tl;dr Wherever the war, it'll begin sometime in the last week of june to the first week of july (june 22nd-july 8th) The explanation: It will likely be in the middle east, though it could be the horn of africa (hence why we're sending troops to Somalia). I derived this conclusion from various estimates of inflation, including official inflation, shadow stats, and my own method which takes unemployment numbers (again shadowstats) and treats them as a proxy for inflation, on the theory that as inflation rises, wages have to rise to compensate, which drives down the total new jobs available (excluding churn). Which puts general inflation roughly around 16.66% Now the Iran-Iraq war started in 1980. Assuming the macrovariables here are the driving factors toward war, in this case the price of oil, or for sake of simplicity, gas. Gas at the time, was $1.19 a gallon, officially equivalent to $3.51*1.19 = $4.178 a gallon Now the invasion of ukraine didn't happen till febuary 22, 2022. The price of gas for the second week of february was $3.53 and the third week it was at $3.60 By the first week of april, it was $4.17 Right on the fucking dot. But heres why the war is going to grow. Because we have not factored in this newest spike in cost, in *relation* to the 1980's war driven by the same type of energy conflict. According to google, "the dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.03% per year between 1980 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 250.86%." Leading to 1 dollar in 1980, being worth $3.51 today 'officially'. Now 'inflation' is nowhere near ten percent, according to officials. But it has variously been estimated, across sectors, be it energy, food, or consumer goods, as low as ten-fifteen percent, to as high as 50%. While some sectors are certainly higher, the average *does* seem to be sub-20%. Going with our minimum "best case pragmatic" estimate of 16.66%, The equivalent of one gallon of gas in 1980 ($1.19 in 1980 dollars) works out to $4.87277 a gallon when the war kicks into high gear. In fact russia likely did this very calculation for the *first* invasion, on the theory that the u.s did it *also*. And that would explain why they *chose* to invade, when either choice was a bad outcome, or catch-22 for them. They were already figuring the u.s. was gonna time *our* entry (directly or by proxy) to this very spike which hit in the first week of april. If the price of gas has been rising, lets say 10 cents a week, factoring in the start of summer blend and the continuing war ukraine, there is at most seven weeks between now and the $4.87 mark for u.s gasoline. Having seen this, it appears that ukraine isn't an attempt to *drain* russia (because the u.s. must have expected russia would have sufficient support from allies, new trade partners, and the resources under its control). No, instead ukraine is an attempt to *distract* russia and china as the u.s. makes a land grab in the middle east or the horn of africa. This also means the u.s. is desperate, either to sustain the war in ukraine or to end it. Which means the u.s. will commit either to a large scale attack of some sort, or a very large provocation. The u.s. can't get away with doing this directly though, not without triggering certain red lines, so theres every reason to believe the next attack will come in the form of a third nation entering the war. Which explains the bum rush to induct new members into NATO. The potential new-members list are the biggest candidates for u.s. patsy du jour. The secondary list is only two nations: poland, and germany. Poland would work because it has u.s. troops in it, and russia won't escalate unnecessarily when it knows the u.s. is going to attempt to hit first anyway. And it would pit the catholic element against the orthodox element. Germany would be a good candidate too, as its entry would immediately sever any potential economic relations, even at the expense of Germany freezing. But in reality, this would likely strengthen the ruble-for-gas scheme, as others double-down seeing the example of Germany forced to suffer yoked for u.s. interests. So Finland, Sweden, And runners-up for hosting u.s. weapons used to attack russia or false flag u.s. troops and/or their own citizens: Georgia, Serbia, Moldova, Ireland, or Herzegovina Theres also the remote possibility of an attack on the u.s. mainland or u.s. controlled territories like the Philippines (too close to certain asian countries). Maybe the west coast? I doubt it would be the east coast, because while *hypothetically* the carolinas, ozarks, and blue ridge would be an area difficult to control under political or economic breakdown--nevertheless there is DC, financial centers in jersey and new york, as well as all the major intelligence hubs and the pentagon and navy. While the west coast is comprised of tech (now competing for control vs the federal government and east coast) which the fed is considering unwinding (cyberpolygon) to cover up and scapegoat years of fraud and a multi-trillion dollar derivative bubble. Foods grown in california, but its becomes a source of political-instability-through-exported-demographics. It consumes way more than it produces. Enemies taking out the west coast would also isolate alaska, and thus make it more vulnerable to federal control and federal pressure. So there we have it, the potential goals of the u.s. government and its adversaries.