Why the Elite Needs War - Martin Armstrong
The Insider and His Judgment: Biography and Uncomfortable Truth
The story of a financial analyst whose personal experience and forecasts turned him into an adversary of a system that tolerates no deviation from its narrative.
Martin Armstrong is considered one of the most controversial financial analysts of our time. He rose to prominence through his “Economic Confidence Model,” a cyclical framework designed to anticipate political upheavals, financial crises, and geopolitical shifts.
During the 1990s, Armstrong’s forecasts placed him on a collision course with powerful institutions. His analyses of currencies, systemic instability, and geopolitical escalation turned him into a target for those who claim authority over public narratives.
In 2000, Armstrong was arrested under circumstances riddled with irregularities—a case that remains, to this day, an example of how dangerous inconvenient truths can become.
He spent more than a decade in prison—an episode many observers describe as “political retaliation.”
After his release, Armstrong returned stronger than before:
- Analyses of the dollar, the EU, war, and geopolitics
- Warnings about Western self-destruction
- Criticism of state propaganda and media illusions
Today, many regard him as one of the few analysts who does not soften global risks—but exposes them without concession.
An Analysis of the Political Psychopaths Who Control NATO and Europe
A sober diagnosis of a political class for whom war is not a moral rupture, but an administrative state of normalcy.
The worldview that emerges from decades of observing governments and heads of state is bleak and revealing. At the center of this analysis lies a disturbing finding about the political class that has steered nations for decades: a career politician has no moral conflict when sending people to war.
The reason is cold, learned indifference. These functionaries are trained to perceive dying soldiers on the battlefield as mere “collateral damage.” The supreme dogma is simple:
💬 “We just have to win.”This mindset, which Armstrong has observed over forty years of experience, mirrors the ruthless logic of commerce: one celebrates one’s own victory without acknowledging that every gain necessarily implies another’s loss. This cold heart is the engine driving the current escalation.
The Trump Contrast: Humanity as an Anomaly
Why a rare moment of personal empathy appears as a systemic deviation within the machinery of power.
In this vacuum of human empathy, Donald Trump stands out as an anomaly. A dinner with the then-president in March 2020 revealed a decisive departure from the professional political class. Trump sought the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan—not out of strategic calculation, but for a deeply personal reason:
He did not want to have to send letters to parents stating:
💬 “Your son died for God and country.” His question, “What are we doing here?”forced Armstrong to reassess career politicians with a more critical lens. The conclusion was unequivocal: a professional politician never thinks about the people who die.
This deviation also explains the deep hostility Trump encountered within the transatlantic power apparatus. Anyone who views war not as an abstract strategic exercise but as a human catastrophe threatens not only strategies, but entire careers, budgets, and ideological self-images. In a system sustained by permanent escalation, humanity is not a virtue—it is a disruption.
The Iron Rule of the Neoconservatives: Sabotaging Peace
How ideological dogma does not merely delay peace options, but deliberately eliminates them.
This political and psychological coldness manifests itself in the geopolitical agenda controlled by the neoconservatives—a faction that “runs NATO and all of Europe.”
Their first and non-negotiable rule is simple:
💬 “Never talk to the enemy, because that could lead to peace.”This very maxim explains the outrage among European heads of state when Trump “had the audacity to call Putin at all.” After consulting representatives from three European countries, Armstrong found that not a single name could be identified—not one leader had ever picked up the phone to call Putin. The bitter realization:
One cannot reject peace if one has never even attempted it. Europe, Armstrong argues, is just as indoctrinated as the other neoconservatives and has no interest in peace. His outlook is therefore explicitly pessimistic:
💬 “I would not be overly optimistic about peace here, because I believe Europe will do its best to sabotage it.”The Shadow Economy of the Zelensky Regime
A look at corruption, self-protection, and the logic of power behind Ukraine’s leadership façade.
In this analysis, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stands at the center of the sabotage. Armstrong revealed information—now widely known—that Zelensky has transferred $50 million per month to secure himself in the event of defeat, routing the money to secret accounts in the UAE.
According to Armstrong, the claims of the Western press are “simply lies and propaganda.” Zelensky is “deeply despised” within Ukraine. His rise to power is embedded in a web of extraordinary corruption. His backer was the same oligarch who founded Burisma—the energy company that brought in Hunter Biden.
This background financial hedging exposes the regime’s central contradiction: while the population is pressed with calls for endurance, sacrifice, and total mobilization, the political leadership has long been organizing its own exit. War appears here not as fate, but as a business model—one that demands loyalty while outsourcing responsibility and privatizing risk.
