Tag Archives: War

Mar 12 2026

Trump, London, Netanyahu, & Neocons


Posted originally on Mar 12, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Netanyahi Runs Washington

QUESTION: Do you think Trump has been subjugated by the Neocons and Israel?  Socrates picked the low on the Feb 26 before the low, five days later Lloyds cancels the insurance to spike oil higher. It peaked precisely on March 9 as Socrates forecast and then the next day was a Panic Cycle when Crude crashes. Was this all orchestrated for the London houses to make a fortune again?

FG

CRUDE D Tech 3 5 26

ANSWER:  It has been alleged that Trump is subservient to Netanyahu and that the Neocons were attempting to make a fortune on the oil market by instigating war with Iran. I do believe that Netanyahu will take the blame for this war that I fear may be unwinnable life Afghanistan because it also is religious. It has further been alleged that Lloyds of London killing the insurance on shipping to send oil prices to the Moon. The truth is that the International Group of P&I Clubs and its members (like Gard, Skuld, and NorthStandard) are NOT part of Lloyd’s of London. They are two entirely separate and distinct institutions in the London insurance market, though they have a close and long-standing working relationship.

CRUDE D Array 3 11 26

The 26th was the low and crude began yielding buy signals two days in advance. Yes, Socrates picked the high and the crash with the Panic Cycle on the 10th. The computer clearly picked up in advance that the capital was flowing in anticipation of war in the Middle East. There was a Direction Change on the 25th, the day before the spike low ahead of the attack on the 28th.

Bolton 2015 Bomb_Bomb_Iran_The_New_York_Times

The Neocons in the USA are not rejoicing for Trump suddenly becoming a warmonger. Killing the Ayatollah has been on Netanyahu’s wish list for probably longer than Trump has every thought of becoming President. This no doubt Netanyahu’s war but that does not make it antiemetic. As I said, Netanyahu went to school in Philadelphia and hung out with the Kristols when in fact Irving Kristol is the godfather of the Neocons. This is an op-ed from John Bolton in the NY Times from 2015 Before Trump was president and it advocated bombing Iran.

That said, Bolton and other Neocons are not so happy because Trump is not actually listening to them and he is not using their playbook. There is another twist here and that is the businessman coming into this theatre.

Trump tells Israel Stop_Hitting_Oil_Infrastructure 3 10 26

Trump has told Netanyahu to stop targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure. Why? Trump is planning ahead despite what Bolton is saying. Trump knows with the hote of a regime change, he wants Iran to be able to enter the world economy and supply oil. That will be an economic incentive to replace the government. But more than just that, China gets about 80% of Iran’s oil. Taking out that capacity may invite China into the mix for their national security perspective.

Mojtaba Khamenei Empire

It has been reported that the ne Ayatollah has been the man behind a major property  investor including house on Billionaire’s Row in London. He seems to have tried to hide his name directly but this goes back at least as far as 2011. The ties to London among the Islamic organizations have been there for decades.

Antiwar 1

Indeed, Trump keeps shifting his argument for why the war is happening, and how long it will last. Meanwhile, he understands that this can become a proxy war against the United States a drain our military assets rapidly. He is forced to into lifting sanctions on Russian oil and has said that he is defending the Strait of Horuz for everyone, including China, which is the largest oil importer and it takes about 80% of China’s oil.

China.Russia.Putin_.Xi_

The greatest danger here is not just that Iran causes a Middle East War with sleeper cells and proxies, but that Russia is also ready providing tactical info to Iran as the USA has been doing with Ukraine, and on to of that, destroying the Iranian infrastructure clearly runs the risk of bringing in China and even Pakistan.

Russian gives Targets yo Iran
Mar 10 2026

Neocons Advising Trump Are Destroying America


Posted originally on Mar 9, 2026 by Martin Armstrong

Neocon Advising Trump

COMMENT: Marty, a number of us are sending letters to Trump that he should be consulting with you and Socrates for your track record is unprecedented. Other countries respect you. Your own tries desperately to marginalize you. The neocons are destroying the world. We have to at least try. I hope you got everyone out of Dubai.

