Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia | Dmitry Seleznyov

As cynical and crude as it may sound, a US war with Venezuela would benefit Russia. Venezuela could become America's "Ukraine," diverting US attention and resources away from our own conflict in Ukraine. The United States risks getting bogged down in a war it starts—especially if it launches a ground operation. In that case, Venezuela could turn into a second Vietnam for the US. Either way, South American countries would likely rally in solidarity to support it, uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." 

 

 » Uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." «

It won't be possible to tear the country apart with impunity; there won't be an easy walkover, and the US could face unacceptable losses. On the international stage, Russia and China would provide support—both politically and through hybrid means. On one hand, we'd be whispering sweet nothings to those Witkoffs or whoever's in charge in that administration, while on the other, quietly fueling Maduro's fire. Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? Of course, we'd offer help with the constraint that we're still tied down in Ukraine, but we'd do what we can.  

 

» Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? «

 

If things in Venezuela escalate to a hot phase and body bags start flowing back to Trump's "Great America," the MAGA electorate won't like it. Trump was elected to do the opposite. Fighting a war in Venezuela isn't just getting involved for Israel's sake or bombing Iran on the other side of the world—this one's right in America's backyard, with short supply lines. Not to mention that Trump would permanently lose his carefully cultivated image as a "peacemaker," the one he wants to be remembered for in history. A war in Venezuela would brand him forever as the man who tied a bloody ribbon of a second Vietnam around America's neck. Does Trump want that? Doubtful.

 

But Trump is pushing hard—he always plays the bluff game. Recently, Mr. Twitter declared a no-fly zone, and just the other day, he went even further with a full blockade. In effect, that's already a declaration of war. Will Maduro escalate? Sure, a direct conflict could end in different ways, but if Trump has already sentenced the Venezuelan president, what does he have to lose? Escalation often leads to de-escalation. Remember how young Kim Jong-un told Trump to get lost on surrendering nuclear weapons—and nothing happened; he ended up as a "good guy."
 

But for now, our friend Maduro is acting unconvincingly. Chanting "peace, peace, peace" won't stop an inevitable war. "You're only guilty of making me hungry," as the fable goes—red-haired Donnie's intentions are clear. So why wait? Look at the "barefoot" Houthis—they drove off American ships from clustering near their coast. And they're still standing strong. 

Or what—surrender?

Quoted from:
Dmitry Seleznyov (December 18, 2025) - Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia.

(Чем выгодна России война США с Венесуэлой.) 

 

» The Pathetic Empire. «

Caracas, December 18, 2025: Venezuelan naval forces have begun escorting non-sanctioned oil tankers carrying petroleum derivatives, reportedly destined for China, in direct response to US President Donald Trump's December 16 announcement of a "total and complete blockade" targeting sanctioned vessels entering or leaving Venezuela. The escalation follows the US seizure on December 10 of the tanker Skipper, carrying approximately 1.9 million barrels of Venezuelan crude, which Trump indicated the US would retain. 

 

Venezuela has condemned these actions as aggression, requesting an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting to address perceived violations of international law. Domestically, PDVSA workers staged protests across multiple states in defense of national sovereignty, while Vice President Delcy Rodríguez reaffirmed the uninterrupted operation of the hydrocarbons sector. Amid the tensions, President Nicolás Maduro reported that Venezuela achieved 9 percent GDP growth in 2025 despite sanctions, with projections of at least 7 percent for 2026.

Preventing Empire Collapse | Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou

The new 33-page US National Security Strategy, strongly shaped by Elbridge Colby and personally prefaced by President Trump, represents a partial yet still incomplete departure from three decades of neoconservative pursuit of hegemony. Officially released on December 4, it explicitly renounces any further quest for global domination, acknowledges that post-1991 globalism hollowed out American industry while delivering few benefits to ordinary citizens, and ultimately weakened the United States itself. It faults an over-reliance on allies and proxies that Washington could not fully control—pointedly implying Israel and European-driven adventures in Ukraine—for repeatedly pulling America into conflicts that did not serve its core interests.

 

» The unipolar era is over. « 

 

In place of hegemony, the document calls for aggressive domestic reindustrialization, technological supremacy, and a return to traditional spheres-of-influence politics. It resurrects an explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, insisting that no external great power may have any presence whatsoever in the Western Hemisphere and that the United States must maintain absolute predominance there. At the same time, it insists that America must remain the world’s foremost military and economic power and must permanently prevent any rival from ever attaining the degree of primacy the United States itself enjoyed in recent decades.

» Extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the EU. «

 

China continues to be treated as the sole peer competitor capable of achieving parity or even supremacy; opposition to Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland remains a clear priority, revealing no substantive softening despite changed rhetoric. Russia, by contrast, is now a power with which the United States must seek accommodation and continental stability. The document is extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the European Union, accusing Brussels of delusional thinking on Russia and Ukraine, economic self-destruction, creeping authoritarianism, and the erosion of European civilization itself. Stabilizing Europe, it argues, requires ending the Ukraine war in partnership with the continent’s other great power—Russia.

 

The new operating model abandons the image of America as a "weary Titan" bearing the world’s burdens alone. Instead, Washington will concentrate on its own hemispheric backyard while outsourcing or franchising security responsibilities elsewhere: Europe is expected to provide for its own defense, Asia will be handled by regional proxies, Africa reduced to transactional resource partnerships, and the Middle East treated as a complicated but no longer central theater. These partners will still answer to the United States and pay their dues, yet day-to-day management becomes their problem.

Historically, this precise pattern—admitting overextension, rejecting free-trade globalism, demanding allied burden-sharing while assuming continued overall control, and invoking the "weary Titan" metaphor—appeared during the terminal phases of both the British Empire under Joseph Chamberlain in the 1890s–1900s and the Spanish Empire under Gaspar de Guzmán, Count-Duke of Olivares in the 17th century. In both cases the reforms were offered as salvation but in reality signaled irreversible imperial decline.

» Explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. «

 

The strategy is riddled with contradictions. While calling for stabilization with Russia, Pentagon sources simultaneously press Europe to be combat-ready against Moscow by 2027; Europeans counter that 2030 is more realistic, and Viktor Orbán openly states that the official EU position is preparation for war with Russia by that later date. The unspoken American ultimatum to Europe is therefore: achieve full military self-sufficiency on Washington’s timeline or the United States will negotiate directly with Moscow over Europe’s head and end the Ukraine conflict on Russia’s terms. Given Europe’s incapacity to meet that deadline, the second path becomes the default—yet powerful entrenched forces in Washington, Brussels, and the broader transatlantic apparatus remain committed to perpetual confrontation with Russia and containment of Russia.

» Franchising security responsibilities elsewhere. «

 

The document is ultimately a fragile compromise between a small restraint-oriented faction and the far larger interventionist bureaucracy. History suggests the bureaucracy will prevail, just as it defeated Chamberlain and Olivares. Moscow and Beijing instantly recognize the contradiction of a United States that urges its vassals to keep fighting while posing as the reasonable party seeking stability; they will not be deceived. Russia, in particular, reads the American declaration that peace in Ukraine and stabilized relations with Moscow are now core US interests as confirmation that time is on its side, that it can stand firm on all demands, and that Washington will eventually concede because it is the United States, not Russia, that now needs the war to end.

Thus, while the 2025 National Security Strategy marks the intellectual arrival of restraint-oriented thinking inside parts of the American national-security establishment and constitutes an official admission that the unipolar era is over, its internal contradictions and the entrenched power of the old order make it unlikely to survive in anything like its present form. Like its British and Spanish predecessors, it may ultimately be remembered less as the blueprint for managed retrenchment than as one of the first formal acknowledgments that American hegemony has irrevocably ended.

 

Reference:

Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou (December 8, 2025) - Preventing Empire Collapse. (video)

  

Professor Shen Yi, Director of the Center for BRICS Studies and Professor at the School of 

International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, evaluating the 2025 US NSS.

 

See also:

 Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

William Strauss and Neil Howe (1997) - The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy.  

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (1978)  - The Age of Decadence.

Is Ukraine Developing Nuclear Weapons with UK and France? | Gerry Nolan

If Kim Dotcom is right (his bating average is very high), and Ukraine really is developing nuclear weapons with UK and French help, then Europe isn’t just escalating. It’s playing Russian roulette with civilization. And the worst part? It’s plausible. Horrifyingly plausible.

» Ukraine is developing nuclear weapons with the help of the UK and France. This is why the peace process takes so long. 

The US knows and it is playing on time. Ukraine is a US client state. If Trump wanted peace he would have it immediately. 

Russia is being played. « — Kim Dotcom, December 1, 2025.

