Posted originally on Aug 11, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Chinese electric vehicle sales in Europe reached a record high during the first five months of 2026. Chinese brandssold 171,800 battery-electric vehicles across the 18 largest Western European markets, raising their market share from 9.4% to 14.2% in one year. One out of every seven EVs sold in Western Europe now carries a Chinese brand, despite additional EU duties of up to 35.3% on top of the standard 10% automobile tariff.
Brussels claims China is “dumping” state-subsidized vehicles, and there is no question that Beijing supported its EV industry. Yet Europe subsidizes battery factories, charging stations, renewable energy, manufacturers, and the consumers purchasing these cars. Italy’s incentives temporarily reduced the Chinese Leapmotor T03 to as little as €5,000. The difference is that China used industrial policy to build an efficient supply chain, while Europe spent public money creating regulations, mandates, compliance departments, and carbon-accounting schemes.
According to the International Energy Agency, producing a battery-electric vehicle in China costs more than 30% less than producing one in an advanced economy. China manufactured 70% of the world’s electric cars in 2025 and more than 80% of its battery cells. It also controlled approximately 85% of cathode-active-material production and more than 90% of anode-active-material production. Europe is attempting to compete with China while purchasing essential components from the same Chinese supply chain it supposedly intends to defeat.
Chinese battery packs were about 35% cheaper than European packs in 2025. Rhodium Group estimates that manufacturing a small EV in China costs nearly $10,000 less than producing the equivalent vehicle in Germany. Brussels can impose more tariffs and hold another emergency summit, but it cannot legislate away a $10,000 structural disadvantage.
China also embraced lithium-iron-phosphate batteries while Western manufacturers remained committed to more expensive nickel-based chemistry. LFP batteries are cheaper, safer, more durable, and do not require nickel or cobalt. Chinese companies spent years improving the technology until LFP represented more than 55% of global EV battery deployment in 2025. Europe debated environmental standards while China refined the chemistry, built the factories, secured the materials, and lowered the cost.
European manufacturers attempted to protect premium profit margins while Brussels ordered consumers to abandon combustion engines. They believed people would pay €40,000 or €50,000 for an electric car because regulators intended to eliminate the affordable alternative. That arrogance created an opening for BYD, Geely, SAIC, Chery, Leapmotor, and Xpeng.
Chinese manufacturers offered more than 120 electric models in Europe during the first five months of 2026, compared with roughly 100 European models. Around 30% of battery-electric models in China had an entry price below $20,000 in 2025, while fewer than 10% of European BEVs were available below $30,000.
Energy remains the issue Brussels refuses to confront. Europe surrendered cheap Russian energy, closed nuclear plants, imposed carbon taxes, restricted fossil fuels, and attempted to run an industrial economy on intermittent power. China expanded coal, nuclear energy, ports, railways, refining, chemical processing, and battery production. Europe lectures China about emissions while importing Chinese vehicles and batteries manufactured with the dependable energy Europe declared unacceptable.
Brussels responded with tariffs because government punishes consumers when its own policies fail. BYD faces an additional duty of 17%, Geely 18.8%, and SAIC 35.3%. These penalties may buy time, but they do nothing to reduce European production costs, improve software, accelerate development, or rebuild the battery supply chain.
Chinese manufacturers are also moving production into Europe. BYD is establishing manufacturing in Hungary, allowing it to avoid duties on vehicles assembled inside the EU. Chinese companies can bring their production methods, battery relationships, and supply-chain discipline directly into Europe. Brussels will then discover that the problem was never simply where the vehicle was assembled, but the efficiency of the entire industrial system.
Europe cannot allow its automobile industry to disappear. The sector supports millions of jobs and provides expertise essential to steel, chemicals, robotics, semiconductors, machine tools, AI, and defense. Europe is already heavily dependent upon China for solar panels and lithium-ion batteries. Permitting the auto supply chain to vanish would turn Europe into a consumer market living on tourism, taxation, and debt.
The public is not betraying Europe by purchasing an affordable Chinese EV. Brussels betrayed Europe by making European manufacturing uneconomic and then demanding that consumers personally pay the difference. If BYD provides more equipment and technology for thousands less than Volkswagen, a working family has no obligation to impoverish itself to protect executives and politicians who refused to adapt.
China did not steal Europe’s automobile industry. Europe handed it over through arrogance, regulation, and the delusion that government could decree prosperity.
Posted originally on Aug 11, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Ukraine’s latest strike inside Russia confirms the direction this war has been moving for some time. Ukraine is no longer limiting its attacks to border regions, occupied territory, or Russian military positions near the front. It is deliberately taking the war into Russia’s economic and industrial interior.
Ukrainian drones struck Nizhnekamsk in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, roughly 1,200 kilometers or 750 miles from the Ukrainian border. Ukraine’s General Staff said it hit the TANECO oil refinery and started a fire. Russian authorities said the attack killed 13 people, including a child, and injured dozens more. The conflicting reports regarding the number injured range from 39 to 75, and the precise circumstances of the civilian casualties have not been independently established.
TANECO is not some minor roadside operation. It is one of Russia’s most advanced refineries and processed approximately 17 million metric tons of crude during 2024. Nizhnekamsk also contains another refinery and a major petrochemical complex. This was an attack on a critical industrial center that helps supply the Russian economy and, by extension, its war machine. The strike reportedly marked the third attack on the TANECO complex this summer. That alone demonstrates that these are not isolated raids. Ukraine has developed a sustained strategy intended to dismantle Russian refining, transportation, storage, and export capacity one facility at a time.