ED

REPLY: I respect that. It would take much more than a single letter. The Neocons are intimidating people in Congress and the Senate not to listen to our forecasts. They are no different from the bankers who always blamed me for their own stupidity. As you see in Europe, the presumption is always silence your opposition to retain power. The Ayatollah did that in 1979 and any opposition was called an agent of the Great Satan or Little Satan. The EU uses this on anyone who is anti-war calling them a Putin Supporter. The Neocons are using that tactic against me. They think they can rule the world usurping our Foreign Policy circumventing Congress and the people.

Thank you for all the inquiry about our staff in Dubai. Everyone is now safely out. The local scuttlebutt is that there is only 10 days of food left in Dubai. It is not just a crisis in shipping oil, it is also a crisis in food supply. As always, the Neocons assume instant victory, never anticipate what comes next. As I have warned, this is different aside from Iran being 3 times the size of Iraq. This is religious. This is NOT a simple territorial war. The Neocons judge the world only by what they think. They are making the very same mistake they made with Afghanistan. Clearly, religion was the indispensable ingredient that made the Afghanistan conflict unwinnable for conventional superpowers. The Neocons advising Trump do not care about the country and they certainly do not care about Trump and how he will be remembered.

Writing is on the Wall

Three days after that summit meeting, on August 18, 2025, Russia announced they were restarting Russia’s Arctic-2 LNG production facility.  Russia would be more than doubling their capacity to generate and store liquified natural gas (LNG). Why? They understand the risks of war with Iran far better than those advising Trump, who was told this will be short and sweet. Obviously, it makes no sense to increase production in the fact of sanctions. However, if you expect Iran to target refineries and bring the entire West to its knees, then its time to restart producing even more LNG doubling the supply when Russia was already overproducing LNG. The computer has been waring rising volatility starts in April into July. The writing is on the wall. The Neocons refuse to read.

Mar 6 2026

Lines in the Sand – Iran War


Posted originally on Mar 6, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Iran, China and Russia Sign Strategic Pact, Deepening Alignment Against Western Pressure - GV Wire

The conflict now unfolding with Iran is beginning to expose a series of geopolitical lines that had been quietly building for years. What is striking about the current situation is not simply the military confrontation itself, but the reaction of various nations. The world is no longer responding as it did in earlier conflicts where alliances moved almost automatically behind Washington. Instead, governments are drawing their own lines in the sand.

The United States and Israel are presently the two nations directly engaged in military operations against Iran. While Washington has access to bases throughout the Middle East, most of those countries are not actively participating in combat. Gulf states such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates host American military infrastructure, but their involvement largely reflects long-standing defense agreements rather than enthusiastic participation in a new regional war. These nations find themselves caught between two competing pressures: their security arrangements with the United States and the geographic reality of living within missile range of Iran.

What has been particularly revealing is the response in Europe. Spain openly refused to allow the United States to use its bases at Rota and Morón for operations against Iran, sparking a diplomatic confrontation with Washington. That decision has highlighted the growing divide inside NATO. During the Cold War and even in the early post-Cold War era, European governments generally aligned themselves with U.S. military policy. Today that unity is no longer automatic. European leaders increasingly calculate their own political and economic risks before committing themselves to American military campaigns.

Who are Iran's allies in a potential conflict with the United States? - ABC News

The reluctance to join the conflict reflects deeper concerns about escalation. Many European governments are already facing fragile economies, political fragmentation, and rising social tensions. Opening another military front in the Middle East while the war in Ukraine continues would add another layer of uncertainty to an already unstable geopolitical environment. As a result, several governments are publicly urging diplomacy rather than military expansion.

Iran does not stand entirely alone. Its support network is less conventional than traditional state alliances but still significant. Groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias operating in Iraq form part of a regional structure that Tehran has cultivated over decades. These organizations are not merely political sympathizers; they possess their own military capabilities and can operate across multiple fronts simultaneously. This creates a form of distributed conflict that complicates any direct confrontation with Iran itself.

