Posted Dec 9, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |  

COMMENT: Marty, Thank you for the WEC. I agree with many, it was your best ever. I have re-watched it twice and pick up new things every the time. The contrast of arrays on Europe vs USA confirms sadly that Socrates will be correct and your effort to prevent WWIII will fail. But it does appear that you may succeed in keeping the US out of war here in Europe. I am taking my family out of here. They are introducing a conscription bill here in Germany. Thank you for that. You can smell war is in the air. The press will not tell the truth and there is nothing Putin can do or say that they do not criticize and subconsciously are telling Europeans Russia is weak and can be easily defeated.

Our European powers have again rallied behind Ukraine on Monday after President Trump blasted Zelensky a day prior, accusing him of not bothering to read the U.S.-proposed peace plan to end the Russia-Ukraine war. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “We stand with Ukraine.” German Chancellor Merz and French President Macron concurred.

Here in Germany, DER SPIEGEL, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron in a secret call said that the U.S. could betray Ukraine and Europe. I think this is in line with your peace plan and they reject. They did not want to hear Trump say that Europe is erasing its culture with migration and has become irrelevant.

Nobody seems to ask how many Europeans are they willing to sacrifice this time for war? I would have thought Europe would have learned. That clip you had of Merkel and Hollande saying the purpose of creating the EU was to eliminate war seems to only refer to internally. So now they want all of Europe to invade Russia. It never ends. I really do not understand why humanity always loves war.

PVB

REPLY: We are about to enter the 3rd Wave 2026.03137 (January 11-12, 2026). It is highly questionable if the EU will survive beyond 2030.330137. Europe will never accept peace because these leaders are broke and they are robbing Russians in front of the entire world.

Up to 80% of the “Russian Assets” that have been seized, belong to Russian individuals – not the state. On the private-side: reporting in 2023 estimated that private Russian property subject to freeze in the EU (yachts, villas, private accounts, corporate holdings, etc.) amounted to about US $58 billion. But the foreign reserves that were seized are not purely state assets. The central bank was holding foreign accounts of all various Russian companies and individuals doing business with the West. This is a violation of International Law and the EU does not give a shit because the European Press is so anti-Russia that they will never report the truth.

As of early 2025, Swiss authorities reported that around 7.4 billion Swiss francs (≈ US $8.4 billion) in Russian-owned assets had been frozen. That includes assets linked to individuals / companies subject to sanctions (real estate, luxury goods, etc.) as well as holdings tied to the Russian Central Bank.  Under Swiss law, outright confiscation of legally acquired private assets of Russians — simply because they are Russian — was deemed unconstitutional (as of 2023) by the Swiss Federal Council (not a “court”) on February 15th, 2023 accepted the conclusion of a working group from the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) that confiscation of frozen private Russian assets would be unconstitutional under Swiss law and violate the legal order.

The lies that the EU are using is lets say you have money on deposite in a bank, that bank then places reserves at the central bank, the EU seizes all the assets of the Russian central bank and pretend they are the assets of the state. They are clearly showing that the EU cannot be trusted and any non-European client with funds in the EU shoi;d get the funds out of there before you will never see them again. One prominent case involved Mikhail Fridman, a Russian oligarch. In April 2024, a court within the EU system (the General Court of the European Union) ruled there was insufficient evidence to keep him on the sanctions list. That effectively challenged the freeze on his assets under EU sanctions — at least insofar as the justification for listing him was concerned. Following that, Fridman initiated further legal action: he sued a national government (of Luxembourg) over damages arising from his asset freeze, and has also launched arbitration under international investment-treaty rules.

The EU has violated international law and has ignored the fact that the Ukrainian Civil War was instigated by Ukrainians in Kiev and classified everyone in the Donbas as a Terrorist. Putin even requested that they rescind that terrorist classification to justify attacking the ethic Russians in Crimea and the Donbas.

Only after the Ukrainians were openly killing Russians on the streets of Odessa and burned them alive did the Donbas declare its independence for which Kiev then declared them to be terrorists. The West wanted this war with Russia and the press refuses to report the truth cheering on World War III with every story they write. Our computer warns this will be the end of European civilization.

