EU 'Set to Expire' as 'Tornado of Incompetence' Leads to Economic SUICIDE: Doomberg
Summary
Energy Lens: The guest frames geopolitics and market moves through energy, highlighting how small supply shifts can significantly sway oil prices.
Venezuela Oil: Incremental production of several hundred thousand barrels/day is feasible and could pressure prices, with Guyana cited as proof that even ~1% global supply moves markets.
Oil Outlook: Net effect of potential Venezuelan additions is bearish for oil on supply grounds, though any Iran conflict could trigger short-lived super spikes.
Natural Gas Trades: Advocates fading natural gas weather-driven super spikes rather than timing them, noting recent U.S. cold snap repricing that quickly reversed.
Gold Thesis: Strongly bullish on gold, linking its rise to a de facto world war backdrop and gold’s role as a neutral reserve asset replacing Western debt in trade settlement.
Silver Dynamics: Silver was pulled up by gold and social momentum, then crashed; it is a smaller, more volatile “devil’s trade,” warranting selling into strength and risk control.
EU Risk: Extremely negative on the European Union, citing energy vulnerability, policy incompetence, and rising political backlash that could lead to fragmentation.
Geopolitical Risks: Elevated Iran conflict risk could spike energy prices, but markets aren’t fully pricing war; the guest prefers fading war-driven price spikes over chasing them.
Transcript
Hello everybody and welcome into commodity culture where we break down commodities markets, sound money principles and geopolitics all with the goal of making you a better investor in the commodities sector. Today is February 10th, 2026. My name is Jesse Day and on this episode I'm thrilled to welcome Doomberg to the show, the author of the Doomberg Substack, the number one paid finance newsletter on the platform where he writes about energy analysis, financial markets, and geopolitics. Duneberg argues that most geopolitical events and global conflicts can be readily explained through the lens of energy. And he applies that thesis in examining recent events in Venezuela, Iran, Ukraine, and the European Union, including a bold prediction that the EU's time could expire sooner rather than later as their unhinged leadership plunges their respective countries into poverty and ruin through asinine energy and economic policies that could lead to a full-on revolution in the region. All of this and so much more ahead in my conversation with Doomberg. Doomberg, great to have you back on Commodity Culture. Now, last time I had you on the show was September of last year, and at the time you said the US would absolutely attack Venezuela at some point. Now, those words did prove prophetic, though I'm not sure anybody had the abduction of President Nicholas Maduro on their 2026 bingo card. And yet, here we are. Now, Trump stated directly this was about getting access to Venezuelan oil. First, it started off with narot terrorism and it kind of devolved into they stole our oil. I think talking about the expropriation of of oil assets in that part of the world and that America was going to take them back. Is this mission accomplished then in that sense for the US administration or are things more complicated than that? >> You know what to say about Trump and Venezuela? Um, first of all, thank you for having me back on. It's always great to to join you. We always enjoy our discussions and yes um we were pretty firm in our predictions that um the US would take some form of military action against Venezuela. Of course, we did not imagine that they would just swoop in and snatch them. Um which is probably the most agnostic word that I could use to describe what happened. Um this is something that has been on our radar since 2023. Um when we first wrote a piece called um the new world's oil and then on Trump's inauguration day we wrote a piece called misreading the room where we um I believe the social preview for the piece was if Greenland is the appetizer might Maduro's Venezuela be the main course. And um this EP episode um is yet another example of something that we marvel at, which is how few analysts, financial or geopolitical, um begin with energy uh when they try to understand a situation. And if you were paying attention to what Trump was saying before the election after his inauguration um and then used energy as your primary lens um then of course it became quite clear that as the world migrates from uniolarity to multiparity it then became quite obvious that the US would focus on its own backyard and Venezuela sitting there in close proximity to a whole suite of refineries that were constructed to process the crude that comes out of that country. Um it became quite clear that this would happen. Now the one thing that must be said about Trump, love him or hate him, he is not subtle and um is a is particularly poor at pretending his motivations are anything other than what they obviously are. And I suppose one should give him credit for that. um he doesn't even try to create pretenses for much of what he does. Um and so, you know, here we are. >> And now there's a lot of talk about this Venezuelan oil being much more difficult to bring online. We do know that they have large untapped reserves, but the infrastructure isn't in place. Exon Mobile CEO infamously telling Trump he's not going back there because they had their assets expropriated multiple times. So, in terms of potential oil flow from Venezuela to the United States, is is there really much of a hope that that this production could be brought online in a reasonable time frame? Um, how do you see that whole situation playing out? >> Yeah, we we followed this argument with some interest. Um, this is again another example of um perhaps a misunderstanding of the inelasticity aspects of uh oil demand. Um, yes. Restoring Venezuelan oil production to its historical highs of nearly 4 million barrels a day would be incredibly challenging, will take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money. That is objectively true. But it doesn't take an incremental 3 million barrels a day to significantly impact the oil markets in a meaningful way. Several hundred,000 barrels a day could swing the markets. And there exists lowhanging fruit within Venezuela to bring several hundred,000 incremental barrels of oil per day to the market in relatively short order with relatively dimminimous incremental investment needed. Um, literally just getting a handle on everything that is stolen by the cartels. I note with interest that you correctly characterize Trump's justification as evolving from naroterrorism to um outright recovery of US-owned oil. Um the two are much more interlin than Trump's credit critics give him credit for connecting um that particular dot especially in Mexico but also undoubtedly true in Venezuela. um the blurring of the line between narot terrorist and government representative um uh is is quite uh prevalent let's say in Mexico and Venezuela and other oil producing nations in the western hemisphere um south of the US and so um do we think um that it will be easy to add a full Guyana in Venezuela no but Guyana wasn't easy either and nobody would argue that Guyana's emergence hasn't been disruptive to the global markets. Look, you could look at Guyana and say, "Ah, after tens of billions of investment in more than a decade since its first announcement, uh it's only 1% incremental global supply." Well, that that sounds like it's nothing until you realize just how important 1% of global supply is to price swings in the markets. And so, we take a bit of of a more balanced view. It is a very important development. um it will impact prices. Um it is on balance all things being equal, bearish for oil prices because it's bullish for oil supplies all things being equal. And then last thing I would say is um another misunderstanding of those who aren't as familiar with the industry as they might otherwise be is that um possession of the resource is 90% of the value. uh the arc of technology is such that resources considered quote difficult or hard to bring to market now become easier with time and time is on the side of the super majors as they plan things in decades. I want to talk about the recent uh trade deal between China and Canada because although it appears that at the moment the talk of taking Greenland seems to have subsided from the Trump administration, Trump certainly put himself it appears at least in a in a less than ideal position when it comes to international relations with key trading partners. Unless you believe this is a 5D chess uh move. I I want to single out Canada here because we've seen this trade agreement and we've seen that include anou uh surrounding energy cooperation. Now anou is just that. It's nothing official, but I'm wondering what do you make of this development and do you think that China could become a bigger customer of Canadian oil and gas moving forward based on this agreement they've made? >> It's interesting. We we of course like everybody watched Mark Kernney's speech um in Davos and he gets credit for delivering uh a speech which certainly resonated with the room. Um and the speech ultimately was a protest against Donald Trump and the pivot to China that uh let's say the Commonwealth of nations of the former British Empire seem to be making. Britain Starmer of course followed Carney to to China uh days later. Um Canada, I'm sure Australia is making similar moves. Um, this risks being an overreaction to the Trump phenomenon. Um, of course that Trump is currently president dominates everything. Trump is an incredibly polarizing figure. We like to say that he is everything his biggest fans and his biggest critics say he is. Um, but Trump won't be here forever. And the relationship between the US and Canada is so important to both countries that I think it would behoove Carney and his supporters to at least contemplate a future beyond Trump and whether moves made today will seem as wise in the future as they might feel correct today. Um, you know, the old adage that Trump should be taking seriously but not literally. Um, you know, he is certainly a bull in the China shop and he is unconventional and he says uncoup things that we would never say and all one has to do is read that explosive Wall Street Journal expose on the crypto activities of the next generation of Trump's orbit um to realize that many of the critiques of President Trump are uh not without merit. Um but having said all of that to think that there's a world where Canada