The Deception of Kyiv and the Blood Toll
How deception and propaganda push the real human cost of war out of sight.
Western propaganda surrounding the invasion ignores Putin’s initial restraint. Armstrong, who had staff in Donetsk and Kyiv, reported that an entire column of tanks positioned directly outside Kyiv was purely a “show of force.” Putin “could have taken Kyiv immediately at the time if he had wanted to.”
Zelensky’s desperation—knowing he would lose an election—drove him to suspend all elections. His approval ratings stand at, at best, 25 percent. He reportedly “abducted people and sent them to the front.”
The figures on Ukrainian losses were systematically concealed:
- 100,000 dead (Jan. 2022)
- 1.8 million dead (2025)
In January 2022, Armstrong published that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians had already been killed. He was subsequently accused of spreading “Russian propaganda.”
💬 In reality, these figures came from Ukraine, not from Russia.Ursula von der Leyen confirmed the figure of 100,000 killed Ukrainians in a speech, but was later forced to remove it under pressure from Zelensky, who classified it as a matter of national security.
According to Armstrong’s consistently reliable sources, the death toll has now exceeded 1.8 million—and that figure does not even include the wounded.
In addition, five million Ukrainians have fled to Russia and eight million to Europe. More than 10 percent of the population is either dead or displaced. People in Ukraine themselves no longer know what they are fighting for.
The Eastern Complex: Hatred, Geography, and Historical Errors
Why history, ethnicity, and geography exert more force than any diplomatic formula.
The depth of the conflict lies in complex historical and ethnic layers. From the outset, the Donbas was predominantly Russian. Even within the Soviet leadership, origins were complicated:
Khrushchev and Brezhnev were born on the border or in the Donbas, while Stalin came from Georgia. The debate in Moscow over “Who is really Russian?” illustrates just how “complicated” and chaotic the situation has always been.
These historical overlays explain why external interventions in the region regularly fail. Borders, loyalties, and identities here do not follow administrative lines, but centuries-old experiential spaces. Anyone who ignores this reality and reduces the conflict to simple narratives inevitably produces misjudgments—diplomatic as well as military.
The West approaches this complexity through strategic simplification: good versus evil, democracy versus autocracy. Yet this very simplification does not stabilize the East—it escalates it. It collides with societies whose collective memory is shaped by foreign rule, betrayal, and ethnic fragmentation—an environment in which moral slogans do not create order, but reopen old wounds.
The Irrational Hatred of the Neoconservatives
An analysis of irrational enemy images that systematically distort political decision-making.
Armstrong, who personally knows several neoconservatives, describes their motivation as deeply irrational. Lindsey Graham was caught on video stating:
💬 “This is the best money we have ever spent to kill Russians.”A comparable statement directed at Black people or Muslims would constitute a hate crime.
The only explanation for this hatred, Armstrong argues, is that these individuals grew up during the Khrushchev era and came to hate Russians, communists, or whatever label applied. They are “simply angry” that communism collapsed on its own and that they “never got to shoot anyone.”
European leaders follow the same pattern, such as Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who publicly stated that “Russia is too big and must be broken up.” If Putin were to say something similar about Europe, it would be deemed “outrageous.” She is merely “another one of those neoconservatives who cannot get over the fact that communism collapsed.”
The Failure of Communism: Stalin Versus the “Tall Poppy Syndrome”
How different forms of totalitarian control leave lasting damage on societies.
Neither the Russian people, nor the Chinese, nor Eastern Europeans want a return to communism.
Armstrong, who spent time behind the Berlin Wall and in China, explains the fundamental difference between the two communist systems—a difference that later hindered Russia’s development:
- Stalin (Russia): paranoia, an attempt to reshape human nature
- China: the “Tall Poppy Syndrome,” control, but less intrusive
Stalin (Russia): He sought to alter human nature itself. Children were taught to report their parents, as the state was considered the true parent. People worried about what they said even to their spouses. The system followed the Marxist ideal—anti-religious and draconian.
China: The “Tall Poppy Syndrome” prevailed. Authorities did not care what one said to one’s spouse, but if someone “stuck their head out,” it was cut off. The system revolved around control, but not down to every detail.
💬 “The real battlefield often lies not in geography, but in the human mind.”The paranoid nature of the Russian system prevented flourishing, while the Chinese system boomed more rapidly after the end of communism. A friend of Armstrong’s in East Germany discovered after the fall of the Wall, through his Stasi file, that everyone he had considered a friend had betrayed him—a form of psychological destruction that led people to speak only within their families.