NATO’s top general has now crossed the line from deterrence into madness. Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone has publicly floated the idea of "preventive action" against Russia—meaning pre-emptive strikes on targets "where drones could be ready to be launched." Europe isn’t defending itself; Europe is announcing that it is preparing for war and is ready to strike first. This is elite panic—the behavior of governments that fear their own people far more than they fear Moscow.

This adds up sadly... That Ukraine is developing a nuclear program with assistance from Britain and France, a charge that will be dismissed in Western capitals, but one that fits too neatly with Kiev's own public statements. This isn’t a wild accusation from the fringe. Ukraine’s leadership has repeatedly signaled nuclear ambitions: from Zelensky in Munich hinting at abandoning the Budapest Memorandum, to the ambassador, Andrey Melnyk, in Berlin threatening nuclear rearmament, to “we may need nukes if NATO won’t take us.” These aren’t slips. They are warnings and confessions disguised as hypotheticals.

Zelensky's potential replacement, Zaluzhny, suggests Ukraine could deploy nuclear weapons as a

security guarantee. According to the dismissed general, other options include NATO membership or

a "large military contingent" to confront Russia. They just crave a nuclear showdown.
 

And now? Europe is openly discussing preemptive strikes on Russia. NATO’s top general, Cavo Dragone, floated "preventive action" against Russian sites, code language for first-strike doctrine. Russia responded by calling it "an extraordinarily irresponsible step." They’re right. This is not deterrence but brinkmanship from a political class that has lost its mind, and knows it.

 

» I was actually in Monaco earlier this summer… and every other car there was an Italian supercar, like a Pagani or Bugatti, and

they all had UKRAINE plates. They’re STEALING that money, and it’s just one big corrupt scandal. « — Donald Trump Jr.

 

Why is the claim more than plausible? Because Kiev has the motive, is on record expressing the intent (to give cover for its patrons), the remnants of a Soviet scientific base, and the Western patrons capable of providing the expertise. And because a desperate state with collapsing front lines, a sacrificed population, and dwindling Western patience will consider anything, including the unthinkable, to secure leverage.

Rustem Umerov sticks to the script: "gratitude to the American people, the leadership, Trump’s peace initiative." 

"The US is hearing us, the US is supporting us, the US is walking beside us." Little substance, lots of pleasantries.

 

And Europe? Europe is no brake. Europe is the accelerant. London and Paris, terrified of their own political collapse, are escalating in every direction: naval-drone terror, hybrid and kinetic warfare, now nuclear ambiguity. They fear their own voters more than they fear Moscow. That’s why they push Zelensky to take risks no sane leadership would touch. Because if Ukraine falls, their governments fall with it.

Zelensky and "The Spirit of Ukraine," 2022 and 2025.

This is how great powers sleepwalk into catastrophe: a desperate puppet state, unhinged European elites, and nuclear ambiguity. And a military alliance openly debating first strikes on a nuclear superpower.

» It's over. NATO and the EU are finished. The Empire of Lies is crumbling. «  

Col.  Douglas Macgregor.

 

The world is standing at the abyss. Not because Russia wants war, but because Europe’s political class is trying to outrun the judgment waiting for them at home. And if they drag Ukraine into becoming a terror regime with nukes, or drag NATO into first-strike doctrine, the next miscalculation won’t be “hybrid warfare.” It will be irreversible. We are closer to the abyss today than at any point since 1962, and the people lighting the fuse are in Brussels, London, and Paris. Not Moscow.

Quoted from:
Gerry Nolan (December 1, 2025) - Is Ukraine Developing Nuclear Weapons with UK and France?

How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle | Ray Dalio

The big cycle is the period from one era of great change and turbulence, in which various systems or orders are transformed, typically through fighting, to the next. Then, through that evolutionary process, we arrive at yet another period of breakdown. The last big cycle began in 1945 at the end of World War II.

 

» This will lead to dramatic changes. «

 

Within that world order, there are shorter-term cycles, like the economic and political cycles. The economic cycles have lasted for about six years from one recession to the next, and they unfold in a way where the economy is weak.  

 

 » In considering which spending to cut, when one looks at the possibilities, one quickly notices that about 70% of the non-

interest spending is considered “mandatory”—i.e., it is either contractually required or politically nearly impossible to cut. «

 

Central banks put a lot of money and credit into it. That causes markets to go up. There's a lot of spending; it gets too hot; inflation rises. They tighten monetary policy, and that causes the economy to go down into recession. Since 1945, there have been twelve and a half of those.