Ukraine cannot defeat Russia through a conventional war. Russia has more people, more territory, greater industrial depth, and more resources. Kyiv therefore shifted toward economic warfare, using inexpensive long-range drones to attack refineries, pipelines, ports, airfields, factories, warehouses, power systems, and logistics centers deep inside Russia.
In November 2024, I wrote about Ukraine’s use of American and British weapons to strike inside Russia and the corresponding change in Moscow’s nuclear doctrine. The danger was never confined to whether an ATACMS missile crossed an imaginary distance on a map. The strategic change was the decision to make Russia’s interior part of the battlefield.
By May 2026, the Russian government had gone so far as to authorize the central bank, Sberbank, and cash-collection organizations to deploy anti-drone systems and arm their personnel. Banks were effectively being told to defend themselves. This confirmed that the war had spread beyond military installations and into the economic infrastructure of the state.
Russia cannot place a sophisticated air-defense system beside every refinery, pipeline junction, railway yard, warehouse, bank, port, power plant, and factory across 11 time zones. Even Russia does not possess enough defenses to protect a country of that size against thousands of cheap drones approaching from different directions.
The Nizhnekamsk attack also exposes the false argument that deeper strikes will somehow force a quick peace without escalating the conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia’s war “will be felt more and more at their own home—in Russia.” That is not the language of de-escalation. It is an admission that Ukraine is attempting to turn Russian civilians against Putin by making the economic and human cost of war increasingly visible inside Russia itself.
The attacks may certainly cause Russia economic damage, but they can also produce the opposite political result. Bombing a population does not automatically cause it to overthrow its government. It can unify the people against the common enemy, as we saw in Iran years ago. Ukraine says it targets infrastructure supporting Russia’s military campaign. Russia says civilians and residential areas were struck. Once drones are flying into cities hundreds or thousands of miles from the front, civilian casualties become inevitable. Russia then uses those deaths to justify still larger attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Ukraine has already demonstrated that nearly no part of Russia can be assumed safe. In February 2026, Ukrainian drones struck the Kaleykino pumping station near Almetyevsk in Tatarstan, also around 1,200 kilometers from the border. Kaleykino is a critical junction within the Druzhba pipeline system, receiving and blending crude from Western Siberia and the Volga region before sending it toward Russian refineries and export routes.
At least six explosions were reported, followed by a major fire. Two storage tanks, each reportedly capable of holding 50,000 metric tons, were ignited. Russia’s pipeline monopoly Transneft subsequently reduced crude intake by approximately 250,000 barrels per day. The station itself has the capacity to handle around one million barrels per day.
The consequences extended beyond Russia. Druzhba remains important to Hungary and Slovakia, two EU and NATO countries that depend heavily on Russian crude because their refinery systems and pipeline connections cannot be replaced with slogans from Brussels. Ukraine’s attacks risk dragging neighboring countries into an energy confrontation with Kyiv and further splitting Europe over continued support for the war.
In June, Ukraine said it attacked the Lazarevo oil-pumping station in Russia’s Kirov region, approximately 1,300 kilometers from Ukrainian-held territory. That station serves the Surgut-Gorky-Polotsk pipeline, which moves Siberian oil westward toward Belarus. Once again, Ukraine was not targeting a tank near the battlefield. It was attacking the circulatory system of Russia’s energy economy.
Then came the July strike on the Omsk refinery in western Siberia, approximately 2,700 kilometers or 1,700 miles from Ukrainian-held territory. Omsk is Russia’s largest refinery, processing around 23 million metric tons annually, equivalent to approximately 460,000 barrels per day. Local Russian authorities confirmed that drones reached the industrial area. Ukraine said the attack caused a fire. Zelensky called it an “important achievement” and declared, “Siberia, too, is now within reach of Ukrainian precision strikes.”
That statement should have awakened every government in Europe. A war that began over eastern Ukraine had developed into attacks on Siberia. Yet NATO continues pretending that each new escalation can be contained and that Russia will never decide it has reached the final red line.
During the same July campaign, Ukraine said it struck the TANECO and TAIF-NK refineries in Tatarstan, the Saratov refinery, a military airfield at Borisoglebsk, a petroleum pumping station in Bashkortostan around 1,450 kilometers from Ukrainian-held territory, and nine oil tankers in the Sea of Azov. Ukrainian operations also reached the Russian Baltic ports of Ust-Luga and Vysotsk, two major oil-export facilities.
On August 6, drones caused a large fire at the Slavneft-YANOS refinery in Yaroslavl, which has an annual processing capacity of roughly 15 million metric tons, or about 300,000 barrels per day. Ukraine also confirmed an attack against the Bashneft-Novoil refinery in Bashkortostan. Days later, a warehouse belonging to Russian online retailer Wildberries burned in Yekaterinburg, more than 2,000 kilometers from the Ukrainian border.
The pattern is unmistakable. Oil production is attacked at the refinery. Transportation is attacked at pumping stations. Exports are attacked at ports and aboard tankers. Aviation is attacked at remote airfields. Industrial supplies are attacked inside factories and warehouses. Ukraine is attempting to impose economic attrition across the entire Russian state.
This strategy did not suddenly appear in 2026. In April 2024, Ukrainian drones struck facilities at Yelabuga and Nizhnekamsk in Tatarstan, more than 1,100 kilometers from Ukraine. Yelabuga housed a facility connected to the production of Shahed-type drones, while Nizhnekamsk contained the TANECO refinery. Those attacks demonstrated that Ukraine was already developing the capacity to penetrate far beyond Russia’s border defenses.