What we are witnessing is the emergence of a fragmented geopolitical landscape where alliances are no longer rigid. Countries are evaluating their interests in a far more transactional way. Some governments provide logistical support while avoiding direct involvement. Others refuse cooperation altogether. Meanwhile, regional actors pursue their own strategic agendas independent of traditional Western alliances.

When crises arise, the difference between formal alliances and genuine strategic alignment becomes visible. The current situation with Iran is exposing those differences in real time. Nations are making calculations not only about military risk but also about energy markets, economic stability, and domestic political pressures.

The phrase “lines in the sand” has long been associated with the Middle East, yet today it applies equally to the diplomatic landscape surrounding the conflict. Countries are defining the limits of their involvement, sometimes publicly and sometimes quietly behind the scenes. These decisions reveal a world where geopolitical loyalties are becoming far more fluid than they once appeared.

Mar 1 2026

US & Israel vs Iran


Posted originally on Feb 28, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Iran v USA 2

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, you pointed out previously that Zelensky was a war criminal for targeting leaders in Russia. You wrote:

“Zelensky is a war criminal based on the Rules of War and Geneva. Whether the car bomb is perfidious depends entirely on the method used to get the bomb to the target. Perfidy (Treachery) is strictly prohibited under Article 37 of the Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocol I. Perfidy is defined as acts that invite the confidence of an adversary to make them believe they are entitled to, or are obliged to accord, protection under the rules of IHL, with the intent to betray that confidence.“

Netanyahu targeted the leadership of Iran in 2025 and now they have employed the same tactics killing the Supreme Leader and several heads of the military. Trump has acknowledge that they killed the Supreme Leader. Will this seriously harm Trump’s legacy.

GH

ANSWER: There are a lot of people who are deeply angry over this attack. Not that they are pro-Iran, but they generally say they voted for Trump to stop these Neocon endless wars. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene issued a statement denouncing the president, claiming he is betraying voters who supported him for ending foreign wars.

‘Thousands and thousands of Americans from my generation have been killed and injured in never ending pointless foreign wars and we said no more. But we are freeing the Iranian people. Please,’ the former GOP lawmaker wrote on Saturday.

Tucker Carlson branded Trump’s attack ‘absolutely disgusting and evil‘ as the president’s MAGA base fractured. The fact that Tucker has broken with Trump signals that the decision to plunge the US into a major war with Iran could carry legacy-altering consequences for the president.

President Donald Trump confirmed on Feb. 28 that Iranian leader Ali Khamenei was killed in the U.S.-Israeli strikes. Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems and, working closely with Israel, there was not a thing he, or the other leaders that have been killed along with him, could do.” 

I was deeply concerned when Trump took Marco Rubio as Secretary of State. He is a staunch Neocon. I knew that was trouble. Venezuela was easy. Trump most likely assumed that they would kill the leadership of Iran and it would also be quick and fast. The Supreme Leader was also the head of Shia Muslims, which know no borders. Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shia population who are located by its oil fields.

Cheney Dicj 1941 2025 weeks not months

The Neocons have created endless wars always with the promise of victory and in and out, since they skirt Congress entirely. The last Declaration of War was World War II.  This is NOT Trump’s idea, he is listening to the Neocons and thinks Iran will be just like Venezuela. The computer disagrees.

Categories:Iran

Feb 20 2026

Canada to Provide Express Entry to Trained Foreign Military Personnel


Posted originally on Feb 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

I have warned many times that immigration policy is increasingly being shaped by political ideology rather than long-term social cohesion and economic stability. The report that Canada is considering an express entry pathway for highly trained foreign military personnel raises very serious questions that go far beyond labor shortages or skills-based immigration. When governments begin fast-tracking individuals with military training into civilian society under expedited frameworks, this is no longer just an economic policy — it becomes a national security and social stability issue.

Historically, successful immigration systems were built around assimilation, economic contribution, and cultural integration. Governments are struggling to build their militaries amid recruitment shortages. Their solution is to import “skilled” fighters as we move closer to global conflict. Military personnel will be included among other high-skilled occupations since the demand far exceeds the available domestic supply.