The Curse of the Balkans and Ethnic Resentments
Why unresolved ethnic and religious tensions remain Europe’s greatest strategic liability.
Eastern Europe and the Balkan region are, as Armstrong puts it, “deeply indoctrinated with this hatred.” Former German Chancellor Bismarck predicted as early as 1888 that Europe would be plunged into a major war originating in the Balkans.
Chaos and religion shape the region. Once conquered by the Ottoman Empire, it encompasses three religions—Islam, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Western Christianity. “Everyone hates everyone.” Even between NATO members Greece and Turkey, there is a conflict that “goes back to Alexander the Great.” When religion is involved—“my God versus your God”—land cannot simply be negotiated.
💬 “When foreign policy is driven by ideology rather than facts, it almost always leads to disaster.”The absence of a true melting pot is decisive. Europe failed to overcome these ethnic differences. Armstrong emphasizes that the United States grew through “discrimination”—the last arrivals were discriminated against until they spoke English, after which intermarriage followed. This pattern does not exist in Europe; old resentments have remained intact.
For this reason, Armstrong is not optimistic that Europe will become a “land of peace.” Europe is economically exhausted—and, in his view, dependent on war.
The Grand Staging: Psychological Warfare and the Demonization of the Enemy
How enemy images are constructed to conceal economic and political crises.
Geopolitical reality reveals a disturbing truth: the ruling elite needs war. Drawing on insights from psychological research—such as Stanley Milgram’s well-known work “Obedience to Authority”—the strategy becomes clear: when an economic problem exists, a psychological enemy must be created.
The response of those in power is therefore the systematic demonization of the adversary. This was done with Saddam Hussein—portrayed as “evil,” as a dictator, and as a threat. The same tactic is now applied to Vladimir Putin, and it was even attempted against Donald Trump.
This form of psychological warfare does not aim to persuade, but to condition emotionally. The opponent is no longer perceived as a political actor, but as a morally dehumanized projection surface against which any measure appears legitimate. In such a climate, peace becomes not merely unlikely—it becomes unthinkable, because it would cause the carefully constructed enemy image to collapse.
The Summit of Desperation: The Public Humiliation of Trump
A diplomatic spectacle that was less about negotiation than a display of power.
The unprecedented move by European heads of state, who collectively flew to Washington and secretly met with Zelensky at the Ukrainian embassy before receiving Trump, was part of this psychological warfare.
Armstrong’s Ukrainian sources revealed the strategy behind it: Boris Johnson had been in Kyiv three days earlier. The actual signing was supposed to take place in Kyiv. Johnson, however, instructed Zelensky to insist on “going to the White House and humiliating Trump.”
Their objective was clearly defined:
- public humiliation of Trump
- maintenance of funding and war
They gambled on embarrassing Trump and making him appear weak in order to keep funding flowing and the war going. This information was passed on by Armstrong. The press, which reported on Zelensky’s “warm reception,” “does not know.” Today’s news landscape is dominated by propaganda.
The fact that all these world leaders—who normally convene only at G20 summits—traveled to Washington uninvited underscores the desperation of the situation. They all arrived together, including NATO, which Armstrong refers to as a “neocon retirement home.”
The Eliminated Purpose: NATO as a Driver of War
Why an alliance without an enemy inevitably has to invent new wars.
The NATO alliance does not want peace. It should have been dissolved when communism and the Warsaw Pact collapsed, since its original purpose was to serve as a counterweight to the Warsaw Pact. Today, NATO has “no other purpose at all than to create war.”
Internal memos reviewed by Armstrong showed that when funds began flowing into climate-related initiatives, internal discussions emerged asking: “How do we remain relevant?”
An existential question thus arose internally:
- loss of relevance after the end of the system
- search for a new source of legitimacy
The propaganda they spread—“oh, Putin wants to invade Europe”—is a lie. Putin has been in power since 1999 and has no interest in taking over Europe, as it possesses “nothing of value.” There is no energy, no gold reserves.
Historical contrast: Hitler, by comparison, sought power in order to conquer, not to destroy. He did not bomb Paris because he admired its culture. At the time, the so-called Jewish question was largely linked to Bolshevik ideology, since Trotsky was Jewish.
💬 “Ideological wars end—instrumental wars do not.”The current situation is different. The earlier conflict under Khrushchev—“We will bury you”—was a philosophical struggle between communism and capitalism, an attempt to impose the Marxist idea of eliminating “God and capitalism—greed.” “That is not Putin, I’m sorry.”