Operation Spiderweb in June 2025 made the strategy undeniable. Ukraine concealed small drones in trucks and prefabricated structures transported across Russia. The drones were launched near Russian airfields rather than flying the entire distance from Ukraine.
The operation targeted strategic aviation bases at Olenya, Belaya, Dyagilevo, and Ivanovo, among others. Ukraine initially claimed that 41 aircraft were hit. American officials offered a lower assessment, estimating that as many as 20 Russian military aircraft were struck and around 10 destroyed. Satellite imagery confirmed damage to valuable Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers used to fire missiles against Ukraine.
Belaya Air Base is located in Siberia, thousands of kilometers from Ukraine. The operation proved that distance no longer provides security when drones can be smuggled into a country, hidden near their targets, and activated remotely.
This is why Russia has begun spreading anti-drone nets, electronic-warfare systems, armed guards, and localized defensive units across infrastructure that was never designed to become part of a battlefield. Reports even show Russia placing additional anti-drone protection over submarines at its Pacific base on the Kamchatka Peninsula, more than 4,500 miles from the Ukrainian front.
Damaging Russian refineries has not forced Putin to withdraw. Operation Spiderweb did not end Russia’s missile campaign. Striking Siberia did not bring peace. Each spectacular operation has instead been followed by additional Russian attacks, tighter internal controls, more militarization, and a deeper commitment by both governments to continue the war.
There is also a dangerous political calculation behind these attacks. Ukrainian officials believe that economic hardship and civilian fear will turn the Russian population against Putin. Yet Putin faces pressure from the opposite direction as well. Russian hardliners argue that he has been too restrained and that Moscow should retaliate more aggressively against Ukrainian government centers, transportation networks, energy infrastructure, and the Western systems enabling these strikes.
Russia has already lowered the threshold in its nuclear doctrine for responding to conventional attacks supported by nuclear powers. This does not mean Russia will automatically use a nuclear weapon, but it does mean NATO governments are recklessly testing a doctrine they did not write and cannot control.
The West supplies Ukraine with money, intelligence, satellite imagery, targeting assistance, components, and weapons. Western politicians then insist they are not participants in the war. Russia does not necessarily accept that legal fiction. If Western intelligence helps identify a target and a Ukrainian system attacks it, Moscow may eventually treat the sponsor and the operator as part of the same military structure.
The War Cycle for 2026 never suggested peace. It indicated rising volatility and expansion, with extremes in both directions. There may be negotiations, ceasefires, or temporary gestures toward settlement, followed by renewed aggression. That is precisely what we are witnessing. Every attempt at diplomacy is undermined by another strike, retaliation, arms package, territorial demand, or political promise that neither side can accept.
No one is asking where this ends. That has been the fatal mistake from the beginning.
Posted originally on Aug 11, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Iran International reports that the average advertised monthly rent in Tehran has climbed to 723 million rials, or about $389 at the open-market exchange rate. Many Iranian workers earn only 200 million to 250 million rials per month, equivalent to $108 to $134. A worker must now surrender nearly three months of wages to pay one month of rent. That is the destruction of an entire population’s standard of living.
Rents have reportedly risen between 70% and 100% in parts of Tehran, despite the government’s 25% ceiling. Even Alireza Novin, a member of parliament’s construction committee, admitted that “the 25% rent increase is clearly not being observed.”
The IMF now projects that Iran’s economy will contract 5.4% in 2026, the worst annual decline in decades. Consumer-price inflation is projected to reach 68.9%. Estimates indicate that unemployment rose from 7.6% in the first quarter to 9.1% in the second, while industrial destruction and economic disruption may have eliminated around one million jobs.
The rial traded near 70 to the dollar at the time of the 1979 revolution. Iran International’s housing calculations now use an open-market rate of 1.86 million rials to the dollar. Iran’s government may issue a 10 million-rial banknote or remove zeros from the currency, but changing the numbers printed on the paper cannot restore the savings that were destroyed.
Food and beverages have risen 113.8% from the previous year, according to figures attributed to the Statistical Center of Iran. Bread and cereals increased 140%. Red meat and poultry rose 135%. Dairy products climbed 116.8%, while oils and fats surged 219%. Fruits and nuts increased more than 104%.
Rural inflation has reportedly reached 86.5%, compared with 69.3% in urban areas. The poorest citizens are being hit hardest because food, transportation, and household necessities consume nearly all their income. They do not own stocks, foreign property, or offshore bank accounts. Their entire wealth is their labor, and the government has destroyed the value of that labor.
Real income per person has fallen by approximately 47%, pushing the average Iranian’s purchasing power back toward levels last seen in the late 1990s. Poverty is estimated to affect about 36% of the population nationwide and as much as 50% in deprived regions. Iran is creating millions of working poor—people who still have jobs but can no longer afford to live.
The diet of the Iranian people is shrinking. Red meat supply has reportedly fallen to approximately 623,000 metric tons, about 20% below 2024 and nearly 39% below its 2010 level. Dairy consumption has declined to around 40 kilograms per person, roughly one-third of the global average. Families are not changing their diets for health reasons. They are abandoning meat and dairy because they cannot afford them.
Grocery workers have reported increasing theft of bread, cheese, butter, and meat. Medical patients are postponing treatment because they cannot afford medication. People are moving back in with their parents, sharing apartments with strangers, or fleeing Tehran for poorer outskirts.
Tindex estimates that the average advertised home in Tehran now costs more than 240 billion rials. A worker earning 250 million rials per month would need 80 years of gross wages to reach that price, assuming he never spent anything on food, rent, clothing, or taxes. Homeownership has become mathematically impossible for much of the population.
The war turned Iran’s prolonged decline into an active crisis. Factories, power plants, railways, airports, bridges, and industrial facilities have been damaged. Oil exports, the financial lifeline of the government, have reportedly fallen as much as 70% during periods of severe disruption. Some estimates place the economic cost of the blockade near $435 million per day.
The cumulative cost of the war has been estimated at around $144 billion, equivalent to roughly 40% of Iran’s prewar GDP. Whether every estimate proves exact is secondary to what Iranians can see: businesses closing, wages vanishing, investment stopping, and entire industries struggling to obtain materials or transport goods.
The government has compounded the damage by restricting the internet. Iran’s own communications ministry estimated that shutdowns cost the economy around 5 trillion rials per day at the official exchange rate. Other estimates placed the direct and indirect losses much higher. Online businesses lost customers, workers lost income, and private commerce was sacrificed so the state could suppress information.
Meanwhile, Iran’s rulers continue spending on missiles, proxies, internal surveillance, and political repression. The people are told to sacrifice for the revolution while those connected to the state preserve access to hard currency, property, and protected markets. The ruling class rarely eats the consequences of its policies. The people do.
Yet Washington and Israel should not celebrate this misery. Sanctions and blockades do not starve political elites first. Officials control state resources, smuggling networks, and foreign currency. It is the mother buying bread, the factory worker searching for an apartment, and the pensioner choosing between food and medicine who pays.
The neocons believe that enough bombing and deprivation will force Iran to surrender and produce a friendly democracy. They made the same argument in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. Economic misery can produce revolution, but it can also produce repression, military rule, fragmentation, or civil war.
A government can manipulate inflation statistics and threaten landlords. It cannot hide an empty refrigerator or convince a worker that three months of wages should equal one month of rent. Many have turned to military service for survival, but what happens when the government cannot pay its troops? Iran’s people are watching their economy unravel in real time. Their wages have become scraps of paper, their savings have disappeared, and the idea of building a future is slipping beyond reach.
Posted originally on Aug 10, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
This report is part of the War Cycle looking at the mover and shakers who are determined to send the West into war for their personal glory. The Neocons are still fighting the Cold War and the fact that Communism Collapsed is irrelevant. They didn’t get to shoot anybody so to them, the war is not over. With the Russian elections for the Duma coming in September and Zelensky stepping up attack inside Russia public admitting that he is trying to influence the Russian elections, this is the great miscalculation that is more likely to hurl the West into that fateful World War III that destroys not just Europe, but Western Culture all for personal hatreds. Zelensky has refused to allow any election because he is a poppet of the Neocons and would be voted out of power in the blink of an eye. I warned in 2013 that Ukraine would be where it all begins. When Zelensky took the presidency, I warned that sources were all saying this was the guy hand-picked to start World War III. He has even publicly stated that World War III has begun.
This is a Special Report Normally $500, but because of its importance for a broader audience, we have reduced it to
Posted originally on Aug 10, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Governments do not spend years planning nationwide crisis simulations for events they consider impossible. They prepare for scenarios they increasingly believe are plausible. That is what caught my attention about the latest report from Politico Europe. France is reportedly organizing a nationwide tabletop exercise in the second half of 2027 to simulate a catastrophic electrical blackout involving the military, multiple ministries, and the operators of the national power grid. The purpose is to determine how long it would take to restore electricity while maintaining the continuity of the state itself.
This is no longer merely about restoring electricity. The planning documents reportedly focus on preserving “the continuity of the state” and ensuring access to generators, medicines, telecommunications equipment, emergency supplies, law enforcement equipment, and even critical raw materials. Governments only begin making lists like that when they are thinking beyond a temporary inconvenience and toward systemic disruption.
Officials point to several justifications. They cite the massive Spain-Portugal blackout of 2025, cyberattacks against European infrastructure, record-breaking heat, devastating wildfires, and the growing vulnerability of modern electrical grids. Every one of those concerns is legitimate on its own. The problem is that when you begin stacking one crisis upon another, governments naturally begin expanding emergency powers and contingency planning.
People have a dangerous habit of assuming the lights will always come back on. Modern civilization exists because electricity exists. Remove power for several days and grocery stores cannot replenish food. Fuel pumps stop operating. Telecommunications become unreliable. Banking systems slow or cease functioning. ATMs run dry. Water treatment plants struggle. Hospitals switch to backup generators that themselves depend on fuel deliveries. Supply chains that operate with almost no inventory begin breaking down in a matter of days.
Europe has spent years aggressively restructuring its energy system while simultaneously increasing dependence upon digital infrastructure. The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it also becomes. Every layer of technology creates another potential point of failure. Whether the cause is cyber warfare, sabotage, cascading technical failures, terrorism, or extreme weather, the result is the same. Society quickly discovers that modern life is built upon assumptions of uninterrupted power.
What interests me most is the timing. Why 2027? Governments generally react to past crises. They seldom dedicate enormous resources preparing for hypothetical national emergencies unless they believe the probability is no longer remote. France is not simply planning another emergency exercise. According to the reporting, this scenario involves the military, energy operators, ministries, and national resilience planners asking how the French state itself would continue functioning during a prolonged nationwide blackout. That is a very different exercise than preparing for a hurricane or localized storm.
Perhaps one should also ask why so many Western governments are simultaneously expanding civil defense programs, encouraging emergency stockpiles, strengthening critical infrastructure planning, and discussing resilience with increasing urgency. These initiatives are emerging across Europe, not in isolation.
