In general, the use of nuclear weapons will increase. The proliferation of nuclear weapons among other states, will bring “Third World” countries closer to the use of nuclear weapons between these states. However, the risk of a nuclear apocalypse will not increase, the Powers will not risk being drawn into a global war because of a weaker actor.

Vladyslav Honcharenko Ladislav Kulhánek Dear Vladyslav Honcharenko,

Thank you for your excellent question regarding the current nuclear threat landscape. It's a topic of tremendous importance that deserves careful analysis.

In my opinion, the current international situation is actually moving us somewhat away from the immediate threat of nuclear catastrophe, though the situation remains complex and multifaceted.

Putin, with support from the Trump administration, appears to be attempting to impose "his peace" while disregarding warnings from Ukraine and the European Union. While this approach raises serious concerns about justice and adherence to international law, it objectively reduces the risk of direct nuclear conflict in the short term by lowering the intensity of direct confrontation between nuclear powers.

An important aspect is Trump's intervention in European affairs, particularly his demand that European countries spend 5% of GDP on defense, which indicates a desire to shift the balance of responsibility in transatlantic relations. Notably, there appear to be shared interests between the Trump administration and Russia regarding the strengthening of far-right movements in Europe and the dismantling of the liberal order established after World War II.

It's revealing that different nuclear states receive completely different treatment. Trump imposes harsh tariffs and restrictions against China despite its nuclear status, while simultaneously demonstrating a conciliatory position toward Russia. Similarly telling is the attitude toward Europe, where France possesses a significant nuclear arsenal, yet this doesn't prevent Trump from criticizing European allies and interfering in their security policies.

Turkey, as an influential non-nuclear state, pursues an ambiguous policy, balancing between different centers of power. This demonstrates that even in the era of nuclear deterrence, countries can have significant influence on international relations without possessing nuclear weapons.

Trump's logic is difficult to comprehend, and initially it seemed his statements regarding Europe might have been a bluff to force European countries to strengthen their own security, which would have been the right decision. However, instead we are witnessing a fundamental shift in US foreign policy that is changing paradigms of international relations that have been established for decades.

Thus, while the current situation somewhat distances us from the immediate threat of nuclear catastrophe by reducing the level of direct confrontation, changes in the international system create new challenges. Trump's policies toward different nuclear states and his intervention in European affairs are shaping a new reality where traditional alliances are being reconsidered and geopolitical calculations are changing.

In this context, nuclear catastrophe becomes less likely in the short term, but the long-term consequences of the emerging new world order remain unpredictable.