I wouldn't say there's a very good argument that we're closer to that than we were in, like, October 1962.
NATO is in a direct proxy war with Russia, who has repeatedly said that they consider this war an "existential threat". The 1962 crisis was resolved when the Soviet Union eventually stood down and agreed not to stage their troops and missiles in Cuba. NATO has insisted it has every right to stage their troops and missiles in Ukraine. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not we are actually closer to the precipice than we were in 1962, but nobody who understands the situation thinks a serious argument can't be made. We are at the point right now where nuclear war can break out at any moment.
Ah so Russia can take whatever it wants and do whatever it wants as long as it considers it an 'existential threat', and it seemingly has this right because it has nuclear weapons?.
> We are at the point right now where nuclear war can break out at any moment.
There is literally zero indication that this true, we haven't seen any reports anywhere of a change in nuclear posture indicating that even a nuclear test was going to happen let alone having a weapon launched.
First let's have Russia pull its troops out of Ukraine, re-affirm the binding agreements it has already signed to permanently respect its sovereignty (and amend these for additional guarantees as needed), and commit to a timetable for reparations -- with a substantial downpayment. At that point, we can have a discussion about such matters.
Until that happens - Russia has no "legitimate" security needs whatsoever.
Not that this means NATO should start putting missiles in Ukraine willy-nilly. But really, until the above happens -- one needs to just drop the word "legitimate" from one's vocabulary, as it applies to current regime's wants or needs for anything.
I'd also like to see a source for " NATO has insisted it has every right to stage their troops and missiles in Ukraine." The closest I can recalls is pretty clearly, "Ukraine has the right to decide on its own foreign policy" which is somewhat different.
We've been close to nuclear war since the moment the failed Russian state decided military aggression was a substitute for reform. Abandoning support for Ukraine doesn't actually do anything to address the nuclear threat Russia poses - it simply moves the nuclear threat to some other axis of conflict. The danger of nuclear first-use by Putin or some other Russian regime will only end when Russia's internal conflicts are resolved, by reform or collapse.
Really?