 

» It appears clear that, as the gaps in people’s productivity, wealth, and values grow along with

levels of dissatisfaction about how their democracies are working, it leads to more populist conflict 

and more policies that are like those in the 1905-14 and the 1933-38 periods. «

Average global levels of political polarization since 1900.

 

We sometimes don't pay as much attention to the big cycle when it reaches excesses, such as debt excesses. This is because debts rise relative to incomes. If you look at a chart of most countries, their debts keep rising relative to their incomes, but the incomes are needed to pay the debts. So, when you get to a point where the debts are high relative to the incomes, and debt service is very expensive and starts to crowd out other spending, and investors do not want to hold the debt as much because the debt does not provide them good returns and they start to sell that debt, you begin to have a change in that big debt cycle.

 

 » For the United States, the big cycles look mostly unfavorable. «

 Ray Dalio's “Power Index” for great powers and empires over time.

 

That big debt cycle typically corresponds with the big domestic political and social cycle because wealth and well-being matter to people. When there's disruption to people's wealth and well-being, then you have political disruption, such as what we are experiencing now. Consequently, there's more fighting over wealth and power, and so on. These things come together, which then creates the new conflicts, the new big conflicts: the changes and breaking down of the old orders, the old monetary orders, the old domestic political order, the geopolitical order, and such things to cause seismic shifts. These are periods of great risk for the markets and great risk for society. It's very important that they're understood.

Quoted from: 
Ray Dalio (May 28, 2025) - The Big Cycle Explained in 3 Minutes. (video)

Countries are allowing their reserves or assets to decline while acquiring gold. Central banks bought more gold 

in 2025 than in any year in history. They are not telling the public why, but their actions speak volumes.

See also:

Ray Dalio (2025) - How Countries Go Broke: The Big Cycle (Principles). 

Ray Dalio (October 30, 2025) - Gold is the Safest Money. 

Ray Dalio (April 7, 2025) - Don't Make the Mistake of Thinking That What's Now Happening is Mostly About Tariffs. 

Ray Dalio (March 26, 2017) - The Developed World Populism Index.

Martin Armstrong  (October 24, 2025) - "The United States Is Due for Another Massive Civil War". 

Javier Milei's Chainsaw Massacre of the Trump Presidency? | Alex Krainer

Yesterday, Argentinians voted in midterm elections which were critical as the first nationwide referendum since President Javier Milei came to power and introduced his radical economic reforms. The recent bailout(s) from the US Treasury helped Milei’s La Libertad Avanza Party win the elections with 40.8% of the vote. However, not everyone is convinced: that result was better than even Milei’s own party hoped for.

» To bail out his [Bessent's] dumb friends on Wall Street, that’s banana republic level corruption. «

 

Inevitably, haters will say that the polls were rigged which won’t help the government’s legitimacy. Either way, Argentina will remain stuck in a downward spiral. Milei’s reforms have been so staggeringly successful that keeping Argentina’s economy scotched together required repeated massive rescue packages this year.

First, on 11 April 2025, the IMF approved a $20 billion Extended Fund Facility (EFF) to support Milei’s awesome economic program, strengthen foreign currency reserves, and facilitate the removal of capital controls. The IMF is seldom that generous but it seems that it wasn’t generous enough that time, requiring the Trump administration to step in last month. On 24 September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced another $20 billion bailout for Argentina.

"El Bobo de Wallstreet"—"The Dumb-Ass of Wall Street".

Under the plan, the US Treasury provided Argentina with US dollars in exchange for Argentine pesos. This raised the awkward question: why did Trump’s MAGA, “America first,” administration put its taxpayers on the hook for Argentina? Bessent said that Argentina was “a systemically important US ally in Latin America,” and that the US “stands ready to do what is needed within its mandate to support Argentina. All options for stabilization are on the table.”