Governments rarely invest this much time preparing for events they consider unlikely. Perhaps the most important question is not whether France can survive a blackout simulation. The real question is why European governments increasingly believe these scenarios deserve national rehearsals. When governments begin preparing for the unimaginable, history suggests the unimaginable has often moved much closer than the public realizes.
Posted originally on Aug 10, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The standard explanation is that China is buying gold because it wants to destroy the dollar. That makes a dramatic headline, but it confuses diversification with replacement and political ambition with market reality. The People’s Bank of China increased its reported gold reserves by 640,000 fine troy ounces in July, nearly 20 metric tons. Holdings rose from 75.44 million to 76.08 million ounces, marking the largest monthly addition since October 2023 and extending the buying campaign to a twenty-first consecutive month.
The pace has accelerated from 160,000 ounces in March to 480,000 in June and 640,000 in July. China’s gold reserves were valued at $306.35 billion at the end of July, but this remains only a fraction of the country’s total reserve position.
If Beijing believed the dollar was about to disappear, why would it continue to maintain trillions of dollars in foreign-exchange reserves and operate within a world trading system still financed largely in dollars? China is not preparing for a theatrical dollar collapse. It is preparing for a world in which reserves can be frozen, payment systems can be weaponized, and sovereign debt can no longer be treated as politically neutral.
Gold is not another government’s liability, it cannot be defaulted upon by its issuer, and physical bullion held within national control cannot be electronically frozen by a foreign treasury department.
The seizure of Russian assets changed the calculation for every central bank outside the Western alliance. China would be negligent if it ignored that precedent. Beijing has watched Washington restrict access to technology, impose financial sanctions, pressure international banks, and use the dollar-based clearing system as an instrument of foreign policy.
This does not mean China is buying gold because it expects to launch a war tomorrow. It means the political risk attached to foreign reserve assets has increased, and central banks respond to changes in risk long before politicians publicly admit that the rules have changed.
Gold provides insurance against confiscation and monetary fragmentation, but insurance is not the same thing as an operational currency. China still needs dollar liquidity to manage trade, stabilize the yuan, support domestic institutions, and navigate periods of international panic.
This is the part the dollar-collapse crowd refuses to understand. A country can reduce its exposure to U.S. sovereign debt while the dollar simultaneously strengthens against other currencies. Capital does not choose between perfection and failure. It chooses among available alternatives.
During a global crisis, private capital can flee Europe, Japan, emerging markets, and China itself while moving into dollars and gold at the same time. The dollar benefits from liquidity, collateral demand, dollar-denominated obligations, and the depth of American financial markets, while gold benefits from declining confidence in governments and the political neutrality of sovereign reserves.
There is no contradiction. The dollar is the principal currency of the existing financial system, while gold is insurance against the abuse or eventual failure of that system. Nor does China’s accumulation prove that the yuan is ready to replace the dollar. A reserve currency requires more than trade agreements and political declarations. It requires deep and accessible capital markets, reliable convertibility, enforceable property rights, transparent institutions, and confidence that foreign capital can enter and leave without becoming trapped by government decree.
China faces a heavily indebted property sector, pressure on local-government finances, weak domestic confidence, and recurring private demand to move capital abroad. Official gold purchases should not be confused with a vote of confidence in China’s domestic economy. The state is acquiring an external reserve asset while many private holders remain concerned about the yuan, property values, government policy, and the freedom to move capital.
China may buy gold while Chinese private capital seeks dollars, foreign real estate, overseas equities, or any structure that reduces exposure to domestic controls. We should also stop pretending that every increase in central-bank gold holdings automatically drives the market in a straight line. Gold can correct even while China is buying, just as it can rise when official purchases slow.
China’s purchases confirm an existing shift in reserve management that accelerated after sanctions transformed sovereign reserves into political instruments. They do not prove that the dollar will vanish, that the yuan will replace it, or that gold must rise every month.
The weaponization of the dollar encourages nations to accumulate gold while the absence of a credible replacement preserves the dollar’s central role. China is prepared; the models consistently indicate that once the last domino falls, China will be on top.
Posted originally on Aug 10, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The July employment report is not the beginning of a new cycle, nor is it some sudden deterioration that appeared without warning. The labor market has been weakening beneath the surface for quite some time, while the headline numbers and constant revisions allowed the financial press to maintain the illusion of resilience.
Nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000 in July, compared with expectations for an increase of approximately 80,000. Yet the more important figure is not July alone, for May and June were revised downward by a combined 103,000 jobs, reducing average employment growth over the past three months to only 20,000 per month. This is precisely why the initial government number should never be treated as economic truth, since the politically convenient headline receives all the attention while the revisions appear later when the public has already moved on.
The unemployment rate declined from 4.2% to 4.1%, but this does not demonstrate an improving labor market. Labor participation has declined by 0.7 percentage point since January, while the employment-to-population ratio has fallen by 0.5 point, confirming that people are leaving the labor force rather than finding productive employment. The unemployment rate can decline even while the actual employment situation deteriorates when there are fewer labor participants.
Local government education lost 50,000 positions, retail trade lost 19,000, and financial activities lost another 14,000. Health care continued to add jobs, but even there the pace slowed, while manufacturing, construction, information, professional services, transportation, and leisure showed little expansion.
The decline in financial employment is particularly important because that sector has lost 121,000 jobs since May 2025. This reflects a contraction in credit-related activity and rising financing costs, which cannot be separated from the growing sovereign-debt problem.
