EUROPEAN BANKERS WANT WAR — TO RECOVER LOSSES FROM FAILING TO DEFEAT RUSSIA.”
Budapest — Hungary has issued one of the most explosive accusations yet against the leadership of the European Union, directly challenging the war narrative promoted by Ursula von der Leyen and the Brussels establishment.
According to senior Hungarian officials, the real engine behind Europe’s push toward escalation is not security, not democracy, and not Ukraine — but finance.
The allegation is blunt: European banking and financial interests are pressuring for war because the strategy to economically defeat Russia failed, and the losses are massive. War, they argue, is now being treated as a mechanism to recover sunk costs, restructure debt, and justify further financial transfers under the banner of “security.”
From Budapest’s perspective, this explains why Brussels increasingly speaks the language of inevitability — more weapons, more money, more confrontation — while dismissing calls for negotiations as “dangerous” or “pro-Russian.”“
This is no longer about defending Europe,” Hungarian voices argue. “ is about defending balance sheets.” Hungary points to a widening gap between who pays and who decides. European societies face inflation, energy shocks, de-industrialization, and budget strain. Meanwhile, financial institutions and debt holders tied to war financing demand continuity — because peace would force losses to be acknowledged.
In this reading, war becomes a financial instrument: a way to roll over debt, extend emergency mechanisms, and keep extraordinary spending politically acceptable.
Budapest’s warning is stark. When financial interests begin to dictate geopolitical outcomes, democracy becomes secondary, and diplomacy becomes an obstacle. Peace is no longer the goal — liquidity is.Hungary’s position places it on a collision course with Brussels. While the Commission frames escalation as moral duty, Budapest frames it as systemic irresponsibility that risks dragging Europe into a conflict its citizens neither voted for nor can afford.
Whether one agrees with Hungary or not, the accusation cuts to the heart of the European project: Who is the EU really serving — its people, or its creditors? And if bankers demand war to fix failed strategies, who will pay the final price?
I agree with this, who on here disagrees with it?He exposed our absolutely corrupt 3 letter agencies that were doing really bad shit. Some on here like unaccountable shadow agencies doing God knows what.
This is great it’s codified and not some EO, but I’m skeptical. There will be states with old software versions with back doors that will fail, but will still be used. They will just ignore the law.National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Contains Hidden Election Integrity Gem – Could Have Huge Implications for Voting Machines
Source: thegatewaypundit.com
- With the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Donald Trump on December 18th, 2025, a little-known section was snuck into the 3000+ page bill: Section 6805. Requiring Penetration Testing As Part Of The Testing And Certification of Voting Systems.
- This section amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by adding a “Required Penetration Testing” section that “provides for the conduct of penetration testing as part of the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software” by an accredited laboratory.
- The amendment now requires the penetration testing as a condition of certification from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and allows consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology or any other federal agency on “lab selection criteria” and “other aspects of the program.”
- While this is still short of a legitimate attempt at ensuring election integrity, it is an effort toward scrutinizing the voting systems by finally requiring cybersecurity experts to do what Clay Parikh was restricted from doing during his time as a VSTL contractor.
- Hand-marked paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level, is being utilized in Dallas County, TX for the 2026 midterm primaries, and is still the ultimate goal of the election integrity community to ensure free and fair elections in the United States.
Penetration testing, often abbreviated as “pen testing,” is a cybersecurity practice where authorized experts simulate real-world cyberattacks on a computer system, network, or application to identify and exploit vulnerabilities before malicious actors can do so. The goal is to uncover weaknesses in security measures, such as software flaws, misconfigurations, or inadequate defenses, and provide recommendations for remediation. It typically involves several stages:
In the context of Section 6805 of the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which incorporates provisions from the SECURE IT Act (H.R. 6315), penetration testing is mandated as part of the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification process for voting system hardware and software. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) must implement this requirement within 180 days of enactment, with accreditation of testing entities handled through recommendations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This ensures that voting systems used in federal elections undergo rigorous cybersecurity assessments to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities, enhancing election security
- Planning and reconnaissance: Gathering information about the target system.
- Scanning: Using tools to probe for potential entry points.
- Gaining access: Attempting to exploit vulnerabilities to breach the system.
- Maintaining access: Testing how long access can be sustained without detection.
- Analysis and reporting: Documenting findings, risks, and fixes.