» [Trump] may have to distance himself from Bessent or even sack him. «

 

Well, OK then, but even supposing that Bessent’s justification for the huge bailout of Argentina is good enough, it didn’t seem that the bailout was big enough: the Argentine Peso continued to crash and hit a record low on Friday at nearly 1,490 pesos to the dollar. Before Milei won Argentine presidential elections on 19 November 2023, it took about 360 pesos to buy one dollar. Ever since, Argentina’s currency has been collapsing in spite of the successive IMF/US bailouts:

 

» Either way, Argentina will remain stuck in a downward spiral. «

 

“All options” being “on the table,” on 15 October, weeks after Bessent announced the $20 billion swap, he said that he was arranging a separate $20 billion facility financed by banks and private equity. But for the deal to stick, it may still have to be backed by the US Treasury. A-gain. And in spite of President Trump himself admitting that the bailout might not work and would provide little benefit to the American people. So again: if this is a burden on the American people with no benefit to them, then why is the MAGA administration doing it? [...] As it happens, Rob Citrone is a personal friend and former colleague of Scott Bessent. Here’s what the “Popular Information” newsletter reported earlier this month:

Major Argentine media outlets are now reporting that Citrone asked Bessent for a United States rescue package. Ariel Maciel, Political Economy Editor at Perfil, a large Argentine media outlet, wrote that after the Buenos Aires elections, Citrone “returned to his friend and former colleague… to request a second bailout, this time from the very coffers Bessent manages: the US Treasury.”

CE Noticias Financieras, a major wire service in Latin America, similarly reported that after Argentine officials ran into resistance with lower-level Trump officials, “Citrone managed to connect with Bessent to get him to intervene directly.” But from there, it gets a bit worse than that still: “Maciel also noted that two weeks before Bessent announced the bailout, Citrone purchased additional bonds for “almost nothing.” Maciel said the timing of Citrone’s recent purchases has raised “suspicions” that Citrone had access to “confidential information.”

If true, these arrangements present horribly bad optics for Donald Trump and his administration. If his Treasury Secretary is using his office and American taxpayers’ money to bail out his dumb friends on Wall Street, that’s banana republic level corruption. Any substance of this story will be milked for all it’s worth - and it could be worth a lot - by his political opponents at home and abroad. It doesn’t even matter whether Trump himself was aware of the nature of the bailouts.

Trump may have bought the ideological and geostrategic story about the chainsaw freedom crusader Milei and Argentina being a systemically important ally. In that case, he may have to distance himself from Bessent or even sack him. But even so, the damage has been done. It is hard to see how this won’t undermine the confidence in his administration and further erode his MAGA-base support. On top of that, corrupt dealings with Argentina and Trump’s aggressive stance toward Venezuela, has worsened his administration’s standing in the region:

» Like nobody’s ever seen before. «

The MIGA-MAGA gaga crowds are diminishing, and not only in Argentina.

 

Even if you bring all your carrier strike groups to the Caribbean Sea and threaten action “like nobody’s ever seen before,” the ultimate struggle is and always will be that for the hearts and minds of the people. That struggle is being lost like nobody’s ever seen before.

Quoted from:
Alex Krainer (October 27, 2025) - Milei's chainsaw massacre of Trump presidency?

 

See also:
Alexander Markovics (February 20, 2024) - Javier Milei - Latin America's Prime Golem Zionist.

"The United States Is Due for Another Massive Civil War" | Martin Armstrong

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies determined that the definition of a civil war is a conflict in which at least 1,000 people are killed. The institution likened the definition to the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion that broke out due to excessive taxation, and believes the US is on the brink of another civil war.

 

 » The division cannot be repaired. The cycle can never be controlled or altered. «

 Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794).

The first wave of the Economic Confidence Model (ECM) following the 1776 revolution bottomed in 1784, the postwar adjustment phase, when the economy stabilized after independence. From there, the cycle advanced toward the 1792 peak, marking the first wave of rising confidence in the new system. That peak corresponded with Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal consolidation, the creation of the Bank of the United States, and of course, the excise tax on whiskey. By 1794, as the ECM turned down into the 1798.6 low, we witnessed the collapse in localized confidence manifest as rebellion. Washington ordered federal troops to restore order, which many are juxtaposing to the current administration’s use of the National Guard in cities across America.

 

The assassination of MAGA activist Charlie Kirk prompted many to demand an end to political violence and the rhetoric that led to it. But President Donald Trump blamed the “radical left,” for the majority of political violence: “[Kirk] did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them. That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them, I’m sorry.”

The current private wave began in 1985.65, and confidence in the system has continually decreased since then. The last public wave in 1934.4 began in the throes of World War II recovery, with the nation believing in a better tomorrow after securing victory over the Axis powers. By the end of that wave, we saw the rise of the welfare state, Bretton Woods, and the failure of Keynesian policy.