Wall Street will naturally interpret this report as a reason for the Federal Reserve to abandon a possible September rate increase. That interpretation confuses monetary policy with the business cycle, for lower rates cannot compel businesses to hire when confidence has collapsed, nor can they reverse taxation, regulation, geopolitical uncertainty, or declining consumer purchasing power. If lower interest rates alone created prosperity, Europe and Japan would have produced the strongest economic expansions in modern history.
Wages increased only two cents in July and 3.2% from a year earlier, which is no reprieve for workers grappling with the ever-rising cost of living. Inflation does not need to accelerate every month to destroy purchasing power, because prices that have already risen do not magically return to their previous levels when the official inflation rate slows.
The Federal Reserve is trapped between weakening employment and inflation that remains above its stated target, but this is not merely a monetary policy problem. It is the consequence of fiscal mismanagement, excessive government borrowing, geopolitical instability, and the transfer of capital away from productive private investment toward government debt and politically directed spending. Cutting rates may temporarily support financial assets, but it will not restore confidence in the real economy.
The July report merely confirms what hiring plans, job openings, falling quits, downward payroll revisions, and deteriorating participation have been warning for months. The employment situation has not suddenly turned negative, for the trend was already in motion, and the latest data simply make it more difficult for the government and the financial press to deny what the private sector has understood for some time.
Posted originally on Aug 9, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
I warned previously that the migration policy of open boarders would become the core issue that would eventually break the EU into pieces. The indigenous people are the minority in most major cities. But the migrants that were allowed in were NOT there to assimulate and blend into European culture. Instead, they brought their own culture with them to effectively transform Europe.
EU migration policy has now raised the risk of violent civil unrest, which could on the one hand appear as a civil war, it has created a severe political crisis that is deeply dividing the bloc. The evidence points to a breakdown of unity, with member states turning on each other and the far-right using the issue to gain power. This all began with Merkel being a hard-ass against bailing out Greece when the criticism of her was building. She then wanted to personally reverse her own image and opened the gates to the Syrian Refugees. That began the downfall of the EU all for her personal vanity.
A Crisis of Unity, Not Civil War The core issue isn’t internal armed conflict of one state against another but a “widening rift” between EU member states over how to handle migration. Recent events, such as the migrant surge into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, have exposed these fractures.
Instead of showing solidarity, some EU nations blamed Spain for the crisis. Italy even temporarily suspended its open-border Schengen agreement with Spain, and 22 out of 27 EU countries backed a call for firmer action, implicitly criticizing Spain’s approach.
This migration is no longer just an economic or social issue; it has become a sharp political weapon of division. This was demonstrated in the immediate aftermath of the Ceuta crisis, where far-right parties used the event to attack the Spanish government and call for stricter measures.
The severe political fallout is widely attributed to how migration policy has been politicized and used as a tool for electoral gain. The surge in support for far-right parties has clearly eroded the bloc’s capacity for coordinated action. Their success on anti-immigration platforms has forced more centrist parties to adopt similar, tougher stances to retain voters. To the outrage of Brussels, their failed policies and vision have given rock-solid support in Germany to AFD.
Worse still, they have adopted a policy of interfering in elections from Romania and Italy to Hungary and Germany and we should not forget their shenanigans to prevent Scotland from separating from England. As will any government entity, they will violate whatever law when it come to a threat against their power. After the EU interfered in Hungary to remove Orban, Ursula von der Leyen sought to completely revise the foundation of the EU and repeal the law of the land to retain absolute power.
Ursula von der Leyen, an unelected bureaucrat who has never stood for any public election, has the audacity to call Putin a dictator who at least stands for an election. After she got rid of Viktor Orban, she then has sought to create an absolute dictatorship in Europe. She is calling now for effectively that no single country should block the EU again. She had completely reversed the promise of a majority vote to prevent any single country from dominating another.
What von der Leyen has proposed in response to the situation is moving towards qualified majority voting on foreign policy matters, a reform that would prevent any single nation from vetoing EU decisions. Hungary stood against war with Russia, which the EU is determined to create, but also against the massive influx of migrats that is undermining the very culture of Europe.
Whatever decision she has made has been to destroy European culture. The EU has invested heavily in “externalizing” its borders, relying on third countries like Morocco to stop migrants before they reach Europe. However, this backfired in Ceuta, where it was suggested Morocco may have allowed the surge as leverage in a diplomatic dispute, creating a “new problem” where Europe’s “gatekeeper” holds significant influence.
The EU’s new migration pact, designed to share responsibility, is struggling before it’s even fully implemented. A central part of the plan relies on member states voluntarily relocating at least 30,000 asylum seekers. However, Poland, Austria, Belgium, and Sweden have already refused to accept any, signaling a “painful” path ahead. This deep resistance to burden-sharing is a core reason the policy has become so divisive.
In truth, the EU’s migration policy has backfired in a political sense, leading to deep divisions, a rise in nationalist sentiment, and a crisis of confidence in European solidarity. While the term “civil war” typically applies to an internal political divide like the English or American civil war, it is not accurate for this situation. Here the greater risk is a violent outbreak between the migrants and the indigenous people of Europe. That took place in Philadelphia with the migration of Irish during an economic decline taking jobs from Americans. This is the risk now from 2026 into 2928.
I have warned that this is not a unique forecast. Roman Emperor Valens(364-378AD) let the Goths enter the Roman Empire assuming they would defend Rome against the advancing Huns. He trained the Goths in Roman military tactics, and because they were of a completely different culture, they did NOT assimalate into Roman society. The Goths then turned on the Romans as they were really a separate class in retaliation. Valens met his death on August 9th, 378 AD, in one of the greatest military catastrophes ever suffered by the Roman Legions – the Battle of Aadrianopolis. Hos body was never found. This is the risk that Europe faces – internal conflict between cultures.
