Warning: Extreme levels of speculation ahead; navigate with caution.
I wrote this post almost a week ago but was reluctant to publish it because it seems too specific and simultaneously too nuts. Then, thought I, "What the heck! They know it's all just wild guesswork... don't they?"
Thought I would comment on one possibility of what may happen in the coming months or so, perhaps even as far out as a number of years, regarding the escalating circumstances on the Eurasian continent.
The sore losers of the US election (supported by the deep state, the UN, globanksters, EU lefties and their useful idiot portion of the left in general) are doing precisely the kind of thing I would expect of them... attempting to create an irreversible escalation of the conflict with Russia before Trump can take control. As said in a previous post, these people would choose to destroy the entire world, every person in it and all life on earth rather than lose global hegemony.
The leftist media and others are already calling this latest situation World War Three. Perhaps it is but I have a somewhat different take on this. Dare I to speculate? Sure, why not?
As it stands, there is no well defined way of declaring what is "world war", whether entering a war, currently in a war or from a historical perspective. My view is that it must be, firstly, a hot war (munitions are in use, physical destruction and potentially loss of life is taking place), then it must also be concurrently multiregional (regional meaning that physically neighbouring nations are in conflict thus defining a region) and a third requirement is that it must be directly (not indirectly) engaging nations not of a region within that region for at least one or more of the concurrently warring regions, thus making it a global conflict. However, there is the natural tendency to see things in hindsight and define the start of a world war as the moment when the first of the involved regions fell into a state of war. This can only be done in retrospect after a war has clearly become a world war but it is not a very useful indicator for the present moment while moving into the future. For me, at least, it seems to be the reason that there is so much disagreement among historians with regards to exactly when the previous world wars began (although certain views do dominate the discourse). I do not believe it is necessary that every conflict in a multiregional conflict need be a result of other regions being in conflict. If every regional conflict began on its own for its own reasons, this could still be considered a world war. As far as I know, nobody has ever defined the means by which we determine the temporal or physical bounds that "contain" a war. This means that many concurrent and physically separate wars can be simply called war.
What I think may occur, as a possible series of events, is that Trump, once he is inaugurated, will make it his first order of business to de-escalate the situation using his greatest talent; negotiation. This will buy the world a little more time but, in my personal view, it will be perhaps only a few short years. Remember, the scripture tells us that people will be saying "peace and safety" when sudden destruction comes. Once everyone has been saying "peace and safety" for some period of time (a year?.. three years?.. any idea?..), the trigger is pulled. By that stage, the buildup of naval and army personnel and weaponry in and around the middle east will be substantial, perhaps accompanied by some battles between Israel and Iran and their various allies, but that on its own is not WW3 since it is essentially still singularly regional, directly involving neighbouring nations and probably indirect involvement of the international community. If the Ukraine-Russia conflict is still active then perhaps one could call it WW3 since it is growingly obvious that the USA is directly engaging in that conflict at the current moment, but this may cease for a while with Trump's intervention.
Then, after a year of very great prosperity across the globe, the assassination of a high ranking official occurs in the region of the Balkans, this being an intentional attempt to trigger a war in a similar way to how WWI came about. My view is that, since the EU and, thus, the globalists, despise Victor Orban because of his very successful, thoroughly anti-woke, anti-globalist government, Orban might be the one targeted. Since Orban and Hungary have tried to maintain a more traditional and more conservative culture than most EU-connected governments, which is despised by the would-be-god, totalitarian-minded globalists (i.e. the satans) but which is probably held in high esteem by many Russians, including Putin, who likely sees Hungary as a kind of religious, political and cultural "ally", in order to re-escalate the conflict with Russia, the assassination of Orban may invite a Russian invasion of the EU. If this dreadful event occurs, and I would rather be completely wrong on Orban's fate but, if it does occur, I would suggest that Russia already has forces readily stationed at several latitudes along the border with EU nations, and will launch a massive invasion within a few days after the assassination. In reality, the assassination itself will only serve as an excuse for the invasion. Russia is fed up with NATO's lies and constant threats and bad behaviour (though it does not absolve Russia of its own sins). Poking the bear for decades can only end very badly. Maybe Russia has already planned an invasion with the view to re-establishing its empire or, perhaps, Russia has chosen to strategically position military forces in case EU/NATO forces did something stupid like try to attack or invade Russia (something most definitely on the globalist psychopath agenda, to capture a huge land mass and its enormous resources). Given the current circumstances the second of those two possibilities seems not at all unlikely.
The invasion may ultimately converge on Germany (and perhaps also northern France) since, as said in a previous post, there is yet a lot of "bad cultural blood" between Russia and Germany for what the NAZI's did to the people of the Soviet Union in the previous world war and, also, Germany is, or has been, both a political and an economic powerhouse within the EU (though it looks like it is economically disintegrating due to the consequences of the green agenda, consequences which Germany is desperately trying to reverse) and the German government, from my perspective, is the currently active head of the (first) beast of the Book of the Revelation to John. It is the head that had a deadly head wound and ceased to exist at the end of WW2 and yet has returned to life with the rise of the EEC, followed by the integration of European governments in the form of the EU. I could certainly be completely wrong on that but it is merely my current perspective. The caretaker nations (Soviet Union, USA, Great Britain, France) who managed Germany after the war essentially brought it back to life. The final stage came with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the re-uniting of East and West Germany. The modern day powerhouse of the EU beast was back and its formerly deceased head was now alive and well and didn't the world "marvel" and celebrate at the beast's head coming back to life? I certainly remember it that way!
As far as nuclear war goes, my view is that Trump will be somewhat instrumental in God's purposes regarding cutting that time short "for the sake of the elect" (see Matthew 24:22). Nuclear war will come, perhaps initially in the form of small tactical weapons but ultimately the use of large weapons will occur and that will be the terminal part of the relatively short-lived global conflict. The war may last within the range of ten to eighteen months and the terminal nuclear conflict may be only a few days to a week. The post war nuclear fallout, which will be significant mostly in regions struck by nuclear weapons (modern nukes are all thermonuclear fusion devices but all of them still require a small fission bomb to trigger them, thus the radioactive fallout) will not be so widespread as to cause all land on earth to be useless for food production and all drinking water to become contaminated. Primarily, the nations which choose to engage in the conflict will be likely targets. I guess that it does not bode well for me!
Should the above sequence of events actually occur then I would be very surprised. So, why speculate in such a manner? I guess that we all want to have some sense of what may be coming and in that regard I am no different to anybody else. My musings in this particular post are not based entirely on biblical scripture but also on prophecies by seers who have lived over the past few hundred years and some of my own observations over the years. There is a potentially infinite variety of possible specifics regarding the required state of the world which could fit with biblical prophecy and this was simply one of those uncountable possible permutations, in a sense an attempt to fill in the picture.
As always, no claims to prophesying, none at all. Just an observer's scantly-educated guess. However, what if it actually happens? What then? What a horrible thing to get right!
Stay focused on God, not on man, and He will guide your thoughts and the outcomes thereof.