Billions are vanishing and these politicians speak nothing about the corruption in Ukraine which makes one wonder what they are making on the sidelines? Public reporting on exactly which European companies have active contracts to supply weapons to Ukraine is often partial, aggregated, or confidential to protect politicians. Many supply-contracts are mediated via governments, export licences, or procurement coalitions. The fact that these politicians NEVER criticize  Zelensky for the corruption is telling implying they have their hand in this cookie jar.

Even when companies are known, shareholding data of individual EU politicians (members of parliaments, governments, etc.) is typically very opaque, rarely if ever disclosed in a way that connects them to defense-industry shareholdings — meaning publicly documented cases are very limited. That said, some European companies known to supply Ukraine (or facilitate supplies), there is little or no verifiable public evidence that EU-politicians are significant shareholders in them.

Czechoslovak Group (CSG) defense conglomerate has explicitly supplied Ukraine. According to publicly available data, in 2022 roughly 41% of its revenue came from deliveries to Ukraine; in 2023 it was around 23%. Its exports include 155 mm and 152 mm artillery rounds, T-72 “Avenger” tanks, BMP-1/2 infantry fighting vehicles, multiple-launch rocket systems (e.g. RM-70 Vampire, BM-21 MT STRIGA), self-propelled howitzers (DANA M2, DITA), among others.

Then there is Rheinmetall (Germany). Again, I found no public breakdown showing “Rheinmetall → Ukraine” under a named contract. Yet, Rheinmetall is widely regarded as one of the major European defense manufacturers benefiting from the surge in European military spending tied to the war. Its business boom is strongly correlated with increased demand for ammunition, armored vehicles, and other military equipment in response to the war.

Smaller or mid-sized European firms are also on the take. The number of smaller or midsize European ammunition / defense-component firms are in supply chains that now support Ukraine or NATO rearmament. For instance, a 2025 academic study on European ammunition & grenade manufacturing outlines structural shifts in supply-chains, partly driven by demand related to Ukraine as reported in the Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies.

In addition, institutional decisions within the European Union have reinforced these flows of money for arming Ukraine. As of early 2025, Defense News analysis estimates that about 60% of total aid is used in the U.S., about 25% is spent in Ukraine, and the remaining ≈15% elsewhere. In November 2025, EU lawmakers voted to deepen integration between the EU defense industry and Ukraine — under a programme allocating €1.5 billion, including €300 million for a “Ukraine Support Instrument.” That suggests EU-based defense contractors (like CSG, Rheinmetall, and others) are likely beneficiaries without and disclosure if any politicians are personally benefiting like Pelosi in the United States.

Despite substantial arms business, I found virtually no credible, publicly verifiable cases where an EU politician is documented as a shareholder — or major shareholder — in a company supplying Ukraine. This is simply being covered up. Shareholding disclosures for many European politicians do not always require them to declare holdings in privately held or non-public companies (especially defense firms). They made sure the laws they write always exonerate themselves.

Even when holdings are declared, they rarely specify the scale, affiliated subsidiaries, or whether the company has defense contracts — so linking a politician to “arms supply to Ukraine” becomes nearly impossible. I have found NOBODY in the press who has even bothered to produce any well-documented examples of a sitting EU politician with material shareholding in a firm known to supply Ukraine. WHY? Curiously, a 2025 Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies on ammunition supply-chains mentions “companies and inter-institutional relationships,” but does not document any politician ownership.

Many defense firms are privately held or structured via holding companies / trusts, which makes public shareholding disclosures harder to trace. There are no political transparency rules worth anything and they vary significantly across EU member states. Some require only limited disclosure; in others politicians may hold stakes indirectly (via holdings, blind trusts, family businesses, pension funds), complicating public traceability.

What we do know is certain, is that contract arms pipelines typically involve governments, intermediaries, export licences, not direct commercial sales — meaning “company X supplies Ukraine” may not appear in public procurement lists even if equipment ends up on the battlefield.

The combination of opacity (in shareholding) and indirect contract pipelines means that even well-informed public investigations may miss such connections because this is kept very behind the curtain. When these politicians constantly advocate war, if they are making a fortune on supplying Ukraine and sending people to their deaths, it seems nobody is willing to even open the door and ask a question when European War is now becoming inevitable.

The United States became the financial capital of the world after Britain entered World War I with no direct threat against the British people. Britain’s official declaration of war on August 4th, 1914, was primarily in response to Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality. However, the reasons were more deeply rooted. Britain was not threatened. It claimed that the Belgian Neutrality Treaty (1839) was violated because Germany’s Schlieffen Plan required invading France through neutral Belgium. Britain was a guarantor (along with other powers) of Belgian neutrality under the 1839 Treaty of London. Ignoring this violation, Britain claimed it would call into question their credibility as a treaty guarantor and great power. That decision ended London as the financial capital of the world and it moved to New York.