Putin’s True Agenda and the End of Bolshevism
How false narratives distort motives and obscure strategic reality.
The narrative that Putin seeks to resurrect the USSR because he described its collapse as “one of the darkest days” is only half the statement. He was referring to the Bolsheviks, and he explicitly stated that Lenin was merely a Bolshevik, not a statesman.
Not a communist: Putin’s concern was the destruction of the Russian Tsarist Empire by the Bolsheviks—it was not about reviving communism. He enjoyed approval ratings above 70 percent and was widely welcomed when Yeltsin appointed him, because the population knew he was not a communist.
The center position: Yeltsin was under pressure from both the old communists of the USSR and the neoconservatives. He turned to Putin because he was “neither an oligarch nor a communist.”
This distinction is crucial because it exposes the core of the Western misunderstanding. Putin does not act out of ideological nostalgia, but out of state continuity and historical correction. Interpreting his actions through a Cold War lens not only misreads his actual motives, but reproduces the very analytical errors that have obstructed any realistic assessment of Russia for decades.
The Assassination Attempt and the Calculated Red Line
Why restraint in an escalating world is misread as provocation.
The demonization of Putin as a kind of Khrushchev is pure nonsense. Zelensky attempted to have him assassinated. The reason, according to Armstrong: Putin is “probably the smartest man at the table.” He understands that escalation would lead to World War III—and he has no intention of going there. Even Clinton referred to him as “really smart.”
Zelensky sought to eliminate him because Putin drew clear red lines:
💬 “If you give them long-range missiles to attack us, that’s it.”Nevertheless, NATO has “crossed every single line.”
This restraint is not a sign of weakness, but the deliberate calculation of an actor who understands the opponent’s escalation logic. By clearly defining red lines without impulsively crossing them, Putin denies NATO the reaction it strategically seeks. That is precisely the real danger for the architects of escalation: an adversary who refuses to be provoked undermines the entire script.
The Trap of the “Rally Around the Flag” Tactic
A psychological escalation strategy that deliberately plays with the risk of global derailment.
NATO is desperately trying to provoke him into attacking something within NATO territory in order to portray him as the aggressor. This is the psychological tactic known as “rally around the flag.”
False-flag operations follow the same logic: the enemy is forced into an action so that one’s own population rises to defend itself. People will not mobilize simply because they are told the enemy is “bad.”
The principle behind it is simple:
- provoke
- force a reaction
The Medvedev risk: Zelensky knew that “if you take out Putin, it will get really bad.” Someone like Medvedev would come to power—someone “not as smart and prone to emotional reaction.” “That is exactly what they want.” Then: “Boom. Okay, that’s it. I press the button.”
💬 “Restraint is read as weakness—until it prevents the abyss.”Putin understands this psychological tactic and has exercised restraint at every single stage. This creates an internal political problem for him, as people perceive him as weak. Nevertheless, there is deep concern that we could indeed face World War III if NATO continues down this path and succeeds in triggering his removal. Everyone who has met Putin confirms: he is “very smart.”
The Great Betrayal Analysis: Europe’s Lost Legitimacy and the False-Flag Risk
Why Europe’s political leadership has squandered its moral and strategic legitimacy.
The insights Martin Armstrong drew from conversations with members of Congress on Capitol Hill are explosive. He approached them with a stark warning: the United States should withdraw from NATO. His reasoning was clear—Europe would stab the U.S. in the back, and NATO would stage a false-flag operation to pull America into the conflict.
The reaction from Washington was shocking:
Instead of dismissing him as a conspiracy theorist, the response was: “Yes, we know—you’re right.” This confirms the cynical indifference of the elite toward national security and the risk of military escalation.
The true danger lies less in the possibility of a false-flag operation than in the fact that it is strategically anticipated. When alliances begin to treat deception scenarios as legitimate instruments of escalation, trust is not merely damaged—entire security architectures are hollowed out. Europe’s lost legitimacy thus reveals itself not in rhetoric, but in the willingness to externalize risk, even at the price of global destabilization.
The Minsk Confession: An Unprecedented Breach of Trust
A public admission that irreversibly destroys any claim to trust.
The consequence of this betrayal is unambiguous:
Europe has forfeited any right to sit at a negotiation table with Russia.
