahu has publicly made clear about Iran.

Furthermore, the claims that the United States won the war against Iran within the first hour of military action and that the conflict quickly tilted in favor of the USA were also bravado. However, President Trump also said that American forces would remain deployed until the mission was complete. This has been proven to be just boastfulness and fake news. They also claimed that they destroyed most of Iran’s missile capacity. Yet, Iran launched waves of missiles at Israel on Tuesday, a day after U.S. President Trump said there had been “very good and productive” talks aiming at halting the war unleashed and unprovoked by the U.S. and Israel.

History is not going to come down in Trump’s favor. A year ago, in late March 2025, the U.S. Intelligence Community assessed that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” However, in a congressional hearing about that assessment, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also said, “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.” Trump instead used Netanyahu’s bogus claims. They never had a missile that could reach the United States, Europe, yes, but not the United States. That calls into question the Neocon/Netanyahu lies to start this war, just as the Weapons of Mass Destruction never existed in Iraq. They need to lie and create an immediate threat to circumvent Congress, and the last “war” was World War II. Everything else has been an abuse of executive power instigated by the Neocons. Trump is sending in troops, and Iran replied – come closer.

The Western press propaganda shows a ballistic missile being intercepted by Israel. What they fail to explain is that an Iranian Ballistic Missile costs $300,000 or less, while the Israeli interceptors cost $2-$3 million each. Israel typically launches at least 3 interceptors per Iranian missile, and some have said up to 6 interceptors have been fired. A Sling interceptor costs about $1 million each, and an Iron Dome interceptor costs $50,000 each. Iran is bleeding the West dry, and even Taiwan has expressed concern that the US is using its entire stockpile of cruise missiles, meaning they cannot be defended.

Reliable sources placed Iran as having over 3,000 ballistic missiles in preparation for this war with Israel, which they knew was coming. Some suspect that they could have increased that closer to 4,000. That does not even include the country’s burgeoning land-attack cruise missile force. Yet, Iran has fired over 400 ballistic missiles since the start of the current conflict, as of March 24th, which began on February 28th, 2026. The Western press claims that approximately 92% of these missiles have been intercepted by Israeli air defense systems.

The propaganda comes from the fact that on February 28th, Iran fired around 182 ballistic missiles in a single day. That number has since fallen to single digits. Drone attacks have followed a similar trajectory, dropping from over 200 to fewer than 20. Pete Hegseth claims Iran’s missile volume is “down 90%” and drone attacks have reduced by 95% that means they are running out. What we do know is that Iran has been stockpiling missiles for this endgame war. However, strategic assessments suggest Iran is playing it smart. Let the US and Israel run out of their missiles, and then they can flatten Israel for a final blow. Tehran appears to be adapting to the mounting reality of this war, and to survive, it must outlast its enemies.

This specific tactic is a variation of the classic “Fabian strategy”—wearing down an enemy through logistics and attrition—and its principles have been used effectively throughout history. This name goes back to the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) when Roman General Fabius Maximus avoided direct battle with Hannibal’s army, instead shadowing it and cutting its supply lines to exhaust the Carthaginian forces. The strategy neutralized Hannibal’s tactical advantages. When it was abandoned, Rome suffered the disastrous defeat at Cannae in 216BC.  The Roman Republic issued this gold stater in direct response to a national emergency. Hannibal crossed into Italy in 218BC, and the Roman gold stater was minted in the years that followed (circa 225–212 BC) to help finance the war effort.

It was during the monetary reform of 225BC that gold was also introduced to the Roman denominations for the first time. This gold stater incorporates the familiar Roman Janiform, while the reverse was made up of an oath-taking scene – Italian city-states swearing allegiance to Rome. These gold staters were extremely rare and did not form part of everyday circulation. Rather, these gold staters were used for very large transactions only and to impress the rest of the Italian city-states.

The propaganda is how they have degraded Iran militarily. This sounds similar to the story about Russia. Yet, Iran retains the ability to still send 8 waves of ballistic missiles targeting Israel to deplete their defenses, and still, they can attack ships from shore along a vast stretch of coastline in the wider region. The cost of that attack for Iran was perhaps $40 million, but the cost of defense to Israel was more like $1.5 billion in one incident.

