The Russia Ukraine conflict is not a simple territorial dispute. It is a geopolitical tinderbox driven by historical hatred, reckless intervention, economic collapse in Europe, and a faction inside Washington that will not stop until the confrontation escalates.
In an interview with Commodity Culture, Martin Armstrong states that he has been asked to help draft a realistic peace plan that Vladimir Putin would accept. What follows is a blunt assessment of how we got here, the lethal risks we now face, and a practical blueprint to stop the bloodshed before it becomes global.
Nazism in Ukraine and the Deep Historical Wounds
To understand the present you must understand the past. Ukrainian nationalist movements around Stepan Bandera are not some caricature in the press. They shaped society for decades and were responsible for ethnic cleansing campaigns before and during World War II. The brutality of that period is well documented, and the legacy of ethnic hatred has been transmitted through education and political culture ever since.
"They would cut the baby out of a womb of a Jewish mother and sew in a live cat."
Whether you accept the full graphic detail or not, the deeper point stands: sections of Ukrainian society have been steeped in hostility toward Russians and other minorities. That hatred helped shape the post 2014 environment, and it made reconciliation far more difficult. The Maidan events and the subsequent interim government were flashpoints. Outside actors, including US officials, played roles that escalated tensions, and the fragile mechanisms meant to keep the peace were repeatedly ignored.
How the War Started and the Minsk Betrayal
The sequence that led to full-scale war was not simply a single invasion. It followed years of provocation, political interference, and broken promises. When negotiators signed the Minsk agreements, those were supposed to be the framework for a political solution to the Donbas problem. Yet those agreements were not honoured.
In meetings I attended and documents I reviewed, the message was clear: the Minsk accords were treated as a tool to be circumvented. There were even public admissions from European leaders that they never intended to fully implement what they had signed. That single admission — that a signed peace deal would not be followed — explains why Russia lost trust and why the conflict later escalated into open war.
Why the EU, Not Russia, Is the Principal Obstacle to Peace
If you want to end this war, the problem is not Moscow. The principal obstacle today is the European Union and the cohort of policymakers who believe continued confrontation can save collapsing European economies. Europe embraced a single currency without consolidating debt. The euro was created first and responsibility for the debts of the member states was to be solved later. It never was.
That structural weakness — unsolved public debt, fragile banks, pension liabilities — makes the EU highly vulnerable to contagion. In a crisis, markets look for the weakest link. A failing European state would trigger a financial panic, widespread bank stress and domestic unrest. The political instinct of those in charge has therefore been to manufacture or lean into an external enemy in order to rally domestic support. That is a dangerous, short sighted strategy.
A Brutal Political Machine: The Neocon Factor
A powerful strand of US foreign policy remains uncompromisingly interventionist. The neoconservative mindset has repeatedly pushed the United States into wars that produced chaos and worse outcomes than the pretext for intervention. The tactic is always similar: escalate, provoke, show force, and then use the resulting rally around the flag to justify continuing intervention.
That mentality is alive in Washington today. From supplying arms that can strike deep into Russian territory to encouraging escalation, some actors are treating Ukraine as a proxy battlefield rather than a sovereign nation whose population will pay the price. This is not abstract: when political leaders openly prefer war because it stabilises their domestic position, diplomacy becomes near impossible.
The Danger of Tomahawks and Nuclear Ambiguity
One of the most alarming recent developments is the suggestion that Tomahawk cruise missiles could be supplied to Ukraine, possibly operated by US personnel. The problem is not simply range or lethality. Tomahawk missiles exist in both conventional and nuclear-capable variants. From Moscow's perspective there is no practical way to know which payload a missile carries once launched. That ambiguity dramatically raises the risk of a nuclear escalation.
"If you fire a Tomahawk into Moscow, do I assume it is conventional or nuclear? There is no way to tell."
Giving these weapons or assisting in strikes that hit targets inside Russia puts Moscow in a position where it might feel it has no choice but to respond decisively. This is not paranoia. It is a direct military logic that could rapidly spiral into a nuclear exchange.
Why China, Iran and Others Could Be Drawn In
If the West succeeds in subduing Russia, the strategic consequences would be immediate and dangerous. China has repeatedly signalled that it will not tolerate a defeat of Russia that leaves it exposed. The same logic applies to Iran and other regional powers. If Moscow is convincingly humbled, Beijing and Tehran would fear being next.
Moreover, creating a two way partnership between Russia and China is exactly what the neocons risked by isolating Moscow. Military history and strategy illustrate a clear danger: once you face multiple large adversaries on several fronts you run the risk of overreach and catastrophic defeat. Imagine a scenario where China seizes the moment to act on Taiwan, North Korea opens a front on the Korean peninsula, and Russia escalates in Europe. That multidirectional crisis would be nearly impossible to manage.
Rare Earths, Economics and a Practical Geostrategic Pivot
Beyond military calculations, there are hard economic realities that make a different approach not only preferable but necessary. Russia possesses substantial rare earth reserves and the mining expertise necessary to exploit them. Rare earths are strategic materials: an F 35 jet can require hundreds of kilograms of rare earth elements to build and operate.