will be closer to China when the US is pivoting to the Western Hemisphere and that somehow that is going to be a a a metastable state, you know, a state with the even even the appearance of stability um or longevity I think is foolhardy. Um there are are ways to respond to Trump. Um, and I I I just don't feel like coming on the heels of that speech in Davos, um, that the trip to China and the specific use of the phrase new world order was was all that wise on Carney's part. The sponsor of today's episode is Arc Silver, Gold, Osmium. Owner Ian Everard is praised even by his competitors as one of the most honest and level-headed bullion dealers in the United States. They have some great prices. You can see some of them displayed right now on screen. Take advantage of these specials today by reaching out to Ian at 3072649441 or by email at ianarchsggo.com. Make sure to tell him of course that Commodity Culture sent you. And now back to the interview. Yeah, great thoughts there. Um because a lot of people are discussing the fact that in the midterms if the Democrats win the majority that they're just going to move to impeach Trump and perhaps reverse a lot of what he was doing anyways. Do you see that as a possibility? because and also I'd love to get your thoughts on the positives from the Trump administration in regards to fasttracking uh mining projects and that the push that they've given the Department of Energy and the Trump administration to increasing nuclear power capacity as well as domestic uranium mining as well as obviously mining of of rare earth elements and many other critical minerals. All of that appears to be a positive step forward. I'm just wondering if you think if the Democrats do get a majority in the midterms that they're just going to reverse everything that Trump has done across the board simply because it was him that was doing it. >> So, first of all, we have an operating mental model which we've not written about, but we've spoken about on podcasts and if we don't write about it eventually, then we'll probably have to stop speaking about it on podcast, which is sort of an internal rule that we have. Um, that mental model goes like this. There's no such thing as Democrat or Republican in Washington DC. um they wear those jerseys, but they're basically all play on the same team. Um and um there are policy differences sort of at the edges, but the sort of uni party pro-war party in Washington um exists. And um our operating mental model is the following axiom which is in a secret ballot um 80% of Congress would vote to impeach and remove Trump. Um there's no such thing for sure as the Republican party in Washington. Just look at the difficulty of getting something as simple as voter ID passed amongst a Republican controlled Senate. Allegedly, um it's not going to happen. like that. We've tried to say this to people who listen, you know, friends and and others, um that there's no such thing as a Republican majority in the Senate. Um they're not going to break the filibuster. Breaking the filibuster would expose the fact that none of them want um Trump's policies to be implemented. Um if they did, they would have broken the filibuster long ago. um they're quite happy that judges and those wearing the Democratic jerseys are doing the heavy lifting for them so they don't have to face mega opponents in a primary. And I I know that's a cynical way to look at things, but you have to remember that um you have to disconnect your emotional attachment to the correctness of an axiom. The only thing that matters is how functional it is. Does it explain events and does it predict events? And so far that mental model that senators have little use for Trump, Republican or Democrat um is absolutely true. And um honestly think Mitch McConnell would be much happier with a Democratic majority. I think John Dune would be much happier with a Democratic majority. they'll get most of what they want done anyway and they don't have to feel the pressure of the Twitter mob uh of proTrump types who are are insisting that the the Senate to be fair act in the way that the people who elected Trump wanted them to to act but that's not going to happen. That's just not the reality of Washington DC and um that of course is the very frustration that fed the Trump phenomenon in the first place. But they're going to run the clock out on Trump. And so um Mark Carney would be wise to skate where the puck is going as uh Gretzky used to say as opposed to um taking the bait of Trump and um grandstanding as he did in Davos. I mean I I thought the speech was quite good. It was well written. It was effectively delivered. It served a purpose. Um I'm not critique I guess I am critiquing it but um to think beyond 2026 and 2028 is the job of of mature political leaders and the relationship between the US and Canada is of such importance and the the historical ties between the two countries are so prominent um that you know cooler heads should prevail. Excellent breakdown. I don't think that's being cynical. I think it's just being realistic. The thing that shocked me the most about the reaction to Carney's speech at Davos was the comment section in YouTube and many of the places where it's posted filled with people saying, "Wow, I didn't think Canada would be the best representative for the free world in in 2026, but here we are." All this praise he got. This is the guy who was one of the architects of freezing dissident bank accounts in Canada, now officially deemed illegal and unlawful. And here he is talking about freedom, giving an example of the communist regime I think in Czechoslovakia or something and how how that fell apart because the people united and he's one of the biggest tyrants out there. So totally insane cognitive dissonance. But I I want to move on to Iran because this looks like the next target for the US and it's been an interesting situation to say the least. Trump constantly declaring he hopes they make a deal or things could turn out poorly for them. It's often clear what type of deal Trump is talking about, although obviously at the forefront is the dismantling of their supposed nuclear program. He's even talked about having them just be not allowed to have ballistic missiles at all, which seems to be something that they would never agree to. And at the moment, Iran does not appear to be interested in Trump's deal. How do you see this shaking out? How much is Israel behind Trump's actions and his desire to potentially strike at the country? and how would a war with Iran potentially put a risk premium on the oil price? That was like 10 questions, but answer it however you'd like. >> And to add an 11th, I'm going to circle back to Carney because it feeds into my answer um to this one. So um one of the things about Carne speech, of course, it was deeply cynical. I mean, if you look at literally what he said was everybody knew the rulesbased international order was a fraud, but we went along with it because it served us well. And now it's not serving us well because orange man bad is picking on us. And so the rest of us have to get our act together and find a new path forward which involves the benefits we acrewed uh under the fraudulent prior system in a way that minimizes the power of orange man bad. And so as proof of that, find me a beacon of democracy and freedom in Europe that is um standing in opposition to what Trump appears to be doing in Iran, which is going to war without a declaration of war from Congress for reasons that are unclear to us. Um and totally um contrary to what he campaigned on. um Trump campaign on ending wars and especially regime change operations. And now here we are um on the cusp of attacking a country with the stated purpose of changing that regime. Um what's remarkable is how little debate there is within America. This barely makes the news. U oh here we go again. Bombing another country. Oh well, did you see the game on Sunday night? Um I remember when there was a principled anti-war position in the US that was considered um you know not only um mainstream but sometimes effective that discourse is just completely erased from the zeitgeist today. And by the way our view is that that war could go catastrophically bad. Um I I don't quite understand it. I know there's a lot of talk about the country you mentioned being, you know, pulling the strings behind the scenes and all. Who knows? I mean, I we we don't go down that particular rabbit hole. Um Trump is the president. Trump owns his actions. Trump was elected uh on one policy platform and seems determined to execute another. Um rare are the occasions where an armada of this size are assembled and military kinetic action doesn't swiftly follow. So, if you pushed us, we would say some form of military conflict um is likely to happen. Um if it escalates, it'll escalate quickly. You'll see um the energy markets respond. To be fair, as we're recording this, the energy markets are not pricing in a military conflict. So, some people might get caught off sides. Um we are never one to try to bet on the spikes that arise from wars, but rather wait to fade them. That's sort of our view. Now, China and Russia have in many ways aligned themselves with the Iranian regime. What do you expect their reaction would be to attack on Iran by the US and your overall thoughts is what you see as their role in this bifurcated geopolitical reality we now find ourselves in. >> I would say that um they would not respond favorably to such a development. Um ha having said that watching the US use what remains of its air defense missiles especially its very expensive THAD missile systems in defense of Israel which they would undoubtedly have to do in the event of an attack. The 12-day war of June of 2025 taught us something that we had predicted and were concerned about which is the Israeli air defense system is not capable of defending against the barrage of missiles that Iran seems capable of sending its way. Um and the current leaders of Iran, the regime as you call them, um have vowed that any attack at all on Iran will be met with full-scale war, attacks on carriers, attacks on bases, attacks on Tel Aviv, and that it would be a fight to the finish for them. That they're they're saying enough is enough and we're we're ready to go to war. Let's do it. Um whether that's just bluster um you know, a prepositioning for a deal. Um, as we're recording this, um, Benjamin Netanyahu is on his way to the US for yet another visit and, um, we'll see, um, whether military action will follow from that visit. Um, but