The political fallout from the migrant crisis is most visible in how it’s turning EU member states against each other, creating a toxic atmosphere where national interests are consistently prioritized over European solidarity. This will eventually lead to the breakup of the EU as early as 2029 and most certainly it will NOT exist beyond 2032.
Posted originally on Aug 8, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
I have reported that Trump was mislead into this unwinnable war with Iran, which has been planning for it since 1979. They had amassed the largest stockpile of balistic missiles and understood the way to fight Israel was to overwhelm their dome defense. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is going to run for reelection in October. However, I would not put it past him to pull a Zelensky to retain power. He has implied that he may be considering taking unilateral action to prolong a costly and unwinnable war with Iran, even as Washington and Tehran appear to be close to an interim deal to open the Strait of Hormuz. Trump keeps trying to exit and Netanyahu tries to keep the US in to fund his war.
Iran’s investment in ballistic missiles was a deliberate strategic choice, made in the context of its long-standing tensions with the U.S. and Israel. This decision was driven by the understanding that the way to defeat Israel was to overwhelm its defense and that would take a vast supply to compel Israel to eventually run out of missiles.
There is no evidence that Netanyahu has EVER pursued a peace agreement with Iran. Instead, his decades-long career has been defined by consistent, vocal, and active opposition to diplomatic engagement with Tehran, favoring military and economic pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I have stated many times that the primary directive of a Neocon is to reject any communication with a deemed enemy. There is NEVER a desire of peace. With both sides at each other’s throats, there is no solution militarily. Netanyahu is a threat to Israel the same as Zelensky is a threat to Ukraine. Neither consider the civilians who are killed in the process.
Nonetheless, the shekel reached its weakest point in modern history in May 2002, when the exchange rate hit 4.916 ILS per 1 USD. Since that peak, the currency has generally strengthened. By 2025, the average annual exchange rate was around 3.77 ILS/USD, and in 2026 it has traded significantly lower (stronger shekel), around 2.80-3.00 ILS/USD. This has been driven in part due to the High-Tech and Foreign Investment factors (Capital Flow). Israel has a powerful high-tech sector that attracts massive foreign investment. A significant portion of this investment comes from the US, creating constant demand for shekels.
Then there is the “Nasdaq Effect” and Institutional Hedging. Israeli pension funds and institutional investors hold vast portfolios of US stocks, particularly in technology. To manage currency risk, they engage in “hedging” thereby selling dollars and buying shekels. When US markets, especially the tech-heavy Nasdaq, rise, the value of these portfolios increases, prompting them to buy even more shekels to rebalance their currency exposure. This creates strong, self-reinforcing demand for the local currency.
The Bank of Israel has maintained relatively high interest rates to control inflation. It has been these higher interest rates that have made shekel-denominated assets more attractive to investors, increasing demand for the currency.
The prospects for war introduce geopolitics and that has introduced the “Risk Premium.” The shekel’s trajectory has often been influenced by geopolitics. For instance, the ceasefire following the October 2023 conflicts reduced the “Risk Premium” on Israeli assets, encouraging capital to return and supporting the shekel. However, our computer is warning that renewed geopolitical tensions, such as an escalation with Iran, could cause a sudden “flight to safety” and weaken the shekel.
Consequently, these factors have combined to strength the the shekel for 24 years overall. The Bank of Israel has historically intervened to smooth out extreme volatility, but it appears to be refraining from actively trying to reverse the structural trend of a strong shekel, preferring to let market forces play out. This is where we see things are starting to shift in 2027 and it appears we can see a major shift in trend post-2028.
Netanyahu’s Opposition to the 2015 Nuclear Deal Netanyahu was vehemently opposed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015. In what was seen as a direct challenge to the U.S. president, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from congressional Republicans to address a joint session of Congress, where he publicly argued the deal would not block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon but would instead pave the way for it . He spent years campaigning against the agreement and welcomed President Trump’s decision to withdraw from it in 2018 .
Rejection of Any Diplomacy & Advocating Confrontation & Destruction of Iran The evidence shows that Netanyahu’s strategy has consistently been to advocate for maximum pressure and military action over negotiation. In a video after launching a joint war with the U.S. against Iran in 2025, Netanyahu stated the attack “allows us to do what I have been hoping to do for 40 years.” His fixation on Iran as an existential threat has always been his central theme of his political identity.
He reportedly convinced President Trump to rejoin the conflict in June 2025, framing it as a chance to achieve what past administrations had not. As recently as July 2026, Netanyahu expressed skepticism about a potential deal with Iran and opposes any peace deal. When President Trump began negotiating a peace agreement with Iran in 2026, reports indicate Netanyahu actively tried to prevent it. It was reported that Netanyahu planned massive strikes on Iranian energy and infrastructure to derail negotiations but was stopped by President Trump. While Netanyahu did not publicly criticize the deal, admitting to “disagreements” with Trump , he acknowledged he could not stop it from being signed.
Netanyahu’s approach has consistently been one of opposition to diplomatic engagement and a preference for confronting Iran through military and economic pressure. Iran is well aware of this personal animosity and had built an enormous arsenal of balistic missiles. This strategy resulted in Iran holding what is described as the largest ballistic missile stockpile in the Middle East, with estimates ranging from 2,500 to 6,000 missiles of various types.
Preparation for Conflict Beyond the buildup, there is clear evidence that Iran prepared a military plan for a potential U.S. or Israeli attack. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that a military action plan was approved by the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to be executed in the event of an attack. This suggests a high level of preparation for a scenario that ultimately came to pass. Military experts also affirmed that Iran had made significant preparations for a potential conflict with the U.S. and Israel.
