Hal Turner does tend to be more than a bit of a catastrophist, but it goes without saying that there is a lot of troublesome activity going on around the world that bears paying attention. Here is his read on the current situation; to it I would add that the financial markets are looking like they are going to have a horrific October and the oil problem from the US defeat in the Gulf War III has not been fixed by the resort to Venezuelan oil.
So it’s not unthinkable that the financial and political elites are looking for a combined distraction and reset.
I’m watching NATO push Russia toward a response that terrifies me. I think the United Kingdom is going to be hit.
Let me walk through what’s actually happening.
The Kursk incursion wasn’t a Ukrainian operation. It was NATO. Real-time satellite data. AI intelligence collecting digital and mobile network information showing exactly where Russian troops were positioned. Special NATO operatives and Ukrainian forces got guided deep into Russian territory by technology and planning they don’t have on their own.
That’s a red line people who lived through the 60s and 70s would never have considered crossing. Direct NATO operations inside Russia. Not weapons. Not training. Active intelligence coordination for a ground invasion.
Then Ukrainian forces following that incursion killed civilians. Another line crossed.
Then drones deployed from makeshift trucks attacked Russian nuclear bomber bases. Targeting the strategic deterrence force. The weapons designed to prevent exactly this kind of escalation.
Every step calculated. Every line deliberately crossed.
Here’s what makes this dangerous: the West knows Russia doesn’t want nuclear war. Russia never planned for global conflict. They responded to Ukraine’s NATO membership trajectory because their security demanded it. Not because they wanted World War III.
But NATO is facing irrelevance. The alliance needs a purpose. It needs an enemy. It needs escalation to justify its existence and its budgets.
So watch the contradiction in Western media: “Russia is too weak to advance on the battlefield. ” and the very NEXT words we’re told “Russia is also an existential threat that could invade Europe any day.”
Both statements can’t be true. But both serve the same goal.
They want to make Russia look weak enough that pushing them further seems safe. While simultaneously making Russia look threatening enough that massive military spending stays justified.
The strategy is clear: push Russia into retaliating. Cross enough red lines that Moscow has to respond with something NATO can call escalation. Then use that response to flip Western economies onto war footing.
Because those economies are beyond saving through normal means. The debt is too high. The infrastructure is too broken. The political systems are too captured.
The problem with playing the war card is that it’s more akin to rolling the dice. Wars seldom stay as neatly contained as the Smart Boy strategists declare they will, their consequences are often unpredictable, and the side that overestimates its own abilities while underestimating its enemies usually loses worse than it imagines it can.
Now, it’s also very important to keep in mind that evil will oft evil mar, and there are very good strategists on the other side. Russia developed the Oreshnik for precisely this reason; to be able to deliver a conventional blow with tac-nuke power that does not cross the nuclear line. And the US population is almost militantly anti-war while the European nations don’t have the military forces to fight anyone now. So even if the war between Russia and NATO goes hot and direct, that doesn’t mean the two major nuclear powers are going to start launching ICBMs at each other.