again, um, to reiterate, um, we think this is a catastrophically bad idea. And um yet another regime change operation is the last thing the country needs and the last thing that Trump's voters probably expected they would get uh when they returned him to office in the fall of 2024. The EU leadership continues to do what they do best, which is be absolutely insane and devoid of common sense. You released an article on your Substack near the end of last month called Borrowed Time where you wrote, "The EU now finds itself at loggerheads with essentially every major power in the world drifting through the global game of geopolitics with no strategy, failing economies, deep resentment at home, and shaky access to crucial energy supplies from abroad. What do you see as the ultimate fate of the European Union in today's world? And can we ever hope for decent leaders to emerge when the whole thing seems to be an insider click where only the most incompetent and corrupt are given access to power? >> It is our view that the um European Union's time as a entity uh is set to expire. Um this has been something that people have called for for a very long time. We understand that um the current slate of leaders of the European powers, not just the EU powers, so we include Britain and Norway in in that calculus, um are incredibly weak, um naive, um ignorant of physics for sure, um have no understanding of their place in the how the 7 billion people of the global south view them um and vastly overestimate their significance and power geopolitically. And the sooner this sorry batch of leaders are wiped away um the better for the people of Europe um who are suffering under this amazing suffocating um you know tornado of incompetence is the only way that I I could describe it that is Ursula Vanderland Kier Stalmer uh Kaakalis Emmanuel Macron you know uh Frederick Mertz you name it um none of These leaders are remotely popular and yet they govern as though they have a mandate. Just take this trade deal um with certain countries in South America that was agreed to by the European Commission and then put to a vote in the European Parliament where it was promptly rejected and now they're talking about just implementing it anyway. Um laying bare the farce that is the the oxymoronic phrase European democracy. I mean there's no there's no such thing as democracy in Europe anymore. It is it is drifting towards totalitarianism. Let's call it what it is. Um interfering with elections. You know the Republican um report uh the House report on the European Union's interference in the sovereign elections of its member states was pretty eyeopening read. Stunning that it was put out in black and white um for everyone to see. Largely ignored of course by the legacy media. Uh but that's part for the course. Um that which can't go on forever. Luci doesn't and um Europe is is spiraling towards poverty and irrelevancy and its population is about fed up with it and and we think you know political revolution is near. A key domino to fall will be Kier Starmer. Um, in our view, um, we've been amazed to watch the prediction markets get all of this wrong for so long. Probably a subject for another podcast appearance. Um, but if Kier Starmer falls could be the first domino, we'll see. >> Yeah, you brought up an interesting point there, which was the the blatant election interference and the attempt to crush opposition parties. I think the AFA in Germany is one good example of a party that's basically been at the brunt of the European elite. Um, now there's been several other instances we've discussed on this show before. Obviously, the Romanian elections, they attempted to interfere and get the Georgian election overturned. They were unsuccessful there. Um, there's a few other examples as well. So, I guess my question is, do you see the only path forward in terms of the EU ceasing to exist to be some sort of revolution? Because at this point, I just think that those in power are going to continue to execute their plan with impunity. uh regardless of what the people in their respective jurisdictions think. >> Yeah. So let let's define what we would consider the resolution of that contract on poly market. Let's say you know the end of the EU. Um our think uh our thinking is that at least one country leaving it would mark the end of it. Um because by definition um it's been a check valve of one-way traffic um since its formation. Look, that as it exists today, the European Union is an illegitimate construct. It has veered so far from what the original founding treaties promised the joining member states it would be as to be unrecognizable. Um it is literally a lawless organization, immune from voter um expressions and um actively censoring alternative views, trampling on freedom of speech um and blatantly interfering with democratic elections in its member states. I mean Romania was an outright theft of an election. Um the will of the people the people of Romania was was utterly stomped on. Um that's a nice country you have there. It' be a shame if you vote the wrong way. I mean that's what happened. Let's let's call it what it is. This whole cloak of nonsense around Russian Tik Tok interference. I mean give me a break. Um every I mean Putin is omni powerful. Man the guy's responsible for everything. Even Epstein. Um pretty remarkable this this character I tell you. Um so anyway um the the the challenge is is not only is it like oppressive like say what you want about the Chinese Communist Party at least they have a semblance of um skill and capability in the party. Um the competency deficit among European leaders is is is staggering. Um, just listen to Ursula Vanderlane speak for 10 minutes. Um, she just doesn't know what she's talking about. Um, she's failed upwards. She was a disaster as defense minister in Germany, riddled with scandal and incompetence and waste and mismanagement. And then, um, they promoted her up. Same deal with Kaiakalis, you know. So, here we are. Um, it it is fascinating to watch from abroad. The reason why we're convinced of it, of course, is physics. Um the European Union is a flaccid energy vessel and um has put itself in a position of uh of zubang. Um no good viable moves from here. Um they've sacrificed their heavy industry which is in an irreversible downward spiral until leadership changes. And so the harder current leadership clings to power, the more violent the change will ultimately have to be. >> There's a lot of talk that's been thrown around over the last few years about a potential for a World War II erupting and obviously there's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this talk, but we are seeing global conflict around the world. Um, some of it intensifying. Uh, what are your thoughts on the question of World War II? Perhaps are we already in in World War II? One, this a war that's being fought not only through direct kinetic action, but through propaganda, media manipulation, perhaps export restrictions on key commodities, trade wars. I wonder what your thoughts are there and just as a a kind of a a pin on the end of it, nuclear war. Is there any real risk of things going nuclear when it comes to the way that the EU is provoking Russia? I mean, so we wrote a or we we we released a dooms presentation for our pro tier in November called World War II, how we got here and where we're going. So, we're obviously not in the hyperbole camp. Um and in that presentation um we made the case that World War II began in 2014 with um the Ukraine situation and the annexation of Crimea by Crimea by Russia and more importantly the subsequent um levying of sanctions against Russia u which then triggered in a few years time Putin to begin selling down Russia's holdings of US treasuries and replacing them with gold And that is really the sort of beginning of World War II um in our view. And then the rest of history from that moment um can be viewed as various battles in that war. And I can tell you because we are consumers of everybody's propaganda that the uh key opponents of the western-based alliance, China, Russia, um even India, um they're portraying current events as World War II to their domestic audiences. Certainly in Russia and China, this is all viewed as a battle for how the world will manage itself in the decades ahead. Um the decline of American uni polarity and the rise of um sovereign nations um as they put it, collaborating together in a in a more just and equitable global order. Um this is of course what Carney was referring to when he was in in in China. um as the sort of new world order that was um hat tip to the the phraseology that is prominent in Chinese um domestic media. And so um the war in Ukraine since 2022 is a significant proxy war between NATO um and Russia. Um Middle East similar. Iran is of course a member of the BRIC states. Um and of course tensions over Taiwan um and the pivot to China as Hexith calls it um are all um sort of fronts in World War II. I think in 20 years, historians will characterize this time as World War II. And um as proof that such labels are kind of um you know um they're not really all that important. Um if you ask the Chinese when World War II started, it wasn't 1939. It was when Japan invaded China, right? Um years earlier. And so your vantage point on the it's like calling an official recession. Sure, there's a body somewhere with a set of rules, but you know, in our view um effectively World War II um is is well underway. And um if um well, your your question was whether we viewed the prospects of nuclear escalation as being high with Russia. We think it's much much higher between Iran and Israel. um if a true kinetic war breaks out and um a hypersonic missile is used to sink an aircraft carrier, how do you think Trump responds to that? Or if the half a dozen power plants and half a dozen water treatment facilities in Israel are taken out by a barrage of missiles and drones, does Israel use its long rumored nuclear capacity in retaliation? I mean, why have it if you're not going to use it in that circumstance? And so I think the risks of of nuclear war are much higher in the Middle East um than they are in U Russia Ukraine. If if if nuclear escalation were truly a prospect in Russia, we would have come much closer to it much sooner than we have. I recently had the chance to sit down with a former highranking Canadian politician, the former defense minister of Canada, Harit Sajan, at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference. Now, it wasn't my show. I I I wasn't able to ask the types of questions