Preparation For Martial Law? Europe To Recruit Migrants For "National Defense"

Europe's lack of military readiness has become painfully obvious in recent years, due largely to the war in Ukraine as well as the Trump Administration's efforts to force NATO members to fulfill their basic obligations. 

Specifically, Russia's successful use of attrition tactics against NATO supported forces in Ukraine has exposed a significant weakness in western military doctrine.

New and cheap technologies (including drone technologies) are making large scale maneuver warfare obsolete.  The era of super-weapons dominating the battlefield with minimal manpower is over.  As was the case in WWI and WWII, troop strength and boots on the ground are once again the key to victory.  

A Washington DC-based defense think-tank, Center For A New American Century (CNAS), has come to the same realization and suggests a novel (as well as predictable) solution:  Exploit mass immigration from Ukraine and third world countries to the west as a resource to fill the persistent void in military recruitment numbers.  

Writing for Foreign Policy, the CNAS notes:

"Closing manpower gaps may prove harder than writing bigger checks. The continent’s demographic crisis compounds the problem: Births in the European Union fell below 4 million in 2022 for the first time since 1960, shrinking the pool of potential recruits as geopolitical threats—chief among them, Russian aggression—demand larger, more capable forces..."

The argument, of course, presupposes that Russia has any intention of invading greater Europe.  There is no evidence that this is Vladimir Putin's goal.  However, the Russian bogeyman does make for a useful excuse to justify the development of a unified EU military force.  

The threat of war can also be exploited by European officials as a way to justify open borders and mass immigration from the third world.  Immigration from Ukraine makes some sense - It is a legitimate war torn country and Ukrainians are close to the rest of Europeans in terms of cultural attitude.  But, EU elites need a rationale for flooding the region with third worlders and war with Russia seems to be their ticket.  The CNAS uses the "demographic collapse" claim as a catalyst.

"Ukraine’s grinding war of attrition has laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Emerging capabilities in the form of high-tech weaponry cannot substitute for boots on the ground. Soldiers, sailors, marines, coast guardsmen, and airmen are the backbone of national defense. Yet the European Commission estimates a 43 million reduction in the bloc’s working-age population by 2070..."

"...Meanwhile, Europe continues to grapple with significant migration flows from Africa, the Middle East, and other regions. These arrivals, often young, male, and seeking better opportunities, represent exactly the demographic cohort European militaries desperately need. Many migrants arrive with valuable skills: language abilities, cultural knowledge of strategic regions, technical expertise, and, most importantly, motivation to prove themselves and build new lives."

It should be noted that these kind of articles from think-tanks are not so much "suggestions" for future policy initiatives.  Rather, they are propaganda pieces designed to promote policies that governments already intend to implement in the near future.

A number of European countries have already begun the groundwork for recruiting migrants for national defense. 

Ireland just recently announced that their are reviewing a possible program to give fast-track citizenship to immigrants who volunteer to join the military.  Irish leaders assert that this is necessary to boost defense capabilities, but they also argue that it is need to increase Ireland's "diversity."    

Several other European governments are looking at similar programs, including Germany, France and Spain. 

The real question is, would third world migrants actually fight on the front lines for Europe?  Furthermore, is this really the true agenda behind mass immigration?  To boost western demographics to defend against invasion, or to support the economy?

It is clear that third worlders are a net negative on the economic health of the countries they migrate to.  The majority represent a drain on social welfare systems.  Europe is on a downward spiral in terms of economic health and crime over the past decade.  In fact, the more European leaders embrace mass immigration, the more the economy declines and the worse their native demographic crisis becomes.  

It makes more sense if one considers the possibility that mass immigration and military recruitment are designed to keep European citizens in line, not Russia or Putin.  As we mentioned in our recent article on Canada's new program to recruit military trained foreign nationals for their own armed forces, left-wing governments are not really worried about invasion from Russia or China, they are worried about opposition from their own conservative and nationalist populations. 

It is much easier to control native Europeans using immigrant mercenaries with no loyalty to the culture.  The CNAS specifically mentions the use of military service as a way to sooth the concerns of "xenophobic" conservatives.