The larger concern is assimilation and demographic shifts. I have repeatedly stated that social stability depends on shared legal, cultural, and institutional norms. When immigration policy accelerates without equal emphasis on integration, fragmentation follows. Europe has already demonstrated this lesson in multiple countries where rapid demographic policy shifts created long-term social divisions and rising political polarization. Canada is not immune to those same cyclical forces simply because it has historically maintained a more structured immigration system.

There is also the geopolitical layer that cannot be ignored. We are entering a period of rising global volatility into the 2026–2032 window, according to the cyclical models. During such phases, governments increasingly prioritize security, institutional resilience, and strategic labor pools. Policies targeting military-trained migrants may be framed as skills-based immigration, but they also reflect a broader shift toward state planning in response to global uncertainty.

HowEmpiresDie

Look at Russia. Putin turned to Kim Jong-un in a desperate plea to recruit more men. Impoverished nations are willing to import anything, including humans. Canada’s announcement alludes to the government’s importance of rapidly building the armed forces. Canada was so focused on forcing their own men and women to take the COVID vaccines a few years back that they pushed away contenders. What could go wrong if a nation opens its borders to trained mercenaries who may have an allegiance to a foreign government? Ancient Rome too relied on non-Roman recruits, but that was merely one aspect of the collapse.

I have explained in my writings on the Fall of Rome and How Empires Die that empires always turn to external manpower when domestic demographics weaken, and the population no longer supports the state financially or militarily. Hiring outsiders, expanding bureaucracy, and increasing control are all late-cycle responses to declining confidence in the system itself.

Feb 20 2026

Macron Suffers from De Gaulle Syndrome Threat to World Peace


Posted originally on Feb 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

2026_02_19_08_35_02_Macron_Calls_Social_Media_s_Free_Speech_Defense_Bullshit_in_AI_Policy_Clash_

Macron just said  “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” He expect the EU to clash with Trump because they are in dire straights and when a country is in the death spiral, they will become increasingly authoritarian. The two worst offenders are France and Spain. Macron has been covertly telling French institutions to sell dollars and bring the money home pushing the euro higher which then reduced their trade surplus.

Last April 2025, in response to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, Macron called for European companies to suspend planned investment in the United States, stating “Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States”

Macron has been pushing “targeting digital services and financing mechanisms of the US economy.” We are seeing that in trying to come up with a European credit card and banning both Visa and Mastercard.

At Davos 2026, Macron noted that European savings are “overinvested in bonds and sometimes in equities – but outside Europe,” suggesting he wants Europeans to invest more domestically. They call Macron the Petite Napoleon. Despite his approval rating at 11%, probably lower than any world leader in history, he is carrying on the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle who destroy the gold standard because of his hated of the United States. He withdrew France from NATO which is why they have independent nukes. De Gaulle ordered all US troops and NATO instalation out of France which prompted the US to ask if that included the dead America buried there to defend France.

2026_02_19_09_08_06_Macron_says_Europe_must_redesign_its_security_independently_citing_holistic_n

At the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, Macron said Europe must redesign its security architecture independently and confirmed Paris is holding strategic nuclear talks with allies, referring to a more “holistic” approach to nuclear deterrence among European allies.

2026_02_19_09_11_01_Leaders_Discuss_European_Extended_Deterrence_Arms_Control_Association

In an address to the nation in March 2025, Macron announced plans to negotiate with the allies the possibility of placing European countries under the protection of France’s nuclear deterrence forces. Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Denmark have expressed readiness to discuss the issue. This is why they call him the Petit Napoleon. He is once again trying to make France the dominant power of Europe and it has been him, according to sources, who pushes to invade Russia to gain the assets to rise above the United States as a rival.

2026_02_19_09_15_02_Germany_won_t_build_nukes_but_could_flash_French_UK_weapons_to_deter_foes_Merz

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Germany does NOT want to develop its own nuclear weapons, but is interested in incorporating French and British atomic bombs in a deterrence arrangement reminiscent of NATO’s U.S.-based nuclear umbrella.