I'm asking here, but one question I was able to pose to him was, should Canada continue to fund Ukraine and the war effort in Ukraine because we've given over $32 billion to Ukraine while we have a cost of living crisis and all sorts of issues here at home. And his answer was a little bit typical, perhaps expected. If we don't spend the money now, we'll be paying much more later if Putin wins this war. I guess implying I don't know that Putin was going to attack Canada. I have no idea how that makes any sense. It's a default answer for the politicians and the people who are supporting Ukraine. Do you think he ab he actually believes what he's saying here or is there another agenda behind the piles of cash being sent to Ukraine? I think if you redefine the words we and pay in his answer to mean his political class and the political fallout that would follow from a loss in Ukraine um then his answer makes more sense. Um when I say this people who are um ferently for Ukraine get upset. But if you ask a hundred people in flyover country in the United States, and I'm sure it's true in Canada, whether they care who controls the Russianspeaking part of the Dombas, you're not going to find hardly anybody who knows what the Russian speaking part of the Dombas is and and why they should even take the time to answer such a silly question, let alone whether they would be willing to send their treasure and children over to defend who controls the Russian speaking part of the DOMAS. that this is just not core to Canadian or American or frankly even European um interests and to the extent it is important to European interest because I suppose they're closer to Putin who is simultaneously incapable of taking more than a few percentage points of Ukrainian land in four years and also will soon march all the way to the Eiffel Tower which is one of the great amazing things rhetorical contradictions that we see in the news every day. Um, we suppose it is a European core interest. Well, then they should start spending more on their militaries and and beef up, knock yourself out, but how many European wars does America and Canada need to get involved in before, you know, those that live over here um come to realize that politicians like the one you asked the question to are are answering a different question than the one you posed? >> Yeah, well said. I I want to get your thoughts on this incredible run in both gold and especially silver. Um both metals correcting somewhat recently, but that was after an absolutely parabolic run. In the case of silver, silver now, uh at $80 an ounce, once again, very incredible when you consider that during most of last year, people would have called you crazy to say $50 silver's on the horizon, let alone that it would run to triple digits so quickly. Um where do you think we go from here? In your your view, are all the tailwinds driving both metals still intact? >> Um, we have a stronger view on gold than we do on silver. Um, we believe that the fact that we're in World War II explains um the ramp up in gold. Um in fact the most recent ramp up in gold we think can be traced back to December 2023 when it was clear that um the Ukrainian counteroffensive had been defeated by Russia um and had failed to achieve its objectives and that then the war had transition to a grinding war of attrition which Russia was always going to win. Um and that meant of course that NATO would suffer a defeat at the hands of the brick states because it's not just Russia in this war. China is intimately involved in this war uh almost to the same degree that the US is involved with NATO on the other side on Ukraine side. Um, one of the things that we find interesting about gold, and I'll get to silver, don't worry, is that um, the value of Russia's gold has increased in US dollar terms by more than the value of the assets they had frozen when the war began, which we don't think is a coincidence. um gold is replacing western debt instruments as neutral reserve assets for the settlement of imbalances in international trade and um its total market cap needs to rise for it to effectively serve that purpose which is what we believe we're seeing in those markets. Now silver we believe got swept up in that gold uplift. Silver's a much smaller market than gold. And um there's a small but vibrant and effective group of people on social media who would very much like silver to go up and silver escaped into sort of meme velocity. Um and we have been cautioning people on the way up that um if you're not going to sell into strength, when will you sell? And um as our mutual friend Tony Greer likes to say, you know, high-five with one hand and make a sale with the other. Um we were cautioning with silver above 100 that um you know, if you've been holding it since the 30s, um it's probably time to manage some risk. We of course had no idea that it would sell off in the historic way that it did. And I think the full history of what precipitated that is yet to be told. Um but um silver at $80 is fascinating uh in in one regard which is it's it's more valuable than a barrel of oil which is for further proof that peachy boil is nowhere near on the horizon because you could buy a barrel of oil with a ounce of silver with some change but um we we believe that gold is driving this bus and that silver's u you know classic devil's trade silver's always been more volatile more exciting um higher riskreward sort of gambling at the casino type um metal with a bit of monetary aspects to it but um more and more so ever becoming an industrial metal really. >> And when it comes to energy markets, where do you think the most opportunity lies at present? I know you're bearish on oil, the oil markets uh here, but what about uranium, natural gas, coal, or any other area that you feel is undervalued and ripe for a revaluation to the upside? you know, you can make money on the downside, too. Um, you don't have to buy to make money. Um, so one of the things that um we have, um, we have occasionally done in our own lives and we think is is a great way to trade is to wait for that super spike and then fade it. You know, we had that here with natural gas in the US. Um it got really cold and uh mentioned to a few friends like if you think there's going to be a summer in 2026 natural gas is looking pretty juicy up here and um sure enough it has corrected back because the weather has turned and there will in fact be a spring and then eventually a summer and markets are repricing accordingly. Uh same story with oil. Um oil's creeping up here. We think this is a recognition that war with Iran is is sort of transitioning from unlikely to possible in the market's view. And if it happens, you'll see a super spike in oil for sure. And if you got long oil anticipating war with Iran, you will probably um make a handsome sum. And and who who am I to advise you against, you know, sticking a few tokens in the slot machines? Um but if there is a super spike um and it begins to retrace, there will be a glut in oil. Um and fading super spikes seems like a sureer bet um to us than trying to anticipate their timing. Um so and we'll see. Um the the markets will tell us if uh well the oil markets will beat the Bloomberg headline that war has broken out with Iran. Um that much is sure. So when we wake up the first thing we do is we check our Bloomberg launchpad and all the pair trades that we watch um that indicate crisis and so far none of them are firing. So perhaps the market is pricing in bluster on the part of Trump um and the Iranians but u but we shall see. So when you ask me about opportunities in the commodity space, in the energy space, um three, four times a year you see super spikes in natural gas. There's no need to trade 30 times. You could trade four times. Um and then the long-term real price of all commodities is lower. So we are not really motivated to own any of them over the long term. Um nor are there producers. Um we're putting together a dooms presentation on copper for February. um which is similarly themed. We go through the bullcase. We can we deconstruct it and we give our our closing views. Um, broadly speaking, there's a subset of investors who happen to probably have a high degree of overlap with Doomberg subscribers um, who really want to get long commodities because they believe in the tangible and they're uncomfortable buying cryptocurrencies or um, tech stocks or AI stocks or buying into bubbles and they'd like to own real things. They could touch, they could visit, they could, you know, go and see for themselves. But the problem is um human ingenuity is such that it becomes ever cheaper to extract these things. There's effectively an infinite supply of all of them uh for for modeling purposes. And so um if you have such a desire, our long-standing advice is just own gold. Um because at least you get the benefits of monetary aspect of that metal that the others no longer have. >> Well, Duneberg, tell us about your Substack and uh what it is you do there where people can find it. >> Yeah, we have two projects. duneberg.com for all of our energy and geopolitics work. And then classics read aloud is a new sister publication of Duneberg that we launched in September which is going quite well. There's actually more synergy between the projects um than might uh seem evident at first blush, but check out both. You can find everything at dunberg.com including a link to classics read aloud. Um Jesse uh great speaking with you again. Um looking forward to coming back in a few months and see how this batch of uh predictions has held up. >> Absolutely. and those links will be in the description below. Thank you so much, Duneberg, and looking to the next looking forward to the next time we can have a discussion. >> Thank you for uh having me back on. >> Thank you for joining us today. This episode is brought to you by Arc Silver, Gold, Osmium. They have some great prices on precious metals, bullion, they are on your screen right now. These are subject to change and while supplies last. So reach out to owner Ian Everard today at 3072649441 or by email at ianarchsggo.com. Make sure to tell them that commodity culture sent you and pick up your stack silver not fiat t-shirt represent sound money in style backed by 100% quality guarantee. Use the link in the description below and I'll see you guys in the next episode. Commodity Culture is a series on commodities and natural resources. If you would like to see more, be sure to subscribe and hit the bell notification so you're always up tod date with the latest episodes.
