Although alarmism is unwarranted, several developments add to unease.
We are mindful that nations and their leaders often fail to act rationally. Their perceptions of self-interest might be warped. They are capable of miscalculation.
This week Russian President Vladimir Putin lowered the threshold for nuclear war, on the face of it a terrifying prospect. The new doctrine allows for a nuclear response to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation backed by a nuclear power.
This was ostensibly in response to United States President Joe Biden permitting Ukraine to use US-made longer-range missiles to attack targets in Russia. Ukraine quickly deployed the missiles on an ammunition depot near Kursk, the corner of Russia captured by Ukraine.
Mr Putin has bandied about nuclear threats before and the international temperature, while increased, does not seem to have been raised too much, at least for now. Ukraine has likely been warned not to poke the Russian bear too vigorously. Civilian populations or the oil installations so important to Russia have not been targeted.
Bellicose words are not the same as deeds.
Nevertheless, the risks have risen, and such are the consequences of nuclear weapons that even a blip towards their possible use is concerning.
Russia, of course, blames Mr Biden for "adding fuel to the fire". Escalation, however, was stepped up by Russia when it employed North Korean troops in the conflict around Kursk.
Mr Trump is the wild card because of his stated views and his erratic and unpredictable behaviour.
His disdain for conventional diplomacy and international organisations threatens stability.
It seems the proclaimed "master of the deal" will apply pressure to try to force Russia and Ukraine to some "peace" agreement.
Russia, although economically and militarily haemorrhaging, has been grinding out slow advances in Ukraine as it strengthens its position. It is outspending and outgunning Ukraine. Despite holding on for 1000 days since the unprovoked Russian invasion, Ukraine’s position is precarious.
In the meantime, both sides are rushing to put themselves in the best possible bargaining position ahead of Mr Trump’s involvement. That is a reason for endeavouring to hang on in Kursk. Russia has stepped up its aerial terror bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
Ukraine will rely more than