2026_02_19_09_17_37_Germany_France_and_nuclear_deterrence_Op_ed_by_Wolfgang_Ischinger_for_Welt

Wolfgang Ischinger at the Munich Security Conference noted that France has air-based nuclear-capable cruise missiles that can be deployed from Rafale aircraft, and “perhaps in the future, such systems could be stationed not only in France, as has been the case so far, but also in Poland or Germany, on a rotating or even permanent basis. Yes, one could even consider replicating the US model of nuclear sharing, whereby these weapons could be launched from suitable partner aircrafts.”

Macron’s proposal are definitely an offer to build an independent nuclear deterrent within the EU framework. Any arrangement whereby Paris would transfer sovereignty over the use of its own nuclear bombs to an EU institution or another state is a no-go in terms of domestic politics. Macron wants to replace the US and retain control of all nukes, not hand them over to the EU.

So yes—Macron has offered extended nuclear protection to Europe, and discussions about potentially stationing French nuclear-capable systems in Germany (similar to NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement) are part of the conversation, though final decision-making would remain with France.

Rutte EU Cany Defeat Russia without US 1 26 26

Behind the curtain, it has been Macron who is trying to replace the USA and lead all of Europe as the modern version of Napoleon. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has emphasized that European nations cannot defend themselves against Russia without the support of the United States, suggesting that they would need to significantly increase their defense spending in the absence of U.S. assistance. He warned that losing U.S. support would undermine Europe’s security and freedom. Rutte said bluntly during an appearance at the European Parliament: “If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming,”

Franc vs Dollar

This is why reliable sources see through Macron seeking to seize power and take Europe into a third World War in hopes to leading Europe and fulfilling the dream of Napoleon and Charles De Gaulle. It was De Gaulle who was redeeming dollars for gold believing that if france had the larges gold reserves that the franc would replace the dollar.

DeGaulee 1967 Vive Le Quebec libre

Charles De Gaulle was an extreme nationalist far worse than they acuse Trump today. He objected in February 1965 to what he called the “Exorbitant Privilege” of the US dollar’s dominant role and began converting France’s dollar reserves into gold, which put pressure on Bretton Woods. In 1967, I was there in Montreal with my Family at the World’s Fair. My father had met De Gaulle bing with Patton who liberated France. My father was a colonel with Patton and told me how De Gaulle demanded that he lead the victory parade ahead of the Americans as he liberated France. In Montreal, he encouraged Quebec to separate from Canada because they were the English. He was still anti-American and British all because they defeated Napoleon. He refused to allow Britain to join the European Community. Britain joined ONLY after De Gaulle died. Macron seems to be suffering from De Gaulle syndrome.

Feb 18 2026

Episode 5150: Middle East Edges Closer To War; Counting The People Voting Is Just As Important As Hand Counting Ballots


Posted originally on Rumble on Bannon War Room on: February 17, 2026

Feb 5 2026

Could Europe Defend Itself Without America?


Posted originally on Feb 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

NATO

Could Europe defend itself without America? In January 2026, NATO launched Operation Steadfast to answer that question. The operation is the largest exercise of the year, deploying around 10,000 troops from 11 member states across Central Europe. The plan involves the Allied Reaction Force, a rapid response element designed to test trans-Atlantic coordination in simulated high-intensity conflict conditions from land, air, sea, and cyber.

However, America is still assisting European NATO allies in carrying out Operation Steadfast through its financial backing. Greenland is not the reason for the exercise, as the plan was drafted last year. Brussels wishes for Europe to operate, vote, behave, and attack as a collective. Politicians claim broad “Europe-wide” threats from foreign nations to justify a stronger military alliance. Neocons believe they can eventually create a European army that will protect Brussels above all else.

The same politicians who push for European military power have been undermining capital through debt, regulation, and climate mandates that have destroyed the continent’s energy supply.

NATO was created during a period of high confidence in government following World War II. The alliance worked because the United States was economically dominant, politically unified, and willing to absorb the cost of global security. Europe, by contrast, redirected capital away from defense and into social spending, bureaucracy, and regulation.

