Power, Time, and Collapse — Three Interlocking Predictions
- john raymond
- Sep 16
- 3 min read
The task of analytic courage is to predict the future, and to do so in a way that is precise enough to be falsifiable.
The framework I propose rests on three interlocking predictions: first, that Russia will persist in waging war as the very condition of regime survival; second, that Ukraine will compress harm into time (P = H/T) through a timed, double-strike operation targeting Russia’s pipeline system; and third, that President Trump, as a traitor-general structurally dependent on Putin, will flail increasingly as Moscow collapses.
Each of these predictions has a clear disproof: Russia could genuinely attempt peace, Ukraine could abstain from the proposed coordinated deep strike, and Trump could reverse course by attempting national unity rather than sabotage.
My current analytic frame stands or falls by those criteria.
I. Russia — regime survival as war
The Russian trajectory is the simplest to model. Putin’s regime is now inseparable from the war. The state apparatus has fused with conflict: generals, shopkeepers, and every level of society are disciplined by the continuation of war.
Peace is structurally impossible because peace would bring accountability, and Putin knows he is criminal number one in Ukrainian minds. This means his regime cannot survive an authentic settlement; he will bluster and rattle nuclear sabers, but nuclear weapons remain off the table as long as his frog is boiled slowly.
My prediction is clear: Russia will maintain perpetual war as its mode of existence. The falsification is equally clear: Putin could attempt honest negotiations rather than the posturing and propaganda he currently deploys. Should he choose real peace, my forecast fails.
II. Ukraine — harm compressed into time
Ukraine’s strategy can be formalized: P = H/T, power is harm divided by time. Kyiv is currently conducting a slow burn of low-grade fires, forcing Russia to consume men and materiel defending energy infrastructure.
Simultaneously, they degrade air defense and radar in proof-of-concept operations. They appear to be ramping up production but holding back their larger blow, timing it not by their own choice but by external temporal factors—almost certainly weather.
This points toward a double-tap campaign: first salvo against air defense installations, then, within hours, coordinated deep strikes against pipelines feeding Russia’s core. The aim is systemic: a freeze in oil lines leading to years-long economic collapse, cascading into front-line starvation and the breakdown of the Russian military.
My prediction is falsifiable in a straightforward way: if Ukraine never executes such a deep, pipeline-crippling strike, then my projection was wrong. The structure of power suggests otherwise, but the falsifier is clear.
III. Trump — the traitor-general under collapse
The third prediction concerns President Trump. Putin’s collapse would collapse Trump’s protective umbrella. Knowing this, Trump flails, seeking to harm the alliance and to corral Ukraine, though ineffectively.
Domestically, he faces the Epstein-linked scandals and attempts to construct a state of emergency, leveraging kompromat networks that span figures like Witkoff and extend down to the compromised men of Western elites such as Bill Gates, a know flyer of the Lolita Express.
As Putin’s walls close in, Trump’s desperation will accelerate into darker authoritarianism: silencing dissent, exploiting violent events such as Charlie Kirk’s murder to control media narratives, and turning repression into governance.
The prediction is stark: his acts of tyranny will deepen in proportion to Putin’s collapse. Yet here too lies a falsifier: Trump could attempt genuine unity, reversing his course of institutional sabotage and disintegration. Should he attempt to unify the nation, my prediction would be undone.
Conclusion — the structure of falsification
These three predictions form a lattice. Russia, Ukraine, and Trump are each operating under structural imperatives, but each has a clear disproof:
If Putin pursues honest peace, my analysis of regime security fails.
If Ukraine refrains from the double-tap pipeline strike, my forecast of P = H/T compression falls short.
If Trump turns to unity, the model of the Byzantine traitor-general collapses.
Analytic courage lies not only in predicting, but in defining the very points at which one’s framework could be shown wrong. That is what separates structural empiricism from blind speculation.
The future, if these falsifiers remain absent, is one of Russian collapse, Ukrainian breakthrough, and Trump’s accelerating tyranny in a doomed attempt to salvage his regime in face of Putin’s imminent demise.
Comments