Our computer has provided a long-term forecast that is unprecedented. I have never see the computer go FLAT LINE on a country as it has on Ukraine. This is one of the most significant and worrying geopolitical questions of our time. The risk of a nuclear conflict arising from the war in Ukraine cannot be dismissed out of hand. It is higher than it has been in decades, and the potential consequences are catastrophic.

It’s crucial to understand that this is not a single risk, but a cascade of potential scenarios. Russia’s stated doctrine allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to:

• A nuclear attack on Russia or its allies.

• An attack with conventional weapons when “the very existence of the state is threatened.”

This is precisely the objective of NATO and the EU – the conquest of Russia. The critical point lies in the phrase “existence of the state.” Russia is well aware that this is NOT a war for Ukraine, this is a war against NATO. This idea that Russia must surrender everything would only invite a third coup in Russia and we would surely end up with a hardliner. A conventional defeat in Ukraine  would be be interpreted by the Kremlin as such an existential threat. Chine told to Kallas’ face that they were NOT prepared to see Russia lose because they know that they would be next.

The Kallas/EU/NATO counter proposal to me warrants a complete abandonment of NATO by the USA. We MUST get out ASAP!!!! Their plan states:

• All references to NATO non-expansion, one of the US plan’s requirements, have been completely removed.
• Ukraine’s Armed Forces will be capped at 800,000 personnel. The US plan proposed a limit of 600,000.
• Ukraine may join NATO if all members reach a consensus. The requirement to enshrine NATO rejection in Ukraine’s Constitution is removed, as is the demand that NATO amend its statutes to bar Ukraine.

This is by no means any interest whatsoever in a lasting peace.

The risk is not of a sudden, unprovoked nuclear strike, but of a conflict escalating through a series of steps cannot be dismissed at this point. Tactical vs. Strategic Use:

• A “limited” tactical nuclear weapon (or demonstration strike) might be used on a military target in Ukraine to:
• Shock Ukraine and its allies into submission.
• Break a Ukrainian battlefield breakthrough that threatens a catastrophic Russian defeat (e.g., the collapse of frontline forces).
• Signal Russia’s absolute commitment and shatter Western resolve.

Accident or Miscalculation:

• The intense conventional warfare, with strikes deep inside Russian-occupied territory and attacks on Russian military assets (like the Black Sea Fleet), increases the chance of an incident that could spiral out of control. Kallas has been advocating the total destruction of the Russian shadow fleet under the theory that would collapse the Russian economy. Of course, she directs Ukraine to do it pretending this is not NATO or the EU. They just provide the gun and tell Zelensky to pull the trigger.
• With Zelensky deliberately attaching Russian energy assets with the intent of destroying their econom is a direct threat against Russia itself and that certainly falls within their definition to use nuclear weapons. Such a strike that intentionally or accidentally kills high-level Russian officials or causes mass casualties on Russian soil would trigger a disproportionate response.

Involving NATO Directly:

If a Russian strike (conventional or nuclear) were to spill over onto NATO territory (e.g., in Poland or Romania), even by accident, it would invoke Article 5 and would answer the prayers of Kallas and and launch a direct NATO-Russia conflict, which would carry an immense nuclear risk.

Russia’s Warning are Twisted by the Press as threats

Russian officials have repeatedly warned the West that they are courting nuclear war. They know the truth that this has been orchestrated by the NATO and the Neocons who has usurped American Foreign Policy and the dishonesty pf German Chancellor Merkle negotiating the Minsk Agreement with no intent of allowing the Donbas to separate as she admitted it was to buy time for NATO to train a Ukrainian army to wage war on Russia.  threats since the invasion began. Russia’s warning are taken by the press as threats rather than warnings that the European leaders are courting the destruction of Europe. The Neocons and NATO present this to the press as a form of coercion designed to deter deeper Western involvement. The Western Press is not concerned with war, but is cheering it on.

Factors That Mitigate the Risk

Massive Retaliation and Deterrence:

• The United States and NATO have made it explicitly clear that any use of nuclear weapons by Russia would have “catastrophic consequences.” While they have not detailed the response, the implied threat is a conventional or even nuclear counter-strike. This creates a powerful deterrent.

• The laughable claim that any tactical nuclear weapon would achieve militarily in Ukraine would contaminate territory Russia hopes to control, alienate key partners like China and India, and likely unite the West rather than break it. This is absurd since China already is preparing for World War III and has 50%+ of the total wheat reserves that the West does not, and contaminating the territory of Ukraine, which is the breadbasket for the EU, would undering NATO and Russia has no such interest in occupying Ukraine. Their goal has been to protect the Russians in the Donbas.

International Condemnation:

• The other laughable claim that a nuclear strike would turn Russia into a global pariah overnight. China, which has a “no first use” policy, would likely be forced to distance itself significantly. China knows that World War III is coming and said to Kallas’ face that they were NOT prepared to allow Russia to lose because they would be next.

Risk of a Russia Coup:

• The decision to use a nuclear weapon rests solely with Putin. The Russian military chain of command is tightly controlled, reducing the risk of an unauthorized launch, but raising the risk of a single decision-maker’s miscalculation. Any attempt to embarrass Putin risks a coup and his replacement with a real harliner who is fully aware that NATO and the EU are behind this war and they do not want any lasting peace.

• Putin is a calculated actor, not a suicidal one like the Neocons or NATO, and understands the existential risks for Russia and the world. But he must defend Russia for this is an existential threat for the total destruction of Russia.

• However, nearly all agree intelligence agencies acknowledge that the risk of nuclear war is at its highest point since the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is no longer a theoretical academic discussion but a active part of military and political planning in Western capitals.

• The risk is not static. It fluctuates with the fortunes of war. A major Ukrainian success or a perceived desperation in the Kremlin would cause the risk to spike.

Conclusion

The risk of nuclear war over Ukraine is a real and present danger, and given the actors like Kallas, Zelensky, and the Neocon running NATO, this has become an imminent likelihood rather than just a theatrical discussion. What is clear is that nuclear weapons are no longer a deterrent. NATO keeps telling leaders Russia will never push the button so they can invade and take Russia in days if not weeks.

The primary risk is one of escalation through miscalculation. by NATO, Kallas (the EU Lindsey Graham) that they can utterly destroy Russia with no nuclear weapons. The West is walking a fine line waging war against Russia while pretending they are not directly involved,