The ONLY way to secure the Strait of Hormuz is to occupy it with boots on the ground. You will have to stage massive troops along the Strait for 50 miles on BOTH sides, plus you will have to penetrate inward 100 miles on each side. Then you will have to create a no-fly zone that must be patrolled and monitored 100% of the time. As long as Iran has the ability to impede the oil traffic and refinery production, plus 30% of the world’s fertilizer, they retain leverage that these so-called brilliant minds never took into account because they assumed that being the biggest military power secures victory.

Iran has anti-ship cruise missiles that could be fired off the back of a pickup truck that can go 100 miles. This is Iran’s Trump Card, and the Neocons, along with Netanyahu, painted an instant victory by simply killing the Ayatollah. They promise victory in just weeks, as they did in Iraq, which took 8 years.

Oil was roughly $73 right before the strikes on Iran started on February 28th, and even that price reflected an expectation of hostilities. The entire scheme of killing the Ayatollah is Netanyahu’s strategy, and it has never worked. The agreed aim of toppling Iran’s leaders and encouraging regime change has proven a complete failure, as it has in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think anyone who knows Iran must also understand that this religious regime has been quite good at survival. There was no Plan B for an energy crisis because the Neocons/Netanyahu assumed instant victory. There was no strategic plan for even a short-term war, let alone a long-term one. I have warned that the strategy would be for Russia and China to use this war as their Proxy to drain the resources of the United States, as the US and NATO have used Ukraine against Russia. They cried foul when Russia provided targeting info to Iran, yet the US has been providing targeting objectives inside Russia to Ukraine. Turn this into a proxy war, drain the USA of its missiles, then by tying up the USA in this Middle East War, that frees Russia to destroy Ukraine outright and China to take Taiwan. Iran has already said that it invited Russia and China to establish bases in Iran. The Saudis have cut a deal with China to build a $5 billion drone plant inside Saudi Arabia. The Neocons are losing the Middle East with their one-sided, arrogant policies.

The bottom line is, Iran knows the intention of Netanyahu, and his objective is regime change, the total destruction of the Islamic State. It makes perfect sense that they realize this proves that there will NEVER be peace with Israel, and that this is a war Netanyahu began. Demonstrating any hope of peace will be just a delusion, for there will be another attack as long as the regime remains in power. Both sides are digging in their heels and see this as the fulfillment of prophecy.

So, we must face reality. The ONLY way this war would be over soon is the total destruction of Iran and the end of the Islamic Republic. There is no possibility of long-term peace without regime change. Trump may be looking for an off-ramp, but he has been played. Thus, any claim that negotiations will settle this religious war is not possible, and the markets are reflecting that over the long term. Even the 10-year interest rates are starting to rise overall in anticipation of a protracted war. Trump can forget a Nobel Prize for peace.

Perhaps the most fascinating question I have written about before is whether about one-third of the population sees this as Armageddon. But what makes this worse is that essentially both sides see this as the final battle, though in different ways and with important caveats. Trump is clueless as to what he stepped into, for Netanyahu has religious fanaticism behind his decision-making.

Netanyahu / Israeli-American Religious Right

Netanyahu has framed the war against Iran in explicitly biblical and messianic terms, rallying a political constituency that sees regional devastation as a holy mandate. When he invokes “the eternity of Israel,” many see that he’s signaling to those who see end-times warfare as a cosmic necessity.

Most concretely, on March 3rd, Netanyahu invoked the Torah shortly after strikes began, comparing Iran to the biblical Amalekites — ancient enemies the Torah commands must be remembered and confronted. “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember – and we act.”

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”

Back in 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.”  More recently, in portions of his speech not included in the official English translation, Netanyahu drew on Purim theology, saying: “In those days of Purim, the lot was cast, and the wicked Haman fell along with it. Even today, on the holiday of Purim, the lot was cast, and the end of the evil regime will also come.” When an adversary is cast as the reincarnation of an ancient, irredeemable evil, we must take note that the normal rules of war and human rights tend to evaporate in the minds of those operating within that framework. This was why Netanyahu moved to kill the Ayatollah, something not sanctioned by the rules of war.