The reason lies in the public exposure of the true nature of the Minsk agreements. Armstrong emphasizes that had this peace agreement been implemented, there would have been no war. Yet when Angela Merkel was asked by newspapers why the agreement was never enforced, she delivered a historically unprecedented confession:
💬 “We never intended to implement it. We only bought time so that Ukraine could build an army.”Armstrong explains that in his entire career he has never witnessed a politician publicly admitting to lying in a peace treaty. Neither in his lifetime nor in recorded history is there a comparable precedent.
This admission destroys any legitimacy Europe might claim as a negotiating partner. Why should Vladimir Putin accept anything signed by European powers? “Even if they sign it, it doesn’t matter.” Whether Merkel “had been drinking or whatever the hell the problem was,” this confession constituted an unparalleled act of betrayal against any peace process. Europe has thereby forfeited any right to sit at any table.
The Shame of Minsk: Europe’s Departure from Legitimacy
How Europe itself confirmed that peace was never the true objective.
The betrayal of the Minsk agreements was not limited to a single leader. François Hollande, then president of France, and Angela Merkel, the guarantors of Minsk II, also came forward and went on record admitting that the agreement was a farce. The reality:
💬 “We merely manipulated the situation. We prepared Ukraine.”In light of this unprecedented, public admission of deception, a fundamental question arises: why negotiate with these powers at all?
Europe’s credibility was further eroded when Boris Johnson—whose statement even appeared on the front pages of Norwegian newspapers—declared:
💬 “We are fighting a proxy war with Russia.”This implicitly means that the United Kingdom considers itself at war with Russia. These leaders have forfeited any right to sit at a negotiating table.
The NATO Scam and Europe’s Self-Destructive Agenda
Why NATO has become less a security architecture than an institutional end in itself.
The reaction of European leaders—who all boarded a plane together and flew to Washington alongside NATO—demonstrates their desperation. NATO, which Armstrong describes as a “retirement home” and a “NATO scam,” serves merely as a cover.
The breakdown in communication with Washington is evident. Armstrong issued a stark warning that Europe would stab Trump in the back, as it is not trustworthy. Europe’s agenda is oriented toward war because it is economically collapsing. Through COVID policies, climate measures, and sanctions, Europe has thoroughly ruined itself and is now, economically speaking, a hopeless case.
War is thus no longer treated as a security necessity, but misused as an economic stabilization instrument. Instead of correcting structural failures, Europe externalizes its crisis and binds it to military escalation. In this context, NATO functions less as a defensive alliance than as a political alibi—a mechanism that does not produce security, but administers its own decline.
The Weaponization of Currency: CBDCs and the Golden Age of the Dollar
How digital control is deployed as the final instrument of a failing system.
In its desperation, the European elite is pushing for the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), seeking to bring their launch forward to January or even earlier. The danger lies in the systematic devaluation of cash:
European countries regularly abolish currency denominations in order to force citizens into taxation and traceability.
💬 “Whoever controls cash controls behavior.”The €500 note has been abolished, as have certain pound notes in the United Kingdom and high-denomination banknotes in Canada.
The U.S. dollar remains the true reserve currency, as roughly 70 percent of physical dollars circulate outside the country and people know they cannot simply be annulled. This is why Donald Trump proposed reintroducing the $500 bill—to reinforce the dollar’s global role.
The introduction of digital central bank currencies therefore marks not a technological advance, but a shift in power politics. Control replaces trust; traceability replaces freedom. While Europe attempts to mask fiscal instability through digital discipline, the dollar paradoxically benefits from this very loss of control: its strength lies not in perfection, but in the relative reliability of a system that cannot be retroactively devalued at will.
The Birth of the BRICS Alliance
Why the weaponization of the dollar permanently shifted the global balance of power.
The greatest geopolitical miscalculation of the neoconservatives was the weaponization of the dollar. The imposition of sanctions on Russia served as a warning signal and directly contributed to the emergence of the BRICS alliance.
The Biden administration threatened China:
💬 “If you help Russia, we will do the same to you.”The result: China began selling off U.S. Treasury bonds, and BRICS was formed because the dollar had been turned into a military weapon. “Once you did that—the Biden administration did that—it was over.”
BRICS did not arise from ideological alignment, but from functional necessity. The alliance is less a counter-project to the West than a safeguard against its unpredictability. By politicizing the dollar and converting it into a sanctions weapon, the West forced other actors to develop alternatives—not out of rebellion, but out of self-preservation.
The Mortgage of Peace: Russia’s Frozen Assets
A financial explosive that blocks any serious peace process.
Negotiations over a peace agreement are overshadowed by a massive problem: $330 billion in Russian assets have been frozen. The majority is held by Euroclear, while $70 to $75 billion are held by France.