EU 'Set to Expire' as 'Tornado of Incompetence' Leads to Economic SUICIDE: Doomberg
Summary
Transcript
Hello everybody and welcome into commodity culture where we break down commodities markets, sound money principles and geopolitics all with the goal of making you a better investor in the commodities sector. Today is February 10th, 2026. My name is Jesse Day and on this episode I'm thrilled to welcome Doomberg to the show, the author of the Doomberg Substack, the number one paid finance newsletter on the platform where he writes about energy analysis, financial markets, and geopolitics. Duneberg argues that most geopolitical events and global conflicts can be readily explained through the lens of energy. And he applies that thesis in examining recent events in Venezuela, Iran, Ukraine, and the European Union, including a bold prediction that the EU's time could expire sooner rather than later as their unhinged leadership plunges their respective countries into poverty and ruin through asinine energy and economic policies that could lead to a full-on revolution in the region. All of this and so much more ahead in my conversation with Doomberg. Doomberg, great to have you back on Commodity Culture. Now, last time I had you on the show was September of last year, and at the time you said the US would absolutely attack Venezuela at some point. Now, those words did prove prophetic, though I'm not sure anybody had the abduction of President Nicholas Maduro on their 2026 bingo card. And yet, here we are. Now, Trump stated directly this was about getting access to Venezuelan oil. First, it started off with narot terrorism and it kind of devolved into they stole our oil. I think talking about the expropriation of of oil assets in that part of the world and that America was going to take them back. Is this mission accomplished then in that sense for the US administration or are things more complicated than that? >> You know what to say about Trump and Venezuela? Um, first of all, thank you for having me back on. It's always great to to join you. We always enjoy our discussions and yes um we were pretty firm in our predictions that um the US would take some form of military action against Venezuela. Of course, we did not imagine that they would just swoop in and snatch them. Um which is probably the most agnostic word that I could use to describe what happened. Um this is something that has been on our radar since 2023. Um when we first wrote a piece called um the new world's oil and then on Trump's inauguration day we wrote a piece called misreading the room where we um I believe the social preview for the piece was if Greenland is the appetizer might Maduro's Venezuela be the main course. And um this EP episode um is yet another example of something that we marvel at, which is how few analysts, financial or geopolitical, um begin with energy uh when they try to understand a situation. And if you were paying attention to what Trump was saying before the election after his inauguration um and then used energy as your primary lens um then of course it became quite clear that as the world migrates from uniolarity to multiparity it then became quite obvious that the US would focus on its own backyard and Venezuela sitting there in close proximity to a whole suite of refineries that were constructed to process the crude that comes out of that country. Um it became quite clear that this would happen. Now the one thing that must be said about Trump, love him or hate him, he is not subtle and um is a is particularly poor at pretending his motivations are anything other than what they obviously are. And I suppose one should give him credit for that. um he doesn't even try to create pretenses for much of what he does. Um and so, you know, here we are. >> And now there's a lot of talk about this Venezuelan oil being much more difficult to bring online. We do know that they have large untapped reserves, but the infrastructure isn't in place. Exon Mobile CEO infamously telling Trump he's not going back there because they had their assets expropriated multiple times. So, in terms of potential oil flow from Venezuela to the United States, is is there really much of a hope that that this production could be brought online in a reasonable time frame? Um, how do you see that whole situation playing out? >> Yeah, we we followed this argument with some interest. Um, this is again another example of um perhaps a misunderstanding of the inelasticity aspects of uh oil demand. Um, yes. Restoring Venezuelan oil production to its historical highs of nearly 4 million barrels a day would be incredibly challenging, will take a lot of time, and cost a lot of money. That is objectively true. But it doesn't take an incremental 3 million barrels a day to significantly impact the oil markets in a meaningful way. Several hundred,000 barrels a day could swing the markets. And there exists lowhanging fruit within Venezuela to bring several hundred,000 incremental barrels of oil per day to the market in relatively short order with relatively dimminimous incremental investment needed. Um, literally just getting a handle on everything that is stolen by the cartels. I note with interest that you correctly characterize Trump's justification as evolving from naroterrorism to um outright recovery of US-owned oil. Um the two are much more interlin than Trump's credit critics give him credit for connecting um that particular dot especially in Mexico but also undoubtedly true in Venezuela. um the blurring of the line between narot terrorist and government representative um uh is is quite uh prevalent let's say in Mexico and Venezuela and other oil producing nations in the western hemisphere um south of the US and so um do we think um that it will be easy to add a full Guyana in Venezuela no but Guyana wasn't easy either and nobody would argue that Guyana's emergence hasn't been disruptive to the global markets. Look, you could look at Guyana and say, "Ah, after tens of billions of investment in more than a decade since its first announcement, uh it's only 1% incremental global supply." Well, that that sounds like it's nothing until you realize just how important 1% of global supply is to price swings in the markets. And so, we take a bit of of a more balanced view. It is a very important development. um it will impact prices. Um it is on balance all things being equal, bearish for oil prices because it's bullish for oil supplies all things being equal. And then last thing I would say is um another misunderstanding of those who aren't as familiar with the industry as they might otherwise be is that um possession of the resource is 90% of the value. uh the arc of technology is such that resources considered quote difficult or hard to bring to market now become easier with time and time is on the side of the super majors as they plan things in decades. I want to talk about the recent uh trade deal between China and Canada because although it appears that at the moment the talk of taking Greenland seems to have subsided from the Trump administration, Trump certainly put himself it appears at least in a in a less than ideal position when it comes to international relations with key trading partners. Unless you believe this is a 5D chess uh move. I I want to single out Canada here because we've seen this trade agreement and we've seen that include anou uh surrounding energy cooperation. Now anou is just that. It's nothing official, but I'm wondering what do you make of this development and do you think that China could become a bigger customer of Canadian oil and gas moving forward based on this agreement they've made? >> It's interesting. We we of course like everybody watched Mark Kernney's speech um in Davos and he gets credit for delivering uh a speech which certainly resonated with the room. Um and the speech ultimately was a protest against Donald Trump and the pivot to China that uh let's say the Commonwealth of nations of the former British Empire seem to be making. Britain Starmer of course followed Carney to to China uh days later. Um Canada, I'm sure Australia is making similar moves. Um, this risks being an overreaction to the Trump phenomenon. Um, of course that Trump is currently president dominates everything. Trump is an incredibly polarizing figure. We like to say that he is everything his biggest fans and his biggest critics say he is. Um, but Trump won't be here forever. And the relationship between the US and Canada is so important to both countries that I think it would behoove Carney and his supporters to at least contemplate a future beyond Trump and whether moves made today will seem as wise in the future as they might feel correct today. Um, you know, the old adage that Trump should be taking seriously but not literally. Um, you know, he is certainly a bull in the China shop and he is unconventional and he says uncoup things that we would never say and all one has to do is read that explosive Wall Street Journal expose on the crypto activities of the next generation of Trump's orbit um to realize that many of the critiques of President Trump are uh not without merit. Um but having said all of that to think that there's a world where Canada will be closer to China when the US is pivoting to the Western Hemisphere and that somehow that is going to be a a a metastable state, you know, a state with the even even the appearance of stability um or longevity I think is foolhardy. Um there are are ways to respond to Trump. Um, and I I I just don't feel like coming on the heels of that speech in Davos, um, that the trip to China and the specific use of the phrase new world order was was all that wise on Carney's part. The sponsor of today's episode is Arc Silver, Gold, Osmium. Owner Ian Everard is praised even by his competitors as one of the most honest and level-headed bullion dealers in the United States. They have some great prices. You can see some of them displayed right now on screen. Take advantage of these specials today by reaching out to Ian at 3072649441 or by email at ianarchsggo.com. Make sure to tell him of course that Commodity Culture sent you. And now back to the interview. Yeah, great thoughts there. Um because a lot of people are discussing