"The political center regarding migration has collapsed in the face of far-right xenophobic approaches to the migration file, such that few policy initiatives other than hardening land and maritime borders and cutting deals to send migrants away see the light of day..."

"The promise of citizenship provides powerful motivation, and military service demonstrates commitment to the nation in the most tangible way possible. The United States demonstrates that national identity is forged through shared sacrifice, not shared ancestry..."

In other words, sell Europeans on the idea that they have no shared ancestry and that migrants going to war for them is proof enough that they are loyal and should be citizens.  Of course, it's unlikely that migrants will be convinced to risk their lives for Europeans.  They might, however, be easily convinced to help oppress Europeans in exchange for citizenship and the spoils of subjugation.  

It's a threat western citizens need to seriously consider before supporting any government policy for the recruitment of foreign nationals.  They might just be supporting the very recruits that will eventually be used to enslave them.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 07:35

Ukraine's Fast-Tracked EU Membership Would De Facto Advance EU Federalist Goals

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The approval of “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and other candidate states would institutionalize a three-tiered Europe between the “E6”, Central Europe, and the new partial members from Eastern Europe and the Balkans for facilitating Germany’s divide-and-rule federalist plans.

Politico reported on the EU’s plan to grant Ukraine partial membership by next year at the earliest as part of a comprehensive solution to that country’s conflict. An unnamed official described this as “reverse enlargement” and explained that “It would be a sort of recalibration of the process — you join and then you get phased in rights and obligations.”

This modus operandi would enable all the other candidates to join too and thus complete the bloc’s expansion in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

If Orban isn’t ‘democratically deposed’ during next month’s parliamentary elections, then the EU plans to appeal to Trump to pressure him into agreeing to this, absent which they’ll remove Hungary’s voting rights.

Left unsaid is the assessment from early November when this general idea was first reported about how “Poland Might Impede The EU’s Push To Speedily Grant Ukraine Membership” if this compels it to open its agricultural market to another deluge of low-cost and low-quality Ukrainian exports.

Per the preceding hyperlinked analysis, “neither half of its ruling duopoly wants to be blamed for the domestic consequences of Ukraine joining the EU, especially not ahead of fall 2027’s next parliamentary elections. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s ruling liberal-globalist coalition is already facing an uphill battle and would torpedo any hope of keeping control if they supported this, while President Karol Nawrocki from the conservative-nationalist opposition would betray his base if he went along with them.”

It’s therefore possible that the EU’s “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine doesn’t include unlimited tariff-free access of its agricultural products either to the bloc as a whole or only to Poland in order to secure Warsaw’s approval. In any case, Ukraine’s fast-tracked EU membership would de facto advance EU federalist goals by institutionalizing Germany’s “two-speed Europe” proposal, thus leading to three tiers of membership actually between the “E6”, other full members, and the new partial members.

The “E6” refers to the bloc’s six largest economies – Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Poland – who’d collectively sit atop this institutionalized hierarchy that would unofficially be led by the German-Franco duopoly (or divided into factions by them if their rivalry becomes unmanageable).

Regardless of Poland’s participation or lack thereof within the “E6”, which the abovementioned hyperlinked analysis argues can’t be taken for granted, the EU would thus be formally divided.

The “E6” would push through reforms for facilitating federalization even if that end goal isn’t openly declared to avoid spooking some countries and their societies. The new partial members would then be pressured to conform with these new policies to obtain full membership, while the remaining full members from the second tier would be pressured by the first and third one into following suit. There’s a distinct geopolitical division between these tiers that deserves mention before concluding the analysis.

The “E6” represents Western Europe (with the exception of Poland), the new partial members would represent Eastern Europe and the Balkans, while the rest represent Central Europe. The EU federalists therefore want to pit the first three against the Central European members who oppose federalism in order to then impose that system upon them as a fait accompli. This observation further contextualizes the perceived urgency over approving “reverse enlargement” to Ukraine and the other candidates.

Tyler Durden Sun, 02/22/2026 - 07:00

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.