Rumors suggest that France is so desperate it may be drawing on these funds itself. Part of any peace settlement would require the lifting of sanctions. The decisive question remains: will Russia get its money back, or will Europe say:
💬 “No, we need it ourselves.” “Do not be too optimistic about a near-term peace.”Property itself thus becomes a geopolitical bargaining chip, placing every future peace agreement under a structural reservation. When assets are politically redefined and retained according to expediency, Europe not only loses its legal credibility—it also destroys the foundation of any future negotiation. Peace is not prevented because it is impossible, but because it is economically undesirable.
Zelensky: A Dictator Under NATO Command
Why Zelensky appears less as an autonomous actor than as a functionary of external interests.
Hopes for peace are inseparably tied to Zelensky’s fate. He is a dictator who would undoubtedly lose an election, as he is deeply unpopular within Ukraine.
Command chain: Zelensky receives his orders from NATO, not from the Ukrainian people.
MI6 control: Military sources told Armstrong that the orders to seize Kherson came from MI6, the United Kingdom.
Personal security: After an assassination attempt, Zelensky dismissed his Ukrainian bodyguards; his new security detail consists of Americans and Britons. He does not trust his own people.
Payout: Zelensky transfers $50 million per month to secret accounts in the UAE.
Military sentiment: Soldiers reportedly “wouldn’t even urinate on him if he were on fire—until he was dead.”
Armstrong’s appeal to Washington:
💬 “I see no possible peace deal with Ukraine as long as you don’t get rid of him. Let the Ukrainian people vote for themselves.”The Greed of the Alliance
How military spending becomes a means of survival for a political class.
Europe needs war to survive. NATO instructs all members to raise military spending to five percent in order to “preserve their salaries, their jobs, their pensions.” The constant propaganda—“Oh, Putin is about to invade any moment”—serves only to keep money flowing into their pockets. “That’s the nonsense.”
Security thus becomes a commodity, and threat a permanent business model. The more diffuse and existential the danger is portrayed, the easier it becomes to reallocate budgets, bypass democratic oversight, and morally delegitimize resistance. Fear replaces arguments; urgency replaces debate.
In this mechanism, war loses any strategic objective and turns into a self-perpetuating process. It does not need to be won—it needs to be continued. As long as budgets grow, positions are secured, and political responsibility dissolves in the fog of escalation, the conflict serves its purpose. Peace, by contrast, would be not merely inconvenient, but existentially threatening to those who live off permanent tension.
The Lies of War: Profit as the Engine of Escalation
Why lies are not a side effect, but the fuel of modern wars.
The propaganda machine is deliberately kept running, because the elites must spread these lies “so that the money continues to flow into their pockets.”
The systematic distortion of reality is not collateral damage, but a prerequisite. Without the constant repetition of simplified narratives, the gap between official rhetoric and real outcomes would become too obvious. Lies do not merely sustain consent—they hold together a fragile construct that would not survive politically without deception.
Profit thus becomes the true metronome of escalation. The longer a conflict drags on, the deeper economic interests, industrial dependencies, and political careers embed themselves in a state of war. Truth would interrupt this cycle—that is why it is marginalized. Not because it is unknown, but because it is disruptive.
The Article 5 Trap: History Repeating Itself
A historical mechanism that automates escalation and removes political control.
The structure of NATO contains an explosive historical risk. Armstrong warns that it was “precisely such agreements” that triggered World War I. The doctrine is simple: you attacked this, therefore this must happen, you must do that.
This is the foundation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Although the mutual defense obligation is formally described as “voluntary,” war advocates rely precisely on this clause. The last time Article 5 was actually invoked was by the United States after the attacks of September 11.
These contractual obligations create a mechanism that can inevitably trigger escalation in the event of a provocation or a false-flag operation.
Article 5 thus functions less as a security guarantee than as an escalation automatism. In an environment of permanent provocation and strategic ambiguity, a single incident is sufficient to activate alliance dynamics that escape political control. History shows that such mechanisms do not create stability, but dilute responsibility—until no one can credibly claim to have truly wanted the war.
The Conclusion: No Hope for Lasting Peace
Why structural self-interests override any realistic horizon for peace.
In light of these realities, the outlook for lasting peace is bleak. Armstrong states that he is “not optimistic about a long-term peace agreement.”
The reason lies in the power of internal actors:
💬 “There are too many vested interests pulling in the opposite direction.”These powerful interests are determined to instrumentalize the conflict and to prevent the guns from falling silent.