Europe’s reliance on the United States through NATO delayed reform, encouraged dependency, and allowed politicians to sell the illusion that defense costs nothing. That illusion is now ending.

The ECM has been warning that the 2026–2032 window marks rising global conflict risk. Not because leaders want war, but because declining confidence removes the mechanisms that prevent it. Alliances fracture, miscalculations rise, and nations act in self-interest rather than collective stability. NATO is in the confidence erosion phase. Article 5 can only go forth if each member believes in the cause.

Feb 4 2026

Ukraine & Trump


Posted originally on Feb 3, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

697b5a3c40421d5e60cdba7b

The letter I  received from Trump, dated January 15th, discusses foreign policy, not domestic economics. It also says thank you for writing. This refers to the Peace Plan i wrote back in 2025 I was asked to write. Most of what I stated in that plan appears to have been implemented, except for my recommendation to exit NATO, which the letter addresses. However, I specifically included how this war began and laid the blame on the Neocons for installing an unelected government in Kiev and ordering them to invade the Donbas to kill Russians, trying to draw in Putin. They succeeded, but they control the press, which has been putting out the bullshit that Putin invaded “UNPROVOKED” to get young, stupid men and women to volunteer for war with the rally-around-the-flag psychological ploy to wage World War III. I believe I have shaken the ground that the Neocons stand on, so if I suddenly die by suicide, you know who really did it.

US_ties_security_guarantees_to_Ukraine_giving_up_Donbas_

Of course, the European press are saying that to surrender the Donbas, Ukraine will commit suicide. They love war so much and are willing to sacrifice the future of their family all for the Donbas which the original Minsk Agreement was to allow them to vote on the fate of their own future. Chancellor Merkel admitted that she negotiated in bad faith and never intended to honor that peace agreement. They wallowing in the mud of propaganda.

Merkel_Minsk_Buy_Time_to Prepare for wart
Russia_Peace_Deal 2025 COVER
Russia_Peace_Deal INDEX

The Road to Peace is undoubtedly attainable.
I urge everyone to read my Peace Proposal that details the intricacies of restoring global order. The importance of restoring peace is paramount. Without peace, we will be forced to endure World War III—the destruction and loss of life is unfathomable. Share this document with whoever is willing to listen.The core of the peace plan is as follows. Yet, it is essential to read the full proposal to understand why these solutions could restore peace and change the course of history.

A plausible scenario / Restoration Deal Package

Putting the above together, a possible realistic “Restoration Deal” (from Russia’s perspective) might look like this:

  • Russia agrees to end the Ukrainian War in return for the honoring of the Minsk Agreement, a freeze of conflict lines, and allow the Donbas to vote on their basic human right to decide their own fate
  • In return, the U.S. (and EU) lift key sanctions on energy, rare earth exports, and financial transactions in stages
  • Russia commits to independent oversight (by international monitors) of resource exports, pricing, and revenue accounting

What the U.S. might realistically demand

(and what Russia would have to give)

From the U.S. (and allies) side, the demands would likely include:

  • Full transparency, auditing, and verification (to ensure that Russia does not exploit the relief to fund further military aggression)
  • Oversight on technology transfers and security constraints
  • Guarantees that lifted sanctions are reversible if Russia reneges
  • Some quid pro quo on Ukraine: withdrawal, territorial concessions, ceasefire, no reparations payments for Ukraine
  • Human rights, protection of minority groups, recognition of international law norms, and any Ukrainians located in the Donbas should be compensated to vacate the region

Russia would effectively have to offer more than just trade goods—it would have to offer political concessions, oversight, and legal guarantees that would enable it to join the world economy as an equal partner

Would such a deal restore Russia’s economy?

These proposals will help stabilize and revive parts of the Russian economy, but it will take time to establish a full “restoration” since that is not possible in the short-term. Some likely outcomes:

  • Increased export revenues from resource and rare-earth deals
  • Inflow of foreign investment (if investor confidence returns)
  • Technology and capacity rebuild via joint ventures
  • Partial reintegration into global financial systems (banking, capital markets)
  • Pressure/drive for domestic reforms (if tied to the deal)

If Trump stops listening to these losers who have never won a single war to date yet have created the largest perpetual rolling debt for their personal hatreds. Perhaps we stand a chance for peace. In these meetings with Zelensky, Trump must abandon Europe and the Neocons and be the real peacemaker. Zelensky must be stripped of his arrogant, greedy power.

