Over recent months, European and US officials have hinted at the possibility of a new military draft. The EU openly discussed deploying troops in Ukraine, while NATO officials firmly declared their refusal to accept a Russian victory in the region. The Kremlin, once again, warned of nuclear retaliation if Western forces intervene. The US government’s recent assertion of Ukraine’s NATO membership serves as a red line for Russia.
Turning to Israel and Gaza, there are escalating tensions. The war in Gaza, previously forecasted to expand into a multi-front conflict likely involving Iran, has seen proxy attacks by Iran through Lebanon. Israel’s recent strike on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria sets the stage for direct Iranian retaliation against Israeli targets.
In essence, political elites are driving escalation despite growing public opposition in the West. The push for war persists unabated, thwarting prospects for peaceful resolution. However, there’s a silver lining: heightened public awareness challenges the notion of unquestioning duty to engage in war. Social media platforms provide a voice for war dissenters, countering the isolation felt by objectors in the past.
Fear plays a significant role, particularly among Gen Z, with many lacking the readiness for military service. Despite online displays of solidarity with Ukraine, many recoil at the prospect of personal sacrifice in war. Conversely, a sizable cohort of capable, primarily conservative men, remains staunchly averse to involvement in Ukraine, fearing exploitation by left-leaning governments and globalists as expendable assets.
For most Americans, conflicts like that in Ukraine hold little relevance, and fatigue from Middle Eastern wars prevails. Regardless of political leanings, there’s little enthusiasm for fighting in foreign conflicts. However, such sentiments seem unlikely to deter the trajectory toward a global conflict.
European Fear
The likelihood of war with Russia hinges more on European involvement than on US participation. While the US has significantly supplied armaments to Ukraine, the aim appears to be integrating European troops into the Ukrainian front, a move that could trigger a global conflict.
The mobilization of European troops is fueled by “domino theory” propaganda, more prevalent in the EU than in the US. Governments assert that Russia aims to conquer Ukraine as a gateway to invade the rest of Europe, akin to the justification used for the US intervention in Vietnam.
Both Ukrainian and NATO leadership advocate for the continuation of war in Ukraine as a containment strategy, neglecting diplomatic efforts. Despite the high stakes, peace proposals have been scant, with limited talks often thwarted.
In Europe, a military draft stands a higher chance of success due to the socialist leanings of the population and limited civilian armament. Despite potential public protests, EU governments are likely to amass sufficient forces to escalate the conflict in Ukraine.
Evidence suggests the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine, aiding Ukrainian counter-attacks. Foreign assistance, particularly in advanced tactics, has bolstered Ukraine’s efforts, though reliance on mercenary recruits poses challenges.
While Russia may be aware of foreign involvement, covert deployments are harder to address than open NATO battalion deployments, raising concerns.
The narrative of Russian invasion threats lacks basis, with Putin emphasizing the conflict’s aims of protecting Donbas separatists and countering NATO escalation.
Considering the war’s cost/benefit analysis, there’s little for Russia to gain by threatening Europe, especially considering logistical challenges and the risk of nuclear conflict.
Despite these complexities, certain groups stand to benefit from prolonged conflict, highlighting underlying interests beyond geopolitical posturing.
Poking The Bear
Smaller attacks targeting Russian supplies and civilians have escalated in the past month. A recent terror attack in Moscow, attributed to ISIS by US intelligence, resulted in the deaths of at least 130 people. Additionally, drone attacks pose threats to oil depots and other critical resources. While these attacks may seem minor in the broader context of the war, they are likely to trigger extensive bombardment of Ukrainian cities and further cripple Ukrainian infrastructure, leading to power, water, and other utility disruptions and exacerbating a resource crisis.
In comparison to the US invasion of Iraq, Russia has managed to keep civilian casualties in Ukraine relatively low. However, each new attack on Russian soil prompts a larger retaliatory response from Russia. It’s possible that provoking such responses is the goal behind these attacks—to goad Russia into targeting a major Ukrainian population center, providing NATO with a pretext to deploy troops to the region.
Inflation & US Elections
Joe Biden has been attempting to manipulate oil prices for the past three years by releasing strategic reserves onto the market. By artificially suppressing oil prices, he aims to keep energy prices low, thereby curbing the growth of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Recent Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil depots have contributed to a spike in gas prices over the past month. Despite these attacks, western countries continue to purchase Russian oil through alternative channels. Disruptions in oil supply from a major energy supplier like Russia inevitably impact pump prices, underscoring the oil market’s sensitivity to supply threats.
The prospect of any major conflict in the Middle East spells trouble for gas prices, likely leading to a surge. Inflation poses a significant challenge to Biden’s presidency and could also spell trouble for leftist and globalist agendas unless they can delay an economic downturn until they have a scapegoat or until a major war erupts.
This scapegoat could be Trump and conservatives, or Russia and the BRICS nations, or perhaps both. If Trump were to replace Biden in 2025, a crash would likely occur swiftly, blamed on conservative policies. If Biden remains in power, the crash might unfold more gradually but would still be significant, particularly after it can be attributed to widening conflicts.
There’s also the possibility that globalists may instigate a war before elections occur, perhaps to disrupt or delay the vote, or to sow enough chaos to manipulate or contest election results, potentially leading to civil unrest or martial law.
For the globalists, such scenarios offer strategic advantages, either by thwarting conservative power or by embroiling conservatives in crises for which they can be blamed. Accusations of “Russian collusion” further demonize opposition to the globalist establishment.
The push for World War III is fueled partly by the impending elections and the failure of the COVID agenda. Lockdowns and vaccine passports were intended to establish permanent authoritarian control, but they fell short. World War III emerges as a contingency plan.
It’s crucial to recognize that every crisis engineered by globalists aims to suppress freedom. Russia and Iran serve as peripheral targets; the primary goal is to create conditions conducive to tyranny, facilitate economic collapse, and wage a real war against defenders of liberty.
While a worldwide nuclear exchange may not be the endgame for globalists, the risk of kinetic warfare is escalating, directly impacting citizens of the US and Europe. Resistance against this trajectory will require substantial grassroots movements, but the road ahead appears daunting, with conditions likely worsening before improving.