This lack of hope is not an expression of resignation, but the result of sober analysis. As long as political, economic, and institutional interests outweigh diplomatic rationality, peace remains a theoretical construct. It fails not because negotiation options are absent, but because key actors derive their power from instability.
In this constellation, time becomes the decisive factor—not to find solutions, but to impose realities. Systems that can only stabilize themselves through escalation already carry the seed of their own collapse. Peace is not prevented because it is unrealistic, but because it would fundamentally challenge the existing order.
Dictatorship Without a Ballot: Zelensky and the EU Elite
How democracy is replaced by permanent states of exception.
Ukraine’s political reality was permeated by distrust and manipulation from the very beginning. Internal associates of Armstrong reported early on that they did not believe Zelensky had actually won the election—they were convinced it had been manipulated, a pattern that has appeared in similar form in other Eastern European states, such as Romania.
Corruption extended into the highest Western circles: his backer was the same oligarch connected to Hunter Biden and the Burisma scandal.
💬 “This all really smells like rotten eggs.”Zelensky, who suspended elections in order to “never have to hold them again,” nevertheless dares to label Vladimir Putin—who has stood for election twice—as a “dictator.” The arrogance of this claim is evident in light of his own rule.
In this way, Kyiv and Brussels converge into a political model without voter feedback. Legitimacy no longer arises from consent, but from permanent crisis, emergency logic, and moral self-assertion. Those who refuse or question this order are no longer treated as opposition, but as a threat—a hallmark of systems that now merely administer their democratic façade.
The EU: A Deliberate Dictatorship of the Unelected
Why the EU represents not a democratic deficit, but a democratic surrogate.
Cynical hypocrisy is not limited to Kyiv—it forms the very foundation of the European Union. Armstrong urges readers to examine the facts:
Ursula von der Leyen is the head of the EU. She has “never stood for election—not even as a dog catcher.”
💬 “EU leaders are simply appointed, not elected.”According to Armstrong’s revelations, the entire architectural design of the EU constitutes a deliberate fraud against popular sovereignty. In conversations with Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, it became clear that the euro was intentionally created to prevent democracy.
The illusion of a parliament is merely a farce: “The EU Parliament has no right to pass laws. None.” The real laws are made “in back rooms by unelected people.” Neither Ursula, nor Klaus, nor their peers ever stand for election.
The system was “deliberately designed so they can be dictators.” The implicit and arrogant conclusion of this elite is that the public is too ignorant to know what is truly good for it, and therefore “we should make the decisions for them.” This is the true foundation of Europe’s power structure.
The Madness of the Neoconservatives: Three-Day Victories and the Wolfowitz Doctrine
How military hubris turns into collective denial of reality.
The belief in military superiority and the rapid defeat of Russia borders on a collective psychological disorder within the elite. The claims made by neoconservatives are so absurd that they mock any military reality.
This becomes evident when examining the statements of one of those Republican neoconservatives who attempted to remove Trump on January 6. A certain Kinzinger publicly claimed: “We can defeat Russia in three days.”
💬 “Anyone who calculates war in days has never understood it.”The bitter reality is this: we could not even defeat Ukraine in three days. We could not defeat Iraq in three days.
The consequence is a cynical mirror of this hubris—the assumption that an attack on China would then require “five days.”
Those who make such claims are regarded by Armstrong as “psychopaths.” Their indifference to suffering is evident: as long as it is someone else’s child—“hey, no problem. Not mine.”
The Real Agenda: Wolfowitz and the Struggle for Dominance
Why global dominance, not defense, is the real driving force.
The claim that Russia seeks to dominate the world—“Oh, he wants this, he wants to dominate”—is a classic projection. “No, that is what they want.” Neoconservatives judge others by their own intentions.
The actual driving force is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, published immediately after the collapse of Russia in 1991. This doctrine is not a conspiracy theory, but fully documented. Its core premise: the United States must prevent “another superpower from rising against us.”
The architect of this doctrine is described by Armstrong as one of the “worst neoconservatives.” Everything this faction seeks is war and power.
This doctrine explains not only past interventions, but the structural logic behind current escalations. Dominance is not understood as a means of stabilization, but as an end in itself—one that tolerates no equal actor. In this worldview, cooperation is a risk and multipolarity a threat, which is why conflicts are not prevented, but anticipated and consciously accepted.
The Coincidence of the Ukrainian Network in Washington
A personnel network that secures ideological continuity across generations.