This US-Iran war that broke out on February 28 put Iran’s massive missile stockpile to the test. While initial strikes damaged the arsenal, Iran’s ability to preserve and potentially rebuild its capabilities is a major part of the story. U.S. sources initially claimed that up to one-third of the arsenal was destroyed early in the conflict. However, subsequent U.S. intelligence assessments indicated that Iran retained about 70% of its prewar missile stockpile. Reports suggest that Iran used a truce to restore access to damaged underground facilities and may have replenished its stockpile with Russian-made missiles.
Despite significant strikes on its infrastructure, Iran is assessed to have regained operational access to the vast majority of its underground missile sites along the strategic Strait of Hormuz. This indicates that while the war has taken a toll, Iran’s underlying missile infrastructure has proven resilient.
V
In short, Iran’s massive missile buildup appears to be the product of a long-term definitive strategy to prepare for the possibility of a major war with the US and Israel. While the available information does not state the buildup was a plan for the specific war, the presence of a pre-approved military response plan and the subsequent use of these missiles in the conflict demonstrates a clear and sustained level of preparation.
WILL CHINA & RUSSIA STAND SILENT IS ISRAEL SEEK TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF IRAN?
China and Russia have not indicated they would allow Israel to “totally destroy” Iran. On the contrary, they have actively opposed the military strikes and are calling for a ceasefire and a return to diplomatic negotiations. Allowing the “total destruction” of Iran would fundamentally contradict China and Russia’s stated policies. Their actions are aimed at preventing further escalation, which suggests they would not only NOT allow such a scenario but would actively work against it through diplomatic channels. As the Shanghai municipal government’s information office stated, claims that China has “abandoned Iran” are “narratives that not only distort the facts.”
From a realistic perspective, there is NO WAY either Russia or China would allow Netanyahu’s end-game to become reality. It seems that Netanyahu has the same delusions as Zelensky who seeks the destruction of Russia with comments from military leaders pronouncing Moscow will fall. There is absolutely no indication that either Zelensky or Netanyahu will succeed in their end game hgoals.
UNWINNABLE War
While this war has killed about 250 military leaders with the Ayatollah, these tactical gains have not translated into political outcomes. The Iranian regime has not fractured, and its nuclear program has not been dismantled, only set back. Iran has also opened a second front through Hezbollah in Lebanon, sustaining the conflict and then there are the Houthis who have declared a naval blockade against Saudi shipping and have followed through with attacks on oil tankers, effectively creating a crisis for one of the world’s most important shipping lanes.
Iran is built for a prolonged, attritional fight, a lesson reinforced by its experience in the Iran-Iraq War. It has employed a strategy of horizontal escalation, extending the conflict into the economic and political domains where time favors the side absorbing pain. This includes disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has collapsed shipping to roughly 5% of pre-war levels, and targeting the energy infrastructure of Gulf states to create global economic pressure. This dynamic gives Tehran significant leverage, as the economic costs of the war are a major incentive for the US to seek a ceasefire. As I have said, every war game played had Iran taking the Strait of Hormuz. All I can assume is that the plane was Netanyahu’s with the assumption of killing the Ayatollah would end the war in one day like Venezuela. Trump was ill-advised and the question is who escorted Netanyahu into the Situation Room to sell this war to Trump.
This has simply become a War Without End! Without a clear, shared definition of victory between the US and Israel, the war continues without a decisive conclusion in sight. The conflict is settling into a pattern of strikes, pauses, and negotiations that prevent collapse but lead to no final resolution. A war fought without a clear objective and exit strategy, described by an “anti-Powell Doctrine,” risks becoming a “forever war” as the Neocons engaged in with Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. At least the Korean War was instigated by the North invading the South.
The question of whether the war is “winnable” cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. From a military standpoint, the coalition can achieve tactical victories. However, if the benchmark is forcing Iran into submission or achieving regime change, the evidence points toward a conflict that is unwinnable. Because Iran requires only survival to claim its own victory, the war appears to be a conflict where decisive victory is unattainable.
The Nuclear Option
Netanyahu has not publicly discussed this option deploying tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. However, there remain concerns given his relentless animosity toward Iran. Israel’s nuclear capability is widely believed to be tied to the “Samson Option” doctrine, which is a last-resort deterrent meant only for an existential threat to the state’s survival. The conflict with Iran, has often been characterized as an existential threat to Israel that he has claims goes to the survival of Israel. The problem that he faces is that a tactical nuclear strike might NOT even fully destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities. Israel already possesses a range of advanced conventional weapons, including bunker-buster bombs, which could achieve similar objectives without the immense risks of nuclear escalation. President Trump, has publicly dismissed the possibility of an Israeli nuclear strike, stating, “Israel wouldn’t do that.” However, even the USA would resort to that option if confronted with the inevitable loss in a major war with anyone.
I have been often asked about if Robert Maxwell, Epstein’s girlfriend’s father, stole US nuclear secrets and handed them to Israel. The allegations linking Robert Maxwell to a series of intelligence-related activities involving Israel began with claims of Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli intelligence officer. I cannot speak definitively to this allegation. What I do know is that he was part of the “club” and that he agreed that Israel would recognize the coup against Gorbachev in return to allow the Jews in Russia to flee to Israel. I have maintained that nobody wants really to investigate WHY Epstein was engaging in his scheme ising girls to implicate powerful people. I believe they keep the focus on the girls as the victim and avoid the WHY because that leads to an operation nobody wants to expose.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 