Since the assassination of the Ayatollah was the very first act, and there can be no argument that he was a military target, this violated every principle of international law, which clearly demonstrates nobody gives a shit about anymore. Historically, customary international law granted heads of state immunity from the jurisdiction of other states for geopolitical stability. However, this immunity is procedural (preventing arrest or prosecution in foreign courts) rather than substantive (making them inviolable targets). Many nations (including the United States via Executive Orders, though these have been interpreted differently by different administrations) prohibit assassination. If there is no ongoing armed conflict between the state conducting the killing and the state of the target, killing a foreign head of state is NOT sanctioned. It constitutes an act of unlawful aggression, a violation of sovereignty, and likely an extrajudicial killing. Since that was the first act of war, it was outrageous and unlawful.

On the American side, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth referred to Iran’s “prophetic Islamic delusions” at a Pentagon briefing, and it was reported that US military commanders were telling troops the war was a biblical step toward Armageddon. One soldier said his commander described Trump as “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran,” according to Al Jazeera.

Iran / Shia “Mahdist” Eschatology

The Iranian side has its own parallel end-times theology that is, if anything, it is far more institutionalized. The Iranian regime considers its nation chosen by Allah to prepare the world for the return of the Twelfth Imam — the Mahdi. They believe that catastrophic world chaos and the defeat of their enemies, especially Israel, are prerequisites for this event. The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, designated Iran the “Vanguard of the Mahdi.”

Iran’s interpretation of Mahdism requires adherents to take proactive steps to usher in the Mahdi — most notably by initiating an apocalyptic showdown with America and Israel, which are called the “greater” and “lesser” satans.  Hardline clerics affiliated with the IRGC cite hadiths claiming the Jewish state will be destroyed before the Mahdi’s arrival, and that Shia Muslims will be on the side of the war against Jews prior to the Mahdi’s reappearance.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is reportedly “obsessed with the end of days.” Some Iranian leaders appear convinced this war may be the Malhama al-Kubra — the great apocalyptic battle against Western powers described in Islamic traditions — which would mean, from their perspective, surrender is literally unthinkable. This is what I have been warning about.

Why This Matters — and the Important Caveats

Most ordinary people on both sides don’t see it this way. Many Iranians are secular or deeply opposed to the regime. Most Israelis support the war for security, not messianic, reasons. Religious eschatology is largely the ideology of ruling elites and hardline factions on both sides, NOT populations. Nevertheless, strategic interests still drive decisions. Netanyahu’s stated war goals — destroying Iran’s nuclear program, and achieving regime change — are conventional strategic aims. Many Israeli analysts say his real endgame is “a heavily diminished Iran,” and that he needs something he can declare a victory on, especially given his corruption trials and political pressures.

The danger of this apocalyptic framing is that it REMOVES all logic of compromise. These leaders are using theological beliefs to justify action, mobilise political opinion, and leverage support claiming they are doing God’s will. When both sides enlist God, the space for negotiated exits become virtually impossible!

So, in short, the end-times framing is real, active, and being used rhetorically and ideologically by leadership on both sides — but it coexists with, and is often a cover for, conventional geopolitical and personal interests.

Any temporary ceasefire, even, if possible, does not solve this religious war when both sides see this as the end times.

What is unfolding in the UK bond market right now is not about inflation alone, and it is not simply about interest rates. This is the type of move that signals a shift in confidence, and once that begins, it feeds directly into liquidity conditions across the entire financial system.

UK 10-year gilt yields have surged to roughly 4.9%, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis, while shorter-term yields have also spiked sharply as markets rapidly shifted from expecting rate cuts to pricing in multiple hikes. At the same time, government borrowing is coming in far worse than expected, with a £14.3 billion deficit in February alone and total borrowing still running above £125 billion for the fiscal year. The UK now plans to issue roughly £250 billion in new gilts while already facing over £100 billion in annual interest costs, and that is the part that begins to destabilize the system when yields rise.

The explanation being offered is inflation driven by rising energy prices as the Middle East conflict disrupts supply, with oil moving above $100 and even spiking toward $119. The Bank of England itself has acknowledged that this shock will push inflation higher again and that monetary policy cannot control the source of that inflation because it is coming from global energy markets.

When yields rise this quickly, it reflects a demand for higher compensation to hold that debt, and that is a capital flow issue. Investors are reassessing risk, and once that process begins, it does not remain contained to government bonds. This ties directly into what we just saw with the Bank of England quietly proposing changes to ensure banks can actually access liquidity during a crisis. They are preparing for rapid outflows, and at the same time the government is facing rising borrowing costs.