China currently dominates rare earth refining and supply chains. That leverage is a national security risk for the United States and its allies. War with Russia actually deepens that dependency and pushes Russia and China closer together.
Instead, a pragmatic path would be to normalise relations economically. Drop sanctions, permit joint ventures between US and Russian companies to mine and process rare earths, and invest in technology to make supply chains more resilient. Such economic ties recreate mutual interests that disincentivise war.
The Roman Model: Free Trade as a Peace Mechanism
History provides a lesson: long periods of stability are often underpinned by broad economic integration. The Roman Empire maintained relative peace in many regions for centuries because trade connected distant cities and provinces. When both sides profit from commerce, war becomes a route to self harm.
In modern terms, integrate economies so that daily livelihoods depend on cross border trade and investment. Prosperity reduces the appetite for conflict. Conversely, when economies falter, political leaders are tempted to use external enemies to distract populations and shore up power.
A Realistic Blueprint for Peace
Based on careful study and private high level consultations, here is a practical set of steps that would offer a credible route to ending the fighting and preventing global escalation.
- Immediately insist on honouring the Minsk agreements. Minsk was a signed framework. If the EU refuses to implement what it signed, the United States must be prepared to recalibrate alliances.
- Hold the EU accountable. If European institutions refuse to honour their commitments, the United States should consider withdrawing from NATO as leverage to compel realistic negotiations rather than endless escalation.
- Cut off promises of massive Western investment. Deny the Zelensky government the ability to finance a trillion dollar reconstruction dream unless political rights for the Donbas and Crimea are respected and a genuine peace process is implemented.
- End sanctions and reestablish economic ties. Drop broad sanctions that push Russia closer to China. Allow joint ventures in strategic sectors like rare earth mining to reduce global supply risks and to create interdependence.
- Strategic decoupling of Russia and China. Use economic cooperation as the hook to separate Moscow and Beijing, as Nixon and Kissinger once attempted with China and the Soviet Union.
- Remove nuclear ambiguity. Do not place weapons into scenarios where their nuclear potential is uncertain. Supplying systems that could be nuclear tipped across borders is too high a risk.
- Offer credible territorial compromises. Recognise that some regions of Ukraine are ethnically Russian and offer referenda and political protections to resolve status peacefully.
- Establish transparent back channel diplomacy. Parallel off radar discussions with Russian interlocutors are necessary to break the propaganda spiral and allow mutually face saving outcomes.
Why Europe Is Pushed to the Edge
The EU faces structural economic weakness and mounting social pressures. A recession that deepens into the late 2020s would produce political crises across member states. Those in power may see an external war as a last resort to hold domestic coalitions together. That motive is a central driver of the current escalation and explains much of the EU hardline posture.
When financial panic hits, traders and markets look for the weakest counters. Banking stress, sovereign debt problems, and pension shortfalls would cascade across Europe in a way that leaders fear more than any single diplomatic embarrassment. That is why we must break the logic that economic collapse requires an external enemy to unify the population.
What Could Go Wrong: Worst Case Scenarios
- Nuclear escalation if weapons or strikes penetrate Russian territory with ambiguous payloads.
- Regional conflagration if China, North Korea, Iran or other states join the conflict either directly or through proxies.
- Global economic shock from disrupted energy and commodity markets, with European contagion leading to wider financial panic.
- Permanent breakdown of strategic balance if alliances harden and the world splits into competing blocs without mechanisms for peaceful conflict resolution.
Parallel Diplomacy Is Underway
There are back channel efforts and parallel tracks of diplomacy. I was asked to assist in one such effort and to design a plan that might be acceptable to both sides. These diplomacy tracks are slow and fragile. They require plausible, enforceable steps that allow each side to claim political victory while securing the underlying safety of populations.
Hope exists. But it will only be realised if cooler heads take priority over short term political interests. That requires leadership willing to make hard domestic choices and to prioritise stability over theatrical victories.
Socrates, Armstrong Economics and an AI-Forecasting Tool
One of the tools I use is an AI platform called Socrates. It monitors global data and produces thousands of objective forecasting reports daily. It is not beholden to advertisers or a particular political slant. In a world where media manipulation is rampant and propaganda can push nations to war, objective, data driven analysis is vital.
My broader work at Armstrong Economics seeks to emphasise pragmatic solutions grounded in economic realities and historical precedent. The only sustainable peace is one that addresses the underlying economic and security interests of all parties involved.
Final Word: Choose Trade Over War
War is always the failure of policy. The Roman model of economic integration shows us that when everyone gains from exchange, the incentives to fight vanish. Right now we face a rare opportunity to step back from the cliff: insist on implementing Minsk, remove perverse incentives to escalate, rebuild economic ties, and create enforceable mechanisms to protect minority rights and territorial arrangements.
If we fail, the conflict will not remain local. Multiple fronts, nuclear ambiguity, and economic collapse are real possibilities. We must act deliberately, not theatrically. We must choose trade over war.
"The days of Marxism that created the Cold War are over. It is time to embrace Roman free trade."
Source:
