The Worst-Case Scenario

Part I: Peak Escalation (Free)

Issues discussed:

• Developments in Ukraine and the Middle East hint ‘peak escalation’ approaching.

• Most of the recent escalations serve no other purpose than creating pre-conditions for a major conflict, possibly World War III.

• The biggest worry (risk) is a detonation of a nuclear weapon in Europe.

First I was planning to publish a piece on the Great Crash of 1929, but after I received quite a few inquiries on what’s going to happen and how I can prepare for it in X, I decided to write a piece explaining my overall view. This will be a rough one, because I am going to concentrate purely on the worst-case-side of things. I urge you also to check my recent interview in Syriana Analysis, with Kevork Almassian dealing with the very same issues than I do here.

Like most of my readers know, I’ve been pondering the global power structure since last fall. The Horsemen of the Apocalypse was a culmination point in a sense that it gathered all my thinking on the subject. I actually revisit the text regularly. I continued with the topic in April speculating on geopolitical developments possibly pushed by a (malevolent) powerful group. Now I present my thoughts in a worst-case scenario for the world. Naturally, this cannot fit to a single post also because situation continues to evolve, so this will be a start of a series.

In this piece, I will deepen the analysis I presented with Kevork. The last parts will be paywalled, as I present some forecasts. What I conclude in the end can be summarized by noting that I bought some Iodine tablets today. I suggest you will do the same.

The escalation

In November, I wrote on the Apocalypse. Cancelled? that:

Thus, I, for one, do not believe for a second that Mossad and the IDF were surprised by Hamas. They at least allowed the strikes to Israel to happen, if not worse. This adds a serious twist to all that has been written above, implying that there may be a major ‘powerplay’ going on in the background, surpassing the current geopolitical logic and increasing the likelihood that we may end up seeing a highly illogical outcome, i.e., a serious escalation.

What I started to ponder back then were the ways this global force could be pushing the continuous cycle of escalation. I concluded that if my hypothesis of such a group existing holds, shocks leading to a deeper escalation appear in a recurring manner. They would come despite the best efforts our leaders to de-escalate.

The attack of Ukraine to Kursk Oblast in Russia is such one. Ukrainian leadership and even some western leaders seemed to be getting ready to engage to serious peace talks, right before the attack. Why such a useless escalatio now, which will only end up killing more Ukrainian soldiers? It cannot even improve the situation of Ukraine in the negotiation table, because the attack is unlikely to materially weaken Russia, but just irritate Kremlin. I am now thinking that the only aim of this ‘last-hurrah’ attack was (is) to create another cycle of escalation in Ukraine, and to irritate Russia in a hope of an ‘over-kill’ what comes to her response.

I have detailed my thinking on the recent escalation in the Middle-East, i.e., assassinations of Hamas chief, Ismail Haniyeh, and a senior Hezbollah commander Hajj Mohsen, in Crossing the Rubicon. They are just additions to a long line of dangerous and useless escalations, including, e.g., the Israeli strike to Iranian embassy in Damascus, which led Iran to attack Israel directly for the first time ever. At the time of writing, we are still waiting for the response of Iran, which I have been speculating to occur after Olympics in Paris end.

I continue to view the period running from the end of the Olympics till around early October as the most dangerous one, we (the world) have faced for a long time. Let’s now look at the two ‘hot-spots’ a bit more closely.

Ukraine: To escalate or to wither away

What we need to ask is, what action could lead to a declaration of war, on the side of NATO? I don’t think nothing short of a nuclear strike would cut it.

I am highly skeptical that Russia would conduct such an atrocity, for the simple reason that there’s no need. Russia is winning the war (has actually been winning it for quite some time). The Kursk offensive is unlikely to change this, because Ukraine is running out of men and support. Therefore, the options for NATO are:

1. To quietly (slowly and covertly) end the war with a peace agreement.

2. To escalate massively, with a ‘false flag’ attack, drawing NATO -countries directly into the conflict.

In the former, there would be no peace conferences nor summits. There would be few interviews and speculation in the mainstream media of how this needs to be done, and then the war would just suddenly end (like the Corona “pandemic” ended). No conferences would be held, because too much political capital has been invested into “Russia losing” in Europe and because the ‘powers that be’ likely want to retain the russophobia they have created for possible future use (WWIII). Peace would simply just “appear”.

In the latter, I don’t think nothing else would work than a massive false flag operation blaming Russia. The Kursk offensive of the AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine) could be a dress-rehersal for this (more on this below). If Russia retaliates any usage of NATO equipment and/or personnel to attack Russia, even to some NATO country with conventional weapoins, a consensus of NATO moving into Ukraine is unlikely to be found among the member states of the Alliance. However, if there would be, for example, a detonation of a (tactical) nuclear weapon in Ukraine, this could cut it. So, NATO must either cook up something truly major, or then wither away in Ukraine.

The Middle-East: War without reason

I don’t think that Mossad is in the control of the Israeli government. This most certainly applies to CIA, which has been running their independent operations for quite some time (see, e.g., the interview of Jeffrey Sachs detailing this). I also think that the response of Israeli government are dictated by an outside force. Benjamin Netanyahu is an easy targer for this because of his criminal charges.

Relating to his, I have been pondering, since October, why would truly benefit from a war between Israel and Iran. Naturally, the military-industrial complex would be one of the benefactors, directly implicated of running the U.S. by Tulsi Gabbardi, an former Democratic member of House of Representatives and a Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) of United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command. Yet, a war in the Middle East would bring just pain and suffering. Nothing more. Who could possibly benefit from that?

A party seeking for global chaos. This is, again, highly speculative, but that’s the only aim pushing Middle East, and Europe, to a full-scale war could serve. Why would anyone want that? Like I mention in the Horseman of the Acocalypse:

Based on this logic, the aim of such a group-over-groups is likely to be to subjugate the whole of human existence under some kind of global control. They seem to want people mentally disturbed, weak, undernourished and fearful. This makes sense, because such people are easy to control and push in different directions, like hating the un-vaxed, Russians or Palestinians.

What is specific to the situation in the Middle-East is that Israel-Hamas war as competely “made up”. I mean this in the sense that the threat posed by Hamas to Israel was miniscule, compared to, e.g., Ukraine through which two major attacks have come to Russia (Napoleon in 1812 and Hitler in 1942). Without the cataclysmic “failure” of Mossad and Shin Bet to foresee the attack of Hamas, there would have been no precipe for a regional war. None of the actors in the region would have attacked Israel, unprovoked. So, a major provocation was needed, and since the likely genocide in the Gaza strip was not enough to provoke a response, breach of several red lines, of Iran, was needed.

Sounds far-fetched? I understand, but I fail to see an error in my logic. If you do, please comment.

What can we expect?

Many things point to preparation for something major to be launched after the Olympics in Paris end tomorrow. Russia has been supplying Iran with military equipment, while Iranian high ranking officials have been making rounds in the Middle East, which look like a support-gathering/information-providing tour. These can be seen as a ground-work for launching an offensive on a scale which could lead to a war in the Middle East.

Kevork, who knows the region well, as he is a Syrian refuree (originally from Armenia), was very clear, also outside recording, that Iran will retaliate. It’s forced to respond, because killing a friend in their “own house”, is considered to be a severe insult in Arabian culture. This implies that retaliation will come and then everything gets decided how Israel responds after.

We have to also acknowledge the mounting efforts to de-escalate. I had missed their tweets, but Kevork noted in the interview that President Biden, President Macron and Ursual von der Leyen have all advocated for restraint and truce to Gaza in X. Yet, if we continue on the current trend, these calls will be ignored and Iran will strike. Moreover, what my working hypothesis on the ‘group-over-groups’ implies is that if the retaliation of Iran would be muted, and even if Israel would turn ‘the other cheek’, the cycle of escalation would continue, unabated after a pause.

