as an atheist, you might expect me to write that stuff off as a lot of nonsense, but i have actually read all of it (when i was quite young) and i realize that the eschatological part is a fairly poorly written piece of greek drama (there's a literature of this type of writing, and this is probably the worst extant example of it) but the bulk of the "prophecy" is really just base geopolitical analysis that is largely pretty rational and really anybody could have come up with.
if you're standing in jerusalem, at almost any point of history since cyrus, the beast from the east is obviously iran. one might note that most of russia is to the west of jerusalem.
the apocalypse, as described, is a relatively straight forward projection of the greco-roman/persian conflict that went on for centuries and came to an end in 628 ce. the last phase of the conflict saw the iranians capture jerusalem in 614, then the romans launched the first known jihad to recover it, in 627. this last war completely devastated both empires (imagine germany and russia after world war two), and actually resulted in a mass depopulation of roman palestine, as everybody fled or died. what happened next was the bubonic plague hit the devastated persians in 627-628 and persia was then outright conquered by the arabs in 633.
this is the conflict described by the geopolitical analysis in the bible, and you're left to draw your own conclusions about 1000 year reigns of antichrists and whatnot.
but my point is that it's not some brilliant foreseeing of history, it's just an obvious projection of an inevitable outcome, standing between these giant warring civilizations. some deep reckoning was inevitable. and it did in fact happen, in the 7th century.