My ultimatum would be simple

(1)You will honor the Minsk Agreement and allow the people of the Donbas to vote on their human right to remain as part of Ukraine, which hates their very existence and has engaged in ethnic cleansing.

(2) If Zelensky refuses, I will impose sanctions on Ukraine, and NO American company will be allowed to invest in Ukraine to cut off his trillion-dollar rebuild dream to become the richest billionaire of Ukraine.

(3) If NATO or the EU refuses to honor the very agreement that they signed, the US will withdraw from NATO.

(4) We cut a deal with Russia, allowing American companies to enter joint ventures in Russia to exploit the rare earths and resources with a joint guarantee that their investments will be safe.

(5) All sanctions of Russia are to be lifted, including the Magnitsky Act, with the sole exception of sanctions that were against individual spies.

(6) Agree to do a joint venture in the Arctic and Antarctica for natural resources and accept Putin’s proposal for a tunnel to Alaska.

Bottom line

(1) Drop all Sanctions

(2) Allow Joint Venture in Russia Jointly Guaranteed

(3) Agree to establish free trade zones

(4) Allow the Tunnel from Russia to Alaska

(5) EU must honor the Minsk Agreement or the USA exits NATO

(6) Ukraine must allow elections and must honor the Minsk Agreement or executive order prohibits all investment in Ukraine by any American company directly or indirectly

(7) If the Donbas votes to separate as in Czechoslovakia and in the Balkans, then they are to recognized by the United Nations or US withdraws all support for the United Nations.

Economic decline produces tensions, and this is what we are witnessing on a global scale, primarily due in part to the crisis in sovereign debts that nations are increasingly finding more difficult to service. The risk of a sanction producing war is far greater during an economic contraction, especially when Russia looks at this as a confrontation with NATO rather than Ukraine.

Russia_Peace_Deal INDEX

The Peace Proposal is available for free in audio or PDF format. Spread the word that World War III is not inevitable.

Feb 3 2026

Can Trump Save the UN?


Posted originally on Feb 3, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

United Nations Drawing

In a recent interview, Donald Trump claimed he could “very easily solve” the United Nations’ financial problems by requiring member states to pay their dues, much as he pressured NATO allies to increase defense contributions during his first term. Trump would not be able to do this with funds, as that is not the true nature of the problem. The core of the institution has rotted; global powers no longer have strong confidence in the United Nations.

Yesterday, I wrote about the United Nations warning that it was facing an “imminent financial collapse. I argued that when institutions fail to adapt to shifting power dynamics, they collapse under their own contradictions. That is exactly what we are witnessing now.

The UN’s financial crisis is not primarily about $4 billion in unpaid dues. Rather, it’s about the loss of legitimacy and mutual trust among sovereign states. The UN is a creature of consensus and shared obligations, but the financial obligation has fallen on the US, and the American people no longer wish to foot the bill. This is precisely why there is a rising tide of nationalism, as people demand that their politicians and taxes stay within the domestic realm.

“When I’m no longer around to settle wars, the U.N. can,” Donald Trump said, acknowledging that he won’t always be the one intervening in global conflicts. “It has tremendous potential. Tremendous.”

Now, the UN has international respect and the ability to function based on SHARED interests. The United Nations was never designed to be a global government; it was a forum for negotiation among sovereign powers. It worked as long as the major powers had a shared interest in maintaining stability. But that shared interest has eroded.

The West is fracturing internally, with the US and Europe increasingly at odds on security, economic policy, defense obligations, and industrial strategy. Countries are less willing to fund an institution they no longer see as effective, fair, or aligned with their interests. Expectations regarding payment compliance are rooted in a bygone era when the UN’s agenda broadly aligned with American and Western strategic leadership. That alignment is gone.