The current private wave will last until 2037.25, but will peak in 2032.95. Capital has fled into private assets such as real estate, equities, and crypto. No one is buying government debt. There are macro and micro problems looming. Within the states, there is an extreme division between two polar opposites points of view. We are currently amid the second-longest government shutdown in US history because neither side can agree on how to spend federal funds. One side envisions a Marxist utopia, while the other extreme sees technocratic control over consumerism.

The division cannot be repaired. The cycle can never be controlled or altered, although countless men have tried and failed over the course of history. The United States is due for another massive civil war, but this time, it will be far larger than a mere revolution over taxes. Governments across the world will experience an uprising that causes their demise post-2032, and a new system will emerge. This is not my opinion – it’s just time.

Quoted from:
Martin Armstrong (October 24, 2025) - Europe Fears a US Civil War – Whiskey Rebellion to Now.

 

See also:

Martin Armstrong (October 24, 2025) - Another Violent Outburst – Democrats Inciting Civil Unrest. 

Martin Armstrong (August 30, 2024) - The US Is Now Ready for Violence, Civil War & Secession. 

Martin Armstrong (June 6, 2024) - The Five Stages of the Revolutionary Cycle.

Mnar Adley (September 17, 2025) - Kirk Assassination Reveals Israel’s Control Over US.

L. David Linsky (October 24, 2023) - War and Regime Change soon in the US.

 Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (1978) - The Age of Decadence.

On Gold, EU Capital Controls, CBDCs, Cryptos, and Stocks | Martin Armstrong

The Gold price is driven by geopolitical uncertainty, not peace expectations, with central banks acquiring it for its neutral status against collapsing European sovereign debt. European investors buying gold while leaders escalate Russia tensions create a self-reinforcing fear cycle. This risk has prompted major European institutions to relocate gold reserves to New York and Singapore, anticipating the historical certainty of European capital controls during crises.

Gold's powerful rally is terminal, completing Wave (3) past $4,380 just as Market Vane's Bullish 

Consensus hits a historic extreme of 95, signaling an imminent, major corrective Wave (4).

Evidence of control includes the new mandatory bank account declarations—the initial phase of preventing capital flight. Further anticipated steps include regulating cryptocurrencies and implementing Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) by January 2026, likely justified by a false flag event. Existing withdrawal limits (e.g., in Spain) confirm the focus on financial control, a practice rooted in historical currency cancellations and asset restrictions during past European crises.

 Dow-Gold Ratio from 1792 to 2025:

Dow valuation relative to gold now below mid-1960s.

The Socrates model forecasts a panic cycle in 2026 with intensified conflict and Euro stress, marked by a dangerous, unprecedented convergence of the international conflict and civil unrest cycles. This systemic risk is compounded by the destabilizing effect of Europe's large, unsupported migrant population. Economically, interest rates will rise, particularly in Europe, as geopolitical risk increases debt service costs. The unsustainable US debt trajectory confirms the sovereign debt crisis will lead to government failure when debt cannot be rolled over.

Investors are now in a "private wave," prioritizing private assets over government solvency. The primary stock market bubble risk lies in AI stocks, not blue-chip indices used by institutions for large-scale capital parking. Consequently, "smart money" is relocating capital to the United States (equities and real estate). This strategic move anticipates the CBDC's ultimate function: an impenetrable barrier to capital outflows, reflective of Europe's controlling political philosophy.

Reference:
Martin Armstrong (October 20, 2025) - Insider Sources Preparing For BIG Events (video)

Charts: Robert Prechter (October 21, 2025) - History and Outlook for Gold. (video)

 

Larry Williams' outlook for gold in Q4 of 2025.

The EU planned to launch the digital euro in October 2025. Now it’s delayed to 2029, officially for “technical reasons,” 

but actually after Trump banned the Fed from issuing digital legal tender, effectively sidelining the ECB too.

See also:
David Hickson (October 20, 2025) - Hurst Cycles Update for S&P 500 and Bitcoin; Focus on Gold. 

 Martin Armstrong (August 28, 2025) - Europe's Debt Ponzi Scheme 2.0—Default or Forced Loan.

 Martin Armstrong (March 21, 2025) - Europe's Date with Destiny: Collapse by 2029 is Inevitable. 

Martin Armstrong (March 1, 2025)  - Europe Will Go to War, Lose, and Euro Will Become Extinct. 

Nikolai Kondratieff (1926) - Gold Production Mirrors the Long Wave, It Doesn’t Drive It.