September 25, 2025 - The Ocean Avenue News - oceanavenuenews.com

#CIA #FBI #POTUS
The war between Russia and the west including the US: how probable, the nuclear aspect, character, duration, impact – Google Search google.com/search?q=war+betw…
Based on recent developments, a direct war between Russia and the West (including the US) is not a foregone conclusion but is now considered a realistic and growing possibility, driven largely by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Escalation remains a high-risk factor, with the nuclear element central to deterrence and fears. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Probability: Increased but still not inevitable The risk of direct military confrontation has risen significantly since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

• Provocative “grey-zone” tactics: Russia has engaged in increasingly aggressive actions, including repeated airspace incursions over NATO territory, which test the alliance’s resolve and strain resources. Examples include numerous drone and aircraft violations in 2025 across the Baltic Sea and along NATO’s eastern flank.
• Explicit warnings: Top NATO and European officials have issued public warnings that a Russian attack on a NATO member state is a realistic possibility within the next five years.
• Arms control collapse: The expiration of major nuclear arms control treaties, like the New START treaty, and a lack of dialogue between the US and Russia add to a climate of unpredictability and risk. [1, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Nuclear aspect: High risk of escalation While the use of nuclear weapons is a remote possibility, the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict is a major concern.

• “Escalate to de-escalate” ambiguity: Western analysts believe Russia’s military doctrine reserves the option of a limited nuclear strike to force a stronger adversary to de-escalate. Russia maintains ambiguity on this point, contributing to the risk of miscalculation.
• Deteriorating Russian conventional power: The conventional military losses in Ukraine may lead Russia to rely more heavily on its nuclear and counter-space capabilities as a tool for strategic deterrence.
• Dual-capable systems: Many Russian and US weapons platforms can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads, blurring the line between conventional and nuclear attacks. An attack on a dual-use facility could be misinterpreted as a nuclear attack and trigger a nuclear response.
• Increased risk of accident: The combination of heightened tensions, reduced communication, and reliance on aging nuclear early-warning systems increases the risk of an accidental nuclear exchange. [4, 10, 11, 12, 13]

Character: Not a conventional Cold War confrontation A potential conflict would likely be a multi-domain confrontation, reflecting modern warfare’s complexities.

• Hybrid warfare: Russia would continue using a combination of non-military tactics, including cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and sabotage, to undermine Western cohesion.
• Heavy use of unmanned systems: The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of drones. Russia could use cheap, replaceable drones to overwhelm NATO’s more expensive air defenses and probe vulnerabilities.
• Aerospace attacks: Conventional missile and air attacks against critical military and governmental infrastructure are likely, which could trigger a Russian nuclear response under its own doctrine.
• NATO conventional superiority: NATO holds a significant advantage in conventional military power, including active soldiers, aircraft, and armored vehicles. However, increased defense spending and updated military doctrines are needed to address new threats like drones and hybrid tactics. [1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]

Duration and Impact The duration and impact would depend heavily on the scale of the conflict and whether nuclear weapons were used.

• Geopolitical realignment: The Ukraine conflict has already weakened relations between Europe and Russia, strengthened the transatlantic alliance, and incentivized Russia and China to collaborate against the West. A direct conflict would dramatically accelerate this trend.
• Global economic shock: The current conflict has already caused significant global inflation, supply chain disruptions, and soaring energy and food prices. An expanded war would trigger a far more severe economic crisis, with unpredictable consequences.
• Long-term hostility: A direct war would entrench hostility for generations, likely leading to a prolonged, low-level conflict even after major hostilities cease. Russia’s motivation to undermine NATO would likely intensify, and the costs for all parties would be enormous.
• Weakened Russia: Russia has already been weakened by its invasion of Ukraine. It has suffered massive economic costs, become isolated diplomatically, and increased its dependency on regimes like those in Iran and North Korea. An expanded war would place its regime and economy under even more extreme pressure. [19, 20, 21, 22, 23]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk…
[2] newsweek.com/putin-ally-warn…
[3] vox.com/politics/462814/russ…
[4] nationalinterest.org/feature…
[5] pbs.org/newshour/politics/wi…
[6] vox.com/politics/462814/russ…
[7] pbs.org/newshour/world/putin…
[8] eurasiareview.com/25092025-s…
[9] nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/…
[10] usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Co…
[11] congress.gov/crs_external_pr…
[12] usip.org/publications/2025/0…
[13] congress.gov/crs_external_pr…
[14] atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk…
[15] vox.com/politics/462814/russ…
[16] theweek.com/news/defence/104…
[17] stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfi…
[18] pbs.org/newshour/world/how-e…
[19] researchgate.net/publication…
[20] rand.org/pubs/research_brief…
[21] rand.org/pubs/research_brief…
[22] rand.org/pubs/commentary/202…
[23] rand.org/pubs/research_brief…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025