I have been fighting hard behind the curtain to keep the US out of this next European War to conquer Russia. They will lose. They are playing Russian Roulette with Nuclear Weapons. NATO claims Russia will never push the button because they know what that would mean. But since the EU is NOT trying to force Russia out of Ukraine, this is about the conquest of Russia. If I was Putin and I know the objective is to totally destroy Russia, I would push the button.

Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee, has recently suggested that a “pre-emptive strike” against Russia could, under certain circumstances, be justified as a form of defensive action. He argued that NATO needs to shift from being purely reactive (responding after attacks) to possibly “being more aggressive or proactive instead of reactive.” He acknowledged that considering “pre-emptive strikes” would depart from NATO’s traditional posture — but that under the pressure of ongoing “hybrid warfare” (cyber-attacks, sabotage, airspace violations, etc.), such options are being studied. He specifically said that in certain contexts a pre-emptive strike “could be considered a defensive action.”

This is what I have warned about. There are NO RATIONAL people in NATO. What he is justifying is I walk into a bar and punch you in the face calling it self-defense because if KNOW you really wanted to hit me first. If we strip away the Ukrainian BS and propaganda, reliable sources in Ukraine confirm that Russia has used hypersonic missiles and Ukraine claim that they have been able to intercept them 25% of the time is nonsense. They must launch all 32 missiles of a Patriot Missile System to even have a possible chance at interception. As with everything Ukraine puts out, there is hardly anything that can be verifiable. They are more concerned about pretending that they are successful to keep the money flowing in for their Lamborghinis and Ferraris in Monaco. Europe is not going to hold up very well in a conflict with Russia – it is suicide.

I cannot take credit for turning Trump. Perhaps I have contributed, but I have no confirmation. His new strategy warns Europe faces “the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure.”  It also asserts that if present-day trends continue with immigration, demographic shifts, low birth rates, cultural/political changes, and suppression of free speech or democratic norms, “the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less.” Yes, this is what our model is forecasting. The EU may not exist post 2030. Trump’s strategy also says some NATO members “will become majority non-European,” and that raises “open questions” about whether they will see their alliance with the U.S. the same way as original members. We are completing the 3rd wave by September 2nd, 2026. Here too, NATO and the Neocon began to implement this war with Russia in 2021 which was 72 years from its founding in 1949. NATO is in its death throes between 2026 and 2030.

Humanity’s gravitation toward war is a deeply complex phenomenon with roots in multiple overlapping domains—psychological, social, economic, political, and evolutionary. Rather than a single cause, it’s better understood as a tragic interplay of many factors. People who are drawn to positions of power involving conflict are deeply entrenched in tribalism. Humans evolved in groups that competed for resources. This fostered strong in-group/out-group dynamics, where loyalty to one’s group and suspicion or hostility toward outsiders could enhance survival. War emerges from such people because of their flawed character. It is amplified group identity—nationalism, ethnicity, religion, or ideology.

The Neocons told President Reagan he should not meet with Gorbachev even though they could not call him a communist, so they reverted to tribalism telling Reagan “you can never trust a Russian.” There is no discussion with these people. I have tried and they have only proven that I was an idealistic fool who though I could make then seek the light instead the darkness they carry with them. They always reject peace and live consumed by their hatred.

States and rulers have often used war to consolidate power, divert attention from domestic problems, or achieve geopolitical goals. The realist is forced to argue that in a world (no matter what its form Republic, Democracy, Dictatorship, or Monarchy), the thirst for power is the same just as justice is the same regardless of the form of government. Corruption, authoritarianism, lack of democratic checks, and poor governance can make war more likely. Leaders will far too often prioritize personal or regime survival over peace as we are witnessing in Europe rigt now. Historically, empires expanded through warfare, driven by economic exploitation and ideological beliefs in supremacy. The legacy of arbitrary borders and exploited grievances continues to fuel conflicts. Right now, European leaders are being driven by economic necessity to retain power, but simultaneously, they are blinded by ideological beliefs in supremacy that they can displace the United States and rise from the ashes this time from war.

The computer disagrees