The next would-be assassin may be a drone pilot. US law enforcement doesn’t look ready. yahoo.com/news/next-assassin…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 26, 2025
Day: September 25, 2025
war between russia and the west including the us: how probable, the nuclear aspect, character, duration, impact – Google Search – 2 google.com/search?q=war+betw…
Based on recent geopolitical analysis, a direct, large-scale war between Russia and the West, including the United States, remains improbable due to the catastrophic consequences, especially the risk of nuclear escalation. However, the probability of a conventional conflict sparking a wider war is a growing concern, highlighted by recent Russian aggressions and airspace violations near NATO territory. A potential war would likely be hybrid in character, involve both conventional and nuclear aspects, and have a profound, long-term global impact, though the duration of an initial conflict is highly speculative. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Probability The risk of a wider war has increased recently due to Russian military actions and provocations:• Provocations and airspace violations: Russian aircraft have reportedly violated the airspace of NATO members Poland and Estonia, and Russian drones have entered Poland, raising tensions. Some European leaders interpret these as Russian “probes” testing NATO’s response.
• Article 5 commitment: In response, NATO has issued firm warnings, stating its “ironclad” commitment to Article 5 of its founding treaty, which commits all members to mutual defense if one is attacked.
• Differing views on escalation: Some European leaders, particularly in the Baltics, have been more vocal about potentially shooting down Russian aircraft, while others like Germany have urged calm to avoid falling into an “escalation trap”.
• US role: The perceived position of the US, particularly under the Trump administration, is a major factor influencing European confidence.
• Despite the rising tensions, analysts still consider a full-scale conventional war improbable due to the risk of nuclear escalation and the destructive scale of such a conflict. [2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8]Nuclear aspect A direct conflict between major nuclear powers carries a severe nuclear risk:
• Deterrence as a strategy: Russia’s nuclear doctrine views its arsenal as a strategic deterrent to ensure its national sovereignty. Russia has suggested it could use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional aggression that critically threatens the state.
• Risk of escalation: Experts suggest that Russia’s use of a low-yield nuclear weapon, though potentially limited, could trigger an uncontrollable escalation to a total nuclear war.
• Arms control in decline: The collapse of major arms control treaties like New START increases unpredictability and the risk of a new arms race. The failure to engage in arms control discussions further complicates de-escalation.
• Mutual annihilation: The logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) suggests that the use of nuclear weapons would lead to the annihilation of both parties, making such a scenario politically and militarily perilous for both Russia and the West. [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]Character A potential conflict would likely be a combination of several types of warfare:
• Initial conventional phase: The war would likely begin with a highly dynamic, non-attritional phase using long-range precision strikes to degrade critical military, economic, and civilian infrastructure.
• Hybrid and asymmetric warfare: Russia relies heavily on asymmetric and hybrid tactics to offset the West’s conventional superiority. This would involve:• Covert operations and sabotage by special forces.
• Offensive cyber and electronic warfare.
• Targeting critical infrastructure, including oil and gas facilities and digital networks.
• Information warfare and disinformation campaigns to influence public opinion and create political rifts.
• Weaponization of migration by instigating border crises.• Naval and air superiority: The US and NATO have significant naval and air power advantages, which would likely allow them to establish air and naval superiority over Russia in a conventional conflict. [5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]
Duration The duration of a conflict would depend heavily on whether it escalates to a nuclear exchange:
• Conventional conflict: A limited conventional conflict on the territory of a NATO ally could be over relatively quickly, with one analyst speculating a few months for NATO to overwhelm Russian forces. The conflict would be focused on air and sea power, not a large-scale ground invasion.
• Nuclear exchange: A nuclear exchange would likely be incredibly short, potentially lasting only about an hour for the initial wave of strikes, and effectively ending civilization as we know it shortly thereafter.
• Long-term conflict: A prolonged conventional or hybrid conflict could persist for an extended period, particularly as seen in the ongoing war in Ukraine, with no clear timetable for resolution. [18, 19, 20, 21, 22]Impact The impact of such a war would be globally devastating, extending far beyond the battlefield:
• Economic collapse: The world would experience massive economic disruption, with huge economic losses and shortages of resources like energy. Western sanctions would likely be intensified, while Russia’s economy would be crippled.
• Humanitarian catastrophe: Millions of casualties are projected in the event of a nuclear war. Even a large-scale conventional war would cause massive casualties, widespread destruction, and a refugee crisis.
• Erosion of global security: The conflict would expose deep weaknesses in the international security architecture and could lead to a fragmented, unstable global order.
• Environmental destruction: A nuclear exchange would cause an environmental catastrophe, leading to long-term climate changes and fallout.
• Political instability: Political divisions, already present in the West, could be exacerbated by the strain of a major conflict. [6, 8, 10, 19, 23, 24, 25]Note: Any analysis of a hypothetical war between major powers must contend with a high degree of uncertainty, as miscalculation is an ever-present risk that could dramatically alter the course and outcome of the conflict.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Co…
[2] aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/23…
[3] nypost.com/2025/09/22/us-new…
[4] warontherocks.com/2025/09/na…
[5] cna.org/analyses/2025/08/rus…
[6] reddit.com/r/Futurology/comm…
[7] cnn.com/2025/09/25/politics/…
[8] yahoo.com/news/articles/euro…
[9] pbs.org/newshour/politics/wi…
[10] publications.armywarcollege.…
[11] brookings.edu/articles/how-c…
[12] congress.gov/crs_external_pr…
[13] thebulletin.org/2025/09/puti…
[14] csis.org/analysis/russias-sh…
[15] nato.int/docu/review/article…
[16] understandingwar.org/researc…
[17] csis.org/analysis/russias-sh…
[18] quora.com/How-long-would-a-w…
[19] e-ir.info/2025/09/24/opinion…
[20] usni.org/magazines/proceedin…
[21] catholicculture.org/culture/…
[22] linkedin.com/pulse/review-re…
[23] icanw.org/new_study_on_us_ru…
[24] atomicarchive.com/resources/…
[25] europeanleadershipnetwork.or…
–— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025
BREAKING:
ABC reports that the former FBI Director James Comey has now been indicted for obstruction of justice and making false statements pic.twitter.com/I92Q2HogGk
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) September 25, 2025
BREAKING: SAUDI ARABIA ANNOUNCES $90 MILLION IN SUPPORT TO THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY pic.twitter.com/BfjOyhIxJE
— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) September 25, 2025
Заседание Глобального атомного форума • Президент России kremlin.ru/events/president/…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025
BREAKING:
🇺🇸🇹🇷 Turkey has signed a major 20-year LNG deal with U.S. firm Mercuria for 70 bcm of gas, valued at $43 billion.
The move comes after President Trump told Turkey’s Erdogan to move off Russian energy. pic.twitter.com/kpU8sB1Tnr
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 25, 2025
#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
#CIA #FBI #POTUS
The New Art and Science of Political Assassinations x.com/mikenov/status/1971304237389976062— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025
#FBI: The next would-be assassin may be a drone pilot. thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025
#FBI: The next would-be assassin may be a drone pilot. thenewsandtimes.blogspot.com…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 25, 2025