Peak Escalation

Authored by Tuomas Malinen via Substack,

I have to say that I am rather glad that our first estimates on the timing of Peak Escalation missed their mark (in the ‘probability-mass’ sense).

These are the October 9 estimates of GnS Economics for the timing of escalation in and around Ukraine:

Our current likelihoods for the timing of Peak Escalation in Europe are:

1. Before the U.S. Presidential elections (November 5): 30%;

2. After the elections, but before inauguration (January 20): 40%;

3. After the inauguration: 20%;

4. There will be no Peak Escalation: 10%.

Note that these reflect also the fact that we currently expect President Trump to win in November. The likelihood of #4 (no Peak Escalation) is so low, because we consider it requiring a wide-spread (global) peace movement, which is nowhere to be seen currently.

Within them, we have now entered the 30% likelihood range. I do consider that the likelihood of the No-Peak Escalation scenario is the same or even smaller now. Yet, we have to note that there were efforts to push the conflict to the next level, but those efforts failed in provoking Kremling (instead they replied with something new).

I envisaged the Peak Escalation hypothesis in August last year. However, the concept had been circling in my mind for about a year before that. On November 5, 2023, I wrote:

As a final notion, and stop us from drifting completely into the world of ‘sunshine and rainbows’ , I want to share a piece of information I received from a former (long-time) operative in the U.N. Middle East military intelligence. He said to me several years back that nothing that happens in and around Israel goes unnoticed by Mossad. He gave several examples, which I cannot repeat here due to confidentiality. This is not a conspiracy theory, but a observed fact from a high-ranking soldier, who served in the area several times.

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.

Essentially, the Peak Escalation hypothesis assumes that there are strong background forces seeking to widen regional conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and, possibly, Asia Minor into a combined ‘global conflict,’ essentially a World War III.

This might sound preposterous, but when you apply Occam’s Razor to everything that has been happening (especially in and around Ukraine) rigorously, like I did in the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, it yields a rather definite answer. That is, the answer that requires the least amount of assumptions is that there is some powerful force pushing for the global escalation. It does not matter if you believe this or not. If you apply the Occam’s Razor principle in a truthful and honest manner, you will simply end up at this conclusion.

The motives behind such a force are much more difficult to come by.

The military-industrial complex naturally seeks profits, and the Deep State seeks control. However, we have to ask, would a nuclear war serve their aims, as this is an inevitable end-result of waging a war against Russia? We can state, with rather high confidence, that annihilation of a vast part of the human race would not serve the aims of military corporations, which would lose their source of income (and factories), or those seeking for wider government control of societies, because societies and government control systems would collapse. So, to find a deeper motive behind the escalation against Russia, we need to step beyond the standard logic and common sense.

In the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, I speculated that there exists some ‘group-over-groups’ seeking to Divide et Impera (to Divide and Conquer). I, for once, quoted former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who stated that

Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

After the Occam’s Razor yielded the outcome of such a background force existing (I even checked with a student of philosophy whether I had applied it correctly), I extended my analysis to their aims. This is what it yielded:

If one applies Occam’s razor to everything described above, it yields one clear answer. There must be a very powerful group above parliaments, national elites and supranational organizations, like the World Economic Forum and the Bilberberg Group, pushing its own agenda of Divide et Impera. Moreover, the agenda must be exceptionally brutal, as it seems to attack all levels of human existence (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual). The existence of such a group would fit in with what President Wilson described in the early 20th century.

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.

A nuclear war might (might) fit into such a motive. If you want to turn humanity into a smallish slave-race serving the ruling elite, nuclear war would do just that (if you think that you can shield yourself from its consequences). That is, if you want humanity to blindly obey some “elite,” you need to greatly cut the number of people living on earth simply because smaller numbers are easier to control and it diminishes the likelihood of mutinies. Also, if your survival becomes tied to scarce resources shielded from the radiation and nuclear winter in ‘doomsday bunkers’ built by the elite, you will become submissive (see, e.g., this and this).

I know the above is extremely speculative. But I am an unyielding empiricist who believes in cause and effect and in logic, no matter how twisted, behind major decisions. If you think that our (mostly European) leaders have simply gone mad, then you can bypass everything written above. However, if you are like me, then I would recommend that you start to look behind developments for the (likely) true motive behind all that is happening. I don’t see a nuclear war igniting just now, but the direction of travel is clearly towards it.

If you also find it to be the likely aim of some of our leaders, I would urge you to write to your parliamentarian or congressperson immediately and demand that we step away from this path. I would also do this ASAP, because (currently) nuclear confrontation with Russia is inching closer each passing day.

In hoc signo vinces,

Tuomas