What comes to the situation in Ukraine, I find myself pondering a ‘Black Swan’ -event. The futile attack of the AFU to Kursk contributed to my worries. There are some indications, like this X thread by the President of Kyiv School of Economics, practically openly calling for a nuclear strike to Ukraine, or otherwise “his [Putin’s] threats of nuclear retaliation are as good as dead”, that his may very well be the aim of Ukrainian leadership. That is, to get Kreml to respond with a tactical nuclear strike to draw NATO directly into the battle. This is the only play left, because Ukraine is losing the war. However, I seriously doubt that Kreml would go that way, even though there seem to be voices calling this in Russia (see, e.g., this). Kremlin has shown remarkable restraint, what comes for example to strikes to Russian early-warning-system, and there’s no need for a winning party to resort to any atrocities. This is naturally dependent on possible further NATO action. There was a very worrying comment from the Biden administration, indicating that U.S. weapons could even be used to strike to Moscow. Lacking that, I consider that the true Black Swan is a NATO/Ukraine ‘false flag’ nuclear attack blaming Russia.

The shock to Europeans, from a nuclear detonation, would likely to be so great that all reason would become burried under it. Any explanations, why Kreml could not have and would not have wanted to commit such an atrocity, would be likely to disappear to ‘shock and awe’. If this would come to be, the risk of an actual nuclear confrontation would be high, but not by any means a certainty.

Conclusions

I think a lot will be revealed, and decided, during the next few weeks. I have a worrying sense of something major approaching. I really cannot put my finger on it, but this is likely my intuition/subconscious understanding something I have not, yet. Sometimes your inner-self knows more about what’s coming, because it often analyzes information in deep processes. There can be some signals of some development that I have missed, or some pieces I have failed to put together. This would be understandable, as I go through massive amounts of data every day. In any case, this is what I worry.

Many people assume that if nuclear war erupts, it will lead to a mutually asserted destruction, or MAD, i.e. a nuclear holocaust. However, when I was writing my short, and preliminary, academic article about it, I came across some research which argued that this need not automatically be the case. I had not time to go through the research for this piece, but I will look that up next week and write about it, if the need arises.

In the worst-case, we can assume there is a false flag, or a Russian tactical, nuclear strike in Ukraine. In the article, Strategical asymmetry in a game theoretical model of a tactical nuclear first strike (free to read), I showed using a very simply game theoretical model that, in the case of a tactical nuclear first strike to Ukraine, the West would refrain from responding. This would be because they would like to avoid the risk of MAD. I continue to assume this holds (with some caveats).

However, a nuclear strike to Ukraine, false flag or not, would “force” a deeper NATO involvement in Ukraine. It would also push back all hopes for a peace, possibly for a very long time. This is why I think that the elite and/or the group-over-groups, could be pushing for it. A nuclear attack in Europe would create an imminent pressure and demands from the general populace for re-arming Europe, with a considerably improved nuclear cover. European Union would probably assume such duties turning it into a Federal Union. Russia would respond in kind, and battle-lines would harden, not ease like they would be likely to do if peace would be found between Russia and Ukraine. This would set the world to a path towards a WWIII and nuclear confrontation.

Essentially, what we can expect during the next few weeks is either NATO withering away in Ukraine or a “Black Swan”, and either a watered-down response from Iran or a heavy strike possibly igniting a regional war. I do hope we will not be following this worst-case scenario, but we must also prepare for the possibility that we are about to face the most drastic developments of our lifetime.

---

Disclaimer:

The information contained herein is current as at the date of this entry.  The information presented here is considered reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed.  Changes may occur in the circumstances after the date of this entry and the information contained in this post may not hold true in the future.

No information contained in this entry should be construed as investment advice.  Readers should always consult their own personal financial or investment advisor before making any investment decision, and readers using this post do so solely at their own risk. 

Readers must make an independent assessment of the risks involved and of the legal, tax, business, financial or other consequences of their actions. GnS Economics nor Tuomas Malinen cannot be held i) responsible for any decision taken, act or omission; or ii) liable for damages caused by such measures.