What are the alleged 'three world wars' predictions and where did they originate?
Executive summary
Claims about “three World Wars” predictions are circulating in 2025 across two broad channels: (A) modern psychics and popular commentators who say a Third World War will erupt in 2025 (figures often named include Baba Vanga, “living Nostradamus” types like Nicolas Aujula, and others) [1] [2] [3]. (B) anonymous or loosely sourced analyst documents and long-form speculative pieces that outline specific trigger zones — e.g., Taiwan Strait, Middle East nuclear escalation, and Russian expansion beyond Ukraine — as a trilogy of scenarios whose coincidence could produce global war [4]. Both streams mix confirmed reporting with rumor and reinterpretation; available sources do not mention an authoritative, declassified origin for a canonical “three world wars” prophecy beyond these journalistic and online sources (not found in current reporting).
1. Where the “three wars” framing is appearing — celebrities, psychics, and pop press
In mainstream and tabloid coverage through 2025, several modern psychics have been credited with predicting a Third World War in the year — notably Baba Vanga (a posthumously attributed set of forecasts) and contemporary figures like Nicolas Aujula who publicly warned of global conflict and social collapse in 2025 [5] [2] [3]. Popular outlets repack these claims as urgent headlines, often linking disparate quotes from decades-old seers or recent social‑media pronouncements into a single narrative of imminent global war [1] [6].
2. The “three trigger zones” that pundits say could add up to a world war
A separate but influential strand is a circulated scenario document and commentary that lists three high‑risk theaters — the Taiwan Strait, nuclear escalation in the Middle East, and Russian expansion beyond Ukraine — and argues that overlap among them could spark wider conflagration. That outline was repeated in an online analysis that treats those three zones as the critical dominoes; the piece suggests that simultaneous crises in multiple arenas would force major-power responses and global mobilization [4].
3. Sources and evidence: rumor, leaked files, and expert surveys
The “three-trigger” narrative in some outlets rests on a purported leaked file posted anonymously and amplified by cyber‑researchers and commentators; that file is not presented as a verified government intelligence assessment but as a partially verified blueprint circulating on the dark web [4]. By contrast, formal expert surveys and think‑tank work in 2024–25 (e.g., Atlantic Council foresight surveys) express elevated probabilities of large‑scale war without endorsing a single three‑event template; those surveys assign nontrivial chances (e.g., 20–30% in one expert’s assessment) to “worldwide warfare” within a short window, and warn nuclear use is a realistic worry in scenario planning [7].
4. How media synthesis creates the impression of a single prophecy
Journalists and social media often compress different traditions — centuries‑old quatrains, folkloric prophecies, modern psychic posts, and speculative intelligence leaks — into one headline. Major outlets have run pieces that juxtapose Baba Vanga and Nostradamus with living psychics and anonymous “phase zero” documents, creating an impression of corroboration where none exists in primary sources [1] [5] [4].
5. Competing viewpoints and what reputable sources say
Established analysts and survey compilations treat the likelihood of large wars as a complex risk rather than a deterministic prophecy; the Atlantic Council’s 2035 foresight series aggregates expert judgments that show concern but also disagreement about timing, probability, and whether nuclear use is likely — 48% of its respondents expected some use of nuclear weapons in the coming decade in one survey, showing alarm but not consensus on an imminent World War III [7]. Meanwhile, popular psychic predictions offer narrative certainty without verifiable methodology [2] [3].
6. What’s not in the reporting and why that matters
Available sources do not cite a single authoritative intelligence community assessment or vetted historical text that establishes a canonical, centuries‑old “three World Wars” prophecy model; the articulation appears to be a modern construct assembled by media, psychics, and anonymous online documents (not found in current reporting). That absence matters: it separates speculative or folkloric claims from evidence‑based risk assessments.
7. Takeaway for readers who want to separate signal from noise
Treat prophetic headlines and anonymous “blueprint” leaks as narrative products, not verified forecasts. If you want informed probabilistic judgments about the risk of major interstate or nuclear conflict, rely on aggregated expert surveys and vetted think‑tank analysis [7]. For the specific “three‑wars” formulations, the record in available reporting shows a mix of psychic pronouncements and speculative online manifests rather than a single, traceable origin or authoritative prediction [4] [2] [5].