As yields rise, the consequences move through the economy very quickly. Mortgage rates rise, corporate borrowing costs increase, and refinancing becomes more difficult. The UK is already facing weak growth, and higher energy costs are reducing real income at the same time. This combination reduces consumption, increases stress on debt structures, and ultimately leads to rising defaults. That is how liquidity begins to contract.

The central bank is trapped in the middle of this. The Bank of England has held rates at 3.75% for now, but markets are already pricing in multiple increases because inflation is being driven by external forces. If they raise rates, they increase the pressure on government debt and the broader credit system. If they do not, inflation rises and confidence declines.

What makes the UK particularly vulnerable is its dependence on imported energy and its already elevated debt levels. When geopolitical events disrupt supply, the impact is immediate and severe, and capital begins to move accordingly. That is why the bond market is reacting so aggressively.

This is always how liquidity crises begin. It does not start with banks collapsing. It starts in the sovereign debt market. That is where confidence is priced first. Once government debt comes under pressure, it moves into the banking system, then into private credit, and finally into the real economy. Liquidity is not created by central banks. It is created by confidence, and when that confidence begins to decline, capital moves.

What is unfolding in Slovakia right now is being described as “fuel tourism,” but that term itself is misleading because it suggests something abnormal when in reality this is exactly how markets are supposed to function when governments distort pricing. When diesel is cheaper in one country than another, people will cross the border to buy it.

Slovakia is now moving to stop this behavior by allowing higher diesel prices for foreign drivers and limiting how much fuel can be purchased, after Prime Minister Robert Fico admitted that in some northern regions near Poland, gas stations had “literally dried up” due to cross-border demand. The government has introduced caps on fuel purchases and allowed differentiated pricing based on license plates.

The real cause is not Polish drivers but distorted energy pricing across Europe, which has been building for years and is now being exposed by geopolitical events. Slovakia had artificially lower diesel prices, while neighboring countries had higher prices, and that gap created the incentive for cross-border demand. When governments interfere with pricing, they create imbalances, and those imbalances always attract movement of capital or consumption.

The disruption of Russian crude flows through Ukraine has created supply stress across Central Europe, forcing countries like Slovakia to rely on reserves and alternative sources while prices remain volatile. This is not a localized issue but part of a broader fragmentation of energy supply chains across Europe driven by sanctions, war, and policy decisions that have removed stable supply in favor of politically acceptable alternatives.

What makes this situation more revealing is that Ukraine itself has played a direct role in exacerbating the problem. Zelensky moved to restrict the transit of Russian oil through Ukrainian pipelines, which directly impacted Slovakia and Hungary, both of which rely heavily on that supply through the Druzhba pipeline system. These countries were not aligned with cutting off their own energy lifeline, yet they were forced into the situation by Brussels. Instead of protecting the interests of its own member states, the European Union sided with Ukraine, effectively supporting policies that undermined the energy security of Slovakia and Hungary while expecting them to absorb the economic consequences.

This is where the internal contradictions of the European Union become clear. You cannot claim to operate as a unified economic bloc while allowing external political objectives to override the basic energy needs of member states. When Brussels supports policies that harm certain members for the sake of a broader geopolitical strategy, it exposes fractures within the system that will not remain contained.

What you are seeing now is the collision between political decisions and market reality. Instead of allowing prices to normalize and supply chains to stabilize, governments are trying to prevent the natural response of consumers by imposing restrictions. They are treating the symptom rather than the cause. When stations run out of fuel, it is not because consumers behaved irrationally but because pricing signals were distorted and supply was constrained.

This is exactly what I have said repeatedly about price controls. You cannot manipulate price without manipulating behavior. If you hold prices artificially low, you create excess demand, and when you try to suppress that demand, you create shortages.

Fuel tourism is simply the market correcting a pricing distortion. You cannot have a unified “European market” with fragmented pricing, and you cannot maintain free movement while imposing selective restrictions. Eventually, these contradictions surface.

The deeper issue is energy dependency. Europe has deliberately moved away from stable long-term energy relationships while increasing reliance on volatile global markets. When supply disruptions occur, there is no buffer, and prices become unstable.

Hungary also imposed fuel caps. Each country in Europe is attempting to manage the same problem in isolation, but they’re expected to act in unison. The entire concept of the euro is chaotic, and now we are witnessing a structural breakdown of coherent energy policy across Europe.