the fact that in the midterms if the Democrats win the majority that they're just going to move to impeach Trump and perhaps reverse a lot of what he was doing anyways. Do you see that as a possibility? because and also I'd love to get your thoughts on the positives from the Trump administration in regards to fasttracking uh mining projects and that the push that they've given the Department of Energy and the Trump administration to increasing nuclear power capacity as well as domestic uranium mining as well as obviously mining of of rare earth elements and many other critical minerals. All of that appears to be a positive step forward. I'm just wondering if you think if the Democrats do get a majority in the midterms that they're just going to reverse everything that Trump has done across the board simply because it was him that was doing it. >> So, first of all, we have an operating mental model which we've not written about, but we've spoken about on podcasts and if we don't write about it eventually, then we'll probably have to stop speaking about it on podcast, which is sort of an internal rule that we have. Um, that mental model goes like this. There's no such thing as Democrat or Republican in Washington DC. um they wear those jerseys, but they're basically all play on the same team. Um and um there are policy differences sort of at the edges, but the sort of uni party pro-war party in Washington um exists. And um our operating mental model is the following axiom which is in a secret ballot um 80% of Congress would vote to impeach and remove Trump. Um there's no such thing for sure as the Republican party in Washington. Just look at the difficulty of getting something as simple as voter ID passed amongst a Republican controlled Senate. Allegedly, um it's not going to happen. like that. We've tried to say this to people who listen, you know, friends and and others, um that there's no such thing as a Republican majority in the Senate. Um they're not going to break the filibuster. Breaking the filibuster would expose the fact that none of them want um Trump's policies to be implemented. Um if they did, they would have broken the filibuster long ago. um they're quite happy that judges and those wearing the Democratic jerseys are doing the heavy lifting for them so they don't have to face mega opponents in a primary. And I I know that's a cynical way to look at things, but you have to remember that um you have to disconnect your emotional attachment to the correctness of an axiom. The only thing that matters is how functional it is. Does it explain events and does it predict events? And so far that mental model that senators have little use for Trump, Republican or Democrat um is absolutely true. And um honestly think Mitch McConnell would be much happier with a Democratic majority. I think John Dune would be much happier with a Democratic majority. they'll get most of what they want done anyway and they don't have to feel the pressure of the Twitter mob uh of proTrump types who are are insisting that the the Senate to be fair act in the way that the people who elected Trump wanted them to to act but that's not going to happen. That's just not the reality of Washington DC and um that of course is the very frustration that fed the Trump phenomenon in the first place. But they're going to run the clock out on Trump. And so um Mark Carney would be wise to skate where the puck is going as uh Gretzky used to say as opposed to um taking the bait of Trump and um grandstanding as he did in Davos. I mean I I thought the speech was quite good. It was well written. It was effectively delivered. It served a purpose. Um I'm not critique I guess I am critiquing it but um to think beyond 2026 and 2028 is the job of of mature political leaders and the relationship between the US and Canada is of such importance and the the historical ties between the two countries are so prominent um that you know cooler heads should prevail. Excellent breakdown. I don't think that's being cynical. I think it's just being realistic. The thing that shocked me the most about the reaction to Carney's speech at Davos was the comment section in YouTube and many of the places where it's posted filled with people saying, "Wow, I didn't think Canada would be the best representative for the free world in in 2026, but here we are." All this praise he got. This is the guy who was one of the architects of freezing dissident bank accounts in Canada, now officially deemed illegal and unlawful. And here he is talking about freedom, giving an example of the communist regime I think in Czechoslovakia or something and how how that fell apart because the people united and he's one of the biggest tyrants out there. So totally insane cognitive dissonance. But I I want to move on to Iran because this looks like the next target for the US and it's been an interesting situation to say the least. Trump constantly declaring he hopes they make a deal or things could turn out poorly for them. It's often clear what type of deal Trump is talking about, although obviously at the forefront is the dismantling of their supposed nuclear program. He's even talked about having them just be not allowed to have ballistic missiles at all, which seems to be something that they would never agree to. And at the moment, Iran does not appear to be interested in Trump's deal. How do you see this shaking out? How much is Israel behind Trump's actions and his desire to potentially strike at the country? and how would a war with Iran potentially put a risk premium on the oil price? That was like 10 questions, but answer it however you'd like. >> And to add an 11th, I'm going to circle back to Carney because it feeds into my answer um to this one. So um one of the things about Carne speech, of course, it was deeply cynical. I mean, if you look at literally what he said was everybody knew the rulesbased international order was a fraud, but we went along with it because it served us well. And now it's not serving us well because orange man bad is picking on us. And so the rest of us have to get our act together and find a new path forward which involves the benefits we acrewed uh under the fraudulent prior system in a way that minimizes the power of orange man bad. And so as proof of that, find me a beacon of democracy and freedom in Europe that is um standing in opposition to what Trump appears to be doing in Iran, which is going to war without a declaration of war from Congress for reasons that are unclear to us. Um and totally um contrary to what he campaigned on. um Trump campaign on ending wars and especially regime change operations. And now here we are um on the cusp of attacking a country with the stated purpose of changing that regime. Um what's remarkable is how little debate there is within America. This barely makes the news. U oh here we go again. Bombing another country. Oh well, did you see the game on Sunday night? Um I remember when there was a principled anti-war position in the US that was considered um you know not only um mainstream but sometimes effective that discourse is just completely erased from the zeitgeist today. And by the way our view is that that war could go catastrophically bad. Um I I don't quite understand it. I know there's a lot of talk about the country you mentioned being, you know, pulling the strings behind the scenes and all. Who knows? I mean, I we we don't go down that particular rabbit hole. Um Trump is the president. Trump owns his actions. Trump was elected uh on one policy platform and seems determined to execute another. Um rare are the occasions where an armada of this size are assembled and military kinetic action doesn't swiftly follow. So, if you pushed us, we would say some form of military conflict um is likely to happen. Um if it escalates, it'll escalate quickly. You'll see um the energy markets respond. To be fair, as we're recording this, the energy markets are not pricing in a military conflict. So, some people might get caught off sides. Um we are never one to try to bet on the spikes that arise from wars, but rather wait to fade them. That's sort of our view. Now, China and Russia have in many ways aligned themselves with the Iranian regime. What do you expect their reaction would be to attack on Iran by the US and your overall thoughts is what you see as their role in this bifurcated geopolitical reality we now find ourselves in. >> I would say that um they would not respond favorably to such a development. Um ha having said that watching the US use what remains of its air defense missiles especially its very expensive THAD missile systems in defense of Israel which they would undoubtedly have to do in the event of an attack. The 12-day war of June of 2025 taught us something that we had predicted and were concerned about which is the Israeli air defense system is not capable of defending against the barrage of missiles that Iran seems capable of sending its way. Um and the current leaders of Iran, the regime as you call them, um have vowed that any attack at all on Iran will be met with full-scale war, attacks on carriers, attacks on bases, attacks on Tel Aviv, and that it would be a fight to the finish for them. That they're they're saying enough is enough and we're we're ready to go to war. Let's do it. Um whether that's just bluster um you know, a prepositioning for a deal. Um, as we're recording this, um, Benjamin Netanyahu is on his way to the US for yet another visit and, um, we'll see, um, whether military action will follow from that visit. Um, but again, um, to reiterate, um, we think this is a catastrophically bad idea. And um yet another regime change operation is the last thing the country needs and the last thing that Trump's voters probably expected they would get uh when they returned him to office in the fall of 2024. The EU leadership continues to do what they do best, which is be absolutely insane and devoid of common sense. You released an article on your Substack near the end of last month called Borrowed Time where you wrote, "The EU now finds itself at loggerheads with essentially every major power in the world drifting through the global game of geopolitics with no strategy, failing economies, deep resentment at