Most populations would be affected by that event, either directly or indirectly via trade and food and other necessities supplied from those populations directly affected. I’m not sure what we’re arguing about - the article says Gingrich sees this as an “apocalyptic” event. The “apocalypse” is what the “tribulation” is all about.
When he says an “apocalyptic event” - he’s talking about the Webster’s dictionary definition - which is “a great disaster”. And certainly, the electrical grid going down in the USA is a “great disaster” but it’s not the Tribulation of the Bible. That’s where you’re going wrong here. You’re linking the two and there’s not a link.
Look at it another way if it will help you. It was an “apocalypse” in Germany at the end of the war (a great disaster for the German people) - but it was not the Tribulation of the Bible.
And in Japan, with all that bombing and the two nuclear bombs - it was an “apocalypse” for the Japanese people (a great disaster), but it was not the Tribulation of the Bible.
I hope that clears it up for you.