A remarkable, almost unbelievable “coincidence” can be observed within the Biden administration—one that reveals the underlying agenda. The administration’s aggressiveness is not accidental, but the result of deeply rooted ethnic and historical animosities:
The personnel constellation is striking:
- Attorney General Merrick Garland (actions against Trump)
- Secretary of State Antony Blinken
- Victoria Nuland (key figure of the Maidan)
All three key figures within the same administration have stated that their families originated in Ukraine, and all three come from families that, as Jews, were persecuted by Russians. The statistical probability that three individuals from the same region, carrying this specific historical burden, would rise simultaneously into a decisive government is minimal. “That is quite a coincidence.”
This constellation reveals that policies of determination, revenge, and confrontation are driven by powerful, ideologically motivated actors who place war and power above peace.
The Snake Pit: Infiltrated Power and the Bought Press
How power, media, and ideology merge into a closed front.
The presence of three key figures with the same deeply rooted ethnic and historical background within a single U.S. administration is unprecedented. Armstrong, who knows people from all over the world, notes that he has “never seen even two with exactly the same background”—yet here there were three: Merrick Garland, Antony Blinken, and Victoria Nuland.
After initially keeping their backgrounds out of view, their actions revealed their agenda:
Their actions made the pattern visible:
- Garland attempted to politically neutralize Trump
- Blinken pushed sanctions and accelerated the rise of BRICS
- Nuland steered the Maidan and the assault on the Donbass
Garland sought to bring down Trump and prevent his presidency because Trump opposed war.
Blinken approved sanctions against Russia, which ultimately contributed to the formation of the BRICS alliance.
Nuland was on the ground during the Maidan, handing out sandwiches and toppling the government. The leaked phone call in which she handpicked the transitional government proves that she then ordered the attack on the Donbass.
💬 “Blame replaces accountability—especially in the West.”Despite this documented interference, Western public discourse continues to assign sole blame to Russia. “Please.”
The Network of Deception: The ISW Machinery
Why supposedly neutral think tanks are part of the war architecture.
According to Armstrong, the Western press is “indoctrinated and bought.” It uncritically publishes whatever neoconservatives feed into it. Even formerly conservative outlets like Fox News invite experts who are deeply entangled in this system.
Armstrong exposes the underlying network: the Institute for the Study of War (ISW)—an organization presented in the media as an objective source—is in fact a neoconservative organization. It was founded by the sister-in-law of Victoria Nuland. The question remains:
💬 “Can’t they find someone who isn’t invested in this nonsense?”Analysis thus becomes an extension of political interests, and expertise turns into performance. Institutions like ISW do not function as neutral observers, but as narrative amplifiers for a predefined interpretive framework. The public is not informed, but oriented toward escalation—within a system where authority is simulated to replace critical thinking.
The Endgame of Power: Morality and the Assassination
A system without moral limits, willing to resort even to extreme measures.
In light of these realities, the outlook for peace is bleak. “I am not very optimistic about peace,” Armstrong states. These people are “so committed to war” that they would “stab Trump in the back.”
The power elite, he argues, shrinks from nothing—not even assassination. Armstrong recalls that Trump was denied sniper protection until Pennsylvania. The suspicion is obvious: if the assassin fires, he will—like Oswald—be killed himself to prevent testimony and to ensure that the question “Who instigated you?” is never asked.
💬 “When protection is absent, suspicion begins.”Armstrong refers to a memo he published from the JFK files, in which a CIA operative told his family in New Jersey that the CIA eliminated Kennedy and that he feared for his life. Three weeks later, that man was shot dead.
The conclusion is brutal: “These people will do anything for power.” They have “no morality, no conscience.”
Their credo is simple: “We are right, everyone else is wrong, and the end justifies the means.” This is the mindset of the psychopaths who have pushed the world to the edge of World War III.
Thank you, Martin Armstrong.
Sources & Geopolitical References
Substack – US-Edition
This article is also available as a English-language edition on Substack:
Why the Elite Needs War – Martin Armstrong
Original conversation (video)
YouTube-Interview:
Peace With Russia Will NEVER Happen - Martin Armstrong
Support Independent Journalism
If you find my work valuable, you can support it with a voluntary contribution here:
Voluntary support via PayPal
Voluntary support via Buy Me a Coffee
Many thanks for your support!
More Articles
How America’s Economic War on Russia - Richard Wolff
An Indictment of 80 Years of Vassal Politics - Larry Johnson
America’s New Imperialism - John Mearsheimer
investigative commentary.