Despite her enthusiasm for sending other people's children to the frontlines of war, Ursula von der Leyen laughs at the idea of her own children serving in the military. ? pic.twitter.com/HcgyMK1AMI

— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) March 23, 2026

There is a video circulating of Ursula von der Leyen laughing at the idea of her own children serving in the military, and whether people choose to dismiss it or not, it reflects something far deeper than a single moment. It exposes the widening divide between those who advocate for war and those who are expected to fight it.

I have said repeatedly that the neocons pushing for conflict are never the ones who bear the consequences. They sit in offices far away from the conflict and treat war as if it were a board game. The bloodshed is of no bother to these warmongers.

Now we see Europe once again moving toward policies that expand their place in Ukraine’s war. Germany is even taking steps toward drafting women, framing it as equality, but it is not about equality. It is about manpower. They are prepared to wipe out an entire generation.

Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk had a conversation on the topic of drafting women back in 2024. “It’s totally immoral,” Carlson said on the subject. “And then I thought, ‘Wait a second, I thought we had a military and a police force — for that matter — in order to protect our women and children.’ That was the whole point of it. I mean, that’s why we have a military is to keep foreigners from hurting our women and children. That’s why we send men to die for their women, our women whom we revere and respect, and to the extent we’re willing to die for them. And so, for sending women to go fight our wars, that — first of all, that’s not, you know, that’s not a liberation movement. That’s a kind of slavery, and it’s totally wrong.”

Who are they pretending to protect at this point? Neocons are COWARDS. History was shaped by leaders like Julius Caesar or Napoleon who actually stood on the battlefield with their men, shared the risks, and led from the front rather than from behind a desk. Today’s political class expects others to fight, bleed, and die for decisions they will never physically face themselves, which is why the public increasingly sees them not as leaders but as cowards who demand sacrifice from others while exempting their own families from the very dangers they promote.

Governments are no longer concerned with public resistance. They are preparing policies based on their plans for a prolonged war, not consent. Von der Leyen’s response was public—imagine how they speak about us behind closed doors?

President Donald Trump on Monday said the United States has engaged in “very strong talks” with Iran and reached “major points of agreement” that could end the war, which Iranian officials have firmly denied.He then claimed that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner spoke with a leader in the Iranian regime on Sunday and would continue talks by phone on Monday.

“They want very much to make a deal. We’d like to make a deal, too.”

Trump added that if negotiations fall apart,  “we’ll just keep bombing our little hearts out.”

Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, on Monday said “no negotiations have been held with the US.” Iran’s foreign ministry also denied Trump’s claims about negotiations, according to Iranian state-run media.

In response to Trump’s threats, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said that the conflict and its impact on Hormuz has threatened global energy security as well as China’s oil supplies. He warned that Trump’s “use of force will only lead to a vicious cycle.” He added:

“If the war expands further and the situation deteriorates again, the entire region could be plunged into an uncontrollable situation.”

Beijing is a partner of Iran, which has been the victim of this war of aggression launched at the insistance of Netanyahu. China has, however, objected to Tehran’s retaliatory strikes against Gulf States housing US military bases, which has triggered a widening regional war and threatens a major energy and debt crisis.

The real concern is that Trump realized that bombing their energy sector would only result in a retaliation against the Gulf States taking out their production capacity and refineries. Doing that will send oil prices dramatically higher for this is not sinking a mere tanker which is no more than a rounding error in global finance. Take out the production leaves a structure crisis more akin to the ’70s.

Moreover, there is also a fear here is that Trump is not a man of his word and he has turned and bombed in the middle of negotiations. The concern here is that this is a story to delay any bombing in 48 hours without admitted that there was no negotiation raising fears that he could then just claim the negotiations fell apart and then bomb then next week.

The grandfather of Neocons after John McCain died, became Senator Lindsey Graham, who is now boasting about this war with Iran with zero comprehension of how this war impacts the world economy unlike that of Ukraine or even Taiwan. He has expressed support for the U.S. invasion and even seizing Iran’s Kharg Island. Of course, he speaks from the typical neocon arrogance that stems from their delusion that the US has the biggest military and that means they are invincible.

He has zero understanding of the world financial markets and never considers that the Dow Jones Industrials can still fall to the 43,900 level even by next week. Such a move could also send crude oil to $175 by next week.

PRIVATE BLOG – Gold & the Liquidity Crisis

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/