home, and shaky access to crucial energy supplies from abroad. What do you see as the ultimate fate of the European Union in today's world? And can we ever hope for decent leaders to emerge when the whole thing seems to be an insider click where only the most incompetent and corrupt are given access to power? >> It is our view that the um European Union's time as a entity uh is set to expire. Um this has been something that people have called for for a very long time. We understand that um the current slate of leaders of the European powers, not just the EU powers, so we include Britain and Norway in in that calculus, um are incredibly weak, um naive, um ignorant of physics for sure, um have no understanding of their place in the how the 7 billion people of the global south view them um and vastly overestimate their significance and power geopolitically. And the sooner this sorry batch of leaders are wiped away um the better for the people of Europe um who are suffering under this amazing suffocating um you know tornado of incompetence is the only way that I I could describe it that is Ursula Vanderland Kier Stalmer uh Kaakalis Emmanuel Macron you know uh Frederick Mertz you name it um none of These leaders are remotely popular and yet they govern as though they have a mandate. Just take this trade deal um with certain countries in South America that was agreed to by the European Commission and then put to a vote in the European Parliament where it was promptly rejected and now they're talking about just implementing it anyway. Um laying bare the farce that is the the oxymoronic phrase European democracy. I mean there's no there's no such thing as democracy in Europe anymore. It is it is drifting towards totalitarianism. Let's call it what it is. Um interfering with elections. You know the Republican um report uh the House report on the European Union's interference in the sovereign elections of its member states was pretty eyeopening read. Stunning that it was put out in black and white um for everyone to see. Largely ignored of course by the legacy media. Uh but that's part for the course. Um that which can't go on forever. Luci doesn't and um Europe is is spiraling towards poverty and irrelevancy and its population is about fed up with it and and we think you know political revolution is near. A key domino to fall will be Kier Starmer. Um, in our view, um, we've been amazed to watch the prediction markets get all of this wrong for so long. Probably a subject for another podcast appearance. Um, but if Kier Starmer falls could be the first domino, we'll see. >> Yeah, you brought up an interesting point there, which was the the blatant election interference and the attempt to crush opposition parties. I think the AFA in Germany is one good example of a party that's basically been at the brunt of the European elite. Um, now there's been several other instances we've discussed on this show before. Obviously, the Romanian elections, they attempted to interfere and get the Georgian election overturned. They were unsuccessful there. Um, there's a few other examples as well. So, I guess my question is, do you see the only path forward in terms of the EU ceasing to exist to be some sort of revolution? Because at this point, I just think that those in power are going to continue to execute their plan with impunity. uh regardless of what the people in their respective jurisdictions think. >> Yeah. So let let's define what we would consider the resolution of that contract on poly market. Let's say you know the end of the EU. Um our think uh our thinking is that at least one country leaving it would mark the end of it. Um because by definition um it's been a check valve of one-way traffic um since its formation. Look, that as it exists today, the European Union is an illegitimate construct. It has veered so far from what the original founding treaties promised the joining member states it would be as to be unrecognizable. Um it is literally a lawless organization, immune from voter um expressions and um actively censoring alternative views, trampling on freedom of speech um and blatantly interfering with democratic elections in its member states. I mean Romania was an outright theft of an election. Um the will of the people the people of Romania was was utterly stomped on. Um that's a nice country you have there. It' be a shame if you vote the wrong way. I mean that's what happened. Let's let's call it what it is. This whole cloak of nonsense around Russian Tik Tok interference. I mean give me a break. Um every I mean Putin is omni powerful. Man the guy's responsible for everything. Even Epstein. Um pretty remarkable this this character I tell you. Um so anyway um the the the challenge is is not only is it like oppressive like say what you want about the Chinese Communist Party at least they have a semblance of um skill and capability in the party. Um the competency deficit among European leaders is is is staggering. Um, just listen to Ursula Vanderlane speak for 10 minutes. Um, she just doesn't know what she's talking about. Um, she's failed upwards. She was a disaster as defense minister in Germany, riddled with scandal and incompetence and waste and mismanagement. And then, um, they promoted her up. Same deal with Kaiakalis, you know. So, here we are. Um, it it is fascinating to watch from abroad. The reason why we're convinced of it, of course, is physics. Um the European Union is a flaccid energy vessel and um has put itself in a position of uh of zubang. Um no good viable moves from here. Um they've sacrificed their heavy industry which is in an irreversible downward spiral until leadership changes. And so the harder current leadership clings to power, the more violent the change will ultimately have to be. >> There's a lot of talk that's been thrown around over the last few years about a potential for a World War II erupting and obviously there's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this talk, but we are seeing global conflict around the world. Um, some of it intensifying. Uh, what are your thoughts on the question of World War II? Perhaps are we already in in World War II? One, this a war that's being fought not only through direct kinetic action, but through propaganda, media manipulation, perhaps export restrictions on key commodities, trade wars. I wonder what your thoughts are there and just as a a kind of a a pin on the end of it, nuclear war. Is there any real risk of things going nuclear when it comes to the way that the EU is provoking Russia? I mean, so we wrote a or we we we released a dooms presentation for our pro tier in November called World War II, how we got here and where we're going. So, we're obviously not in the hyperbole camp. Um and in that presentation um we made the case that World War II began in 2014 with um the Ukraine situation and the annexation of Crimea by Crimea by Russia and more importantly the subsequent um levying of sanctions against Russia u which then triggered in a few years time Putin to begin selling down Russia's holdings of US treasuries and replacing them with gold And that is really the sort of beginning of World War II um in our view. And then the rest of history from that moment um can be viewed as various battles in that war. And I can tell you because we are consumers of everybody's propaganda that the uh key opponents of the western-based alliance, China, Russia, um even India, um they're portraying current events as World War II to their domestic audiences. Certainly in Russia and China, this is all viewed as a battle for how the world will manage itself in the decades ahead. Um the decline of American uni polarity and the rise of um sovereign nations um as they put it, collaborating together in a in a more just and equitable global order. Um this is of course what Carney was referring to when he was in in in China. um as the sort of new world order that was um hat tip to the the phraseology that is prominent in Chinese um domestic media. And so um the war in Ukraine since 2022 is a significant proxy war between NATO um and Russia. Um Middle East similar. Iran is of course a member of the BRIC states. Um and of course tensions over Taiwan um and the pivot to China as Hexith calls it um are all um sort of fronts in World War II. I think in 20 years, historians will characterize this time as World War II. And um as proof that such labels are kind of um you know um they're not really all that important. Um if you ask the Chinese when World War II started, it wasn't 1939. It was when Japan invaded China, right? Um years earlier. And so your vantage point on the it's like calling an official recession. Sure, there's a body somewhere with a set of rules, but you know, in our view um effectively World War II um is is well underway. And um if um well, your your question was whether we viewed the prospects of nuclear escalation as being high with Russia. We think it's much much higher between Iran and Israel. um if a true kinetic war breaks out and um a hypersonic missile is used to sink an aircraft carrier, how do you think Trump responds to that? Or if the half a dozen power plants and half a dozen water treatment facilities in Israel are taken out by a barrage of missiles and drones, does Israel use its long rumored nuclear capacity in retaliation? I mean, why have it if you're not going to use it in that circumstance? And so I think the risks of of nuclear war are much higher in the Middle East um than they are in U Russia Ukraine. If if if nuclear escalation were truly a prospect in Russia, we would have come much closer to it much sooner than we have. I recently had the chance to sit down with a former highranking Canadian politician, the former defense minister of Canada, Harit Sajan, at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference. Now, it wasn't my show. I I I wasn't able to ask the types of questions I'm asking here, but one question I was able to pose to him was, should Canada continue to fund Ukraine and the war effort in Ukraine because we've given over $32 billion to Ukraine while we have a cost of living crisis and all sorts of issues here at home. And his answer was a little bit typical, perhaps expected. If we don't spend the money now, we'll be paying much more later if Putin wins this war. I guess implying I don't know that Putin was going to attack Canada. I have no idea how that makes any sense. It's a default answer for the politicians and the people who are supporting Ukraine. Do you think he ab he actually believes what he's saying here or is there another agenda behind the piles of cash being sent to Ukraine? I think if you redefine the words we and pay in his answer to mean his political class and the political fallout that would follow from a loss in Ukraine um then his answer makes more sense. Um when I say this people who are um ferently for Ukraine get upset. But if you ask a hundred people in flyover country in the United States, and I'm sure it's true in Canada, whether they care who controls the Russianspeaking part of the Dombas, you're not going to find hardly anybody who knows what the Russian speaking part of the Dombas is and and why they should even take the time to answer such a silly question, let alone whether they would be willing to send their treasure and children over to defend who controls the Russian speaking part of the DOMAS. that this is just not core to Canadian or American or frankly even European um interests and to the extent it is important to European interest because I suppose they're closer to Putin who is simultaneously incapable of taking more than a few percentage points of Ukrainian land in four years and also will soon march all the way to the Eiffel Tower which is one of the great amazing things rhetorical contradictions that we see in the news every day. Um, we suppose it is a European core interest. Well, then they should start spending more on their militaries and and beef up, knock yourself out, but how many European wars does America and Canada need to get involved in before, you know, those that live over here um come to realize that politicians like the one you asked the question to are are answering a different question than the one you posed? >> Yeah, well said. I I want to get your thoughts on this incredible run in both gold and especially silver. Um both metals correcting somewhat recently, but that was after an absolutely parabolic run. In the case of silver, silver now, uh at $80 an ounce, once again, very incredible when you consider that during most of last year, people would have called you crazy to say $50 silver's on the horizon, let alone that it would run to triple digits so quickly. Um where do you think we go from here? In your your view, are all the tailwinds driving both metals still intact? >> Um, we have a stronger view on gold than we do on silver. Um, we believe that the fact that we're in World War II explains um the ramp up in gold. Um in fact the most recent ramp up in gold we think can be traced back to December 2023 when it was clear that um the Ukrainian counteroffensive had been defeated by Russia um and had failed to achieve its objectives and that then the war had transition to a grinding war of attrition which Russia was always going to win. Um and that meant of course that NATO would suffer a defeat at the hands of the brick states because it's not just Russia in this war. China is intimately involved in this war uh almost to the same degree that the US is involved with NATO on the other side on Ukraine side. Um, one of the things that we find interesting about gold, and I'll get to silver, don't worry, is that um, the value of Russia's gold has increased in US dollar terms by more than the value of the assets they had frozen when the war began, which we don't think is a coincidence. um gold is replacing western debt instruments as neutral reserve assets for the settlement of imbalances in international trade and um its total market cap needs to rise for it to effectively serve that purpose which is what we believe we're seeing in those markets. Now silver we believe got swept up in that gold uplift. Silver's a much smaller market than gold. And um there's a small but vibrant and effective group of people on social media who would very much like silver to go up and silver escaped into sort of meme velocity. Um and we have been cautioning people on the way up that um if you're not going to sell into strength, when will you sell? And um as our mutual friend Tony Greer likes to say, you know, high-five with one hand and make a sale with the other. Um we were cautioning with silver above 100 that um you know, if you've been holding it since the 30s, um it's probably time to manage some risk. We of course had no idea that it would sell off in the historic way that it did. And I think the full history of what precipitated that is yet to be told. Um but um silver at $80 is fascinating uh in in one regard which is it's it's more valuable than a barrel of oil which is for further proof that peachy boil is nowhere near on the horizon because you could buy a barrel of oil with a ounce of silver with some change but um we we believe that gold is driving this bus and that silver's u you know classic devil's trade silver's always been more volatile more exciting um higher riskreward sort of gambling at the casino type um metal with a bit of monetary aspects to it but um more and more so ever becoming an industrial metal really. >> And when it comes to energy markets, where do you think the most opportunity lies at present? I know you're bearish on oil, the oil markets uh here, but what about uranium, natural gas, coal, or any other area that you feel is undervalued and ripe for a revaluation to the upside? you know, you can make money on the downside, too. Um, you don't have to buy to make money. Um, so one of the things that um we have, um, we have occasionally done in our own lives and we think is is a great way to trade is to wait for that super spike and then fade it. You know, we had that here with natural gas in the US. Um it got really cold and uh mentioned to a few friends like if you think there's going to be a summer in 2026 natural gas is looking pretty juicy up here and um sure enough it has corrected back because the weather has turned and there will in fact be a spring and then eventually a summer and markets are repricing accordingly. Uh same story with oil. Um oil's creeping up here. We think this is a recognition that war with Iran is is sort of transitioning from unlikely to possible in the market's view. And if it happens, you'll see a super spike in oil for sure. And if you got long oil anticipating war with Iran, you will probably um make a handsome sum. And and who who am I to advise you against, you know, sticking a few tokens in the slot machines? Um but if there is a super spike um and it begins to retrace, there will be a glut in oil. Um and fading super spikes seems like a sureer bet um to us than trying to anticipate their timing. Um so and we'll see. Um the the markets will tell us if uh well the oil markets will beat the Bloomberg headline that war has broken out with Iran. Um that much is sure. So when we wake up the first thing we do is we check our Bloomberg launchpad and all the pair trades that we watch um that indicate crisis and so far none of them are firing. So perhaps the market is pricing in bluster on the part of Trump um and the Iranians but u but we shall see. So when you ask me about opportunities in the commodity space, in the energy space, um three, four times a year you see super spikes in natural gas. There's no need to trade 30 times. You could trade four times. Um and then the long-term real price of all commodities is lower. So we are not really motivated to own any of them over the long term. Um nor are there producers. Um we're putting together a dooms presentation on copper for February. um which is similarly themed. We go through the bullcase. We can we deconstruct it and we give our our closing views. Um, broadly speaking, there's a subset of investors who happen to probably have a high degree of overlap with Doomberg subscribers um, who really want to get long commodities because they believe in the tangible and they're uncomfortable buying cryptocurrencies or um, tech stocks or AI stocks or buying into bubbles and they'd like to own real things. They could touch, they could visit, they could, you know, go and see for themselves. But the problem is um human ingenuity is such that it becomes ever cheaper to extract these things. There's effectively an infinite supply of all of them uh for for modeling purposes. And so um if you have such a desire, our long-standing advice is just own gold. Um because at least you get the benefits of monetary aspect of that metal that the others no longer have. >> Well, Duneberg, tell us about your Substack and uh what it is you do there where people can find it. >> Yeah, we have two projects. duneberg.com for all of our energy and geopolitics work. And then classics read aloud is a new sister publication of Duneberg that we launched in September which is going quite well. There's actually more synergy between the projects um than might uh seem evident at first blush, but check out both. You can find everything at dunberg.com including a link to classics read aloud. Um Jesse uh great speaking with you again. Um looking forward to coming back in a few months and see how this batch of uh predictions has held up. >> Absolutely. and those links will be in the description below. Thank you so much, Duneberg, and looking to the next looking forward to the next time we can have a discussion. >> Thank you for uh having me back on. >> Thank you for joining us today. This episode is brought to you by Arc Silver, Gold, Osmium. They have some great prices on precious metals, bullion, they are on your screen right now. These are subject to change and while supplies last. So reach out to owner Ian Everard today at 3072649441 or by email at ianarchsggo.com. Make sure to tell them that commodity culture sent you and pick up your stack silver not fiat t-shirt represent sound money in style backed by 100% quality guarantee. Use the link in the description below and I'll see you guys in the next episode. Commodity Culture is a series on commodities and natural resources. If you would like to see more, be sure to subscribe and hit the bell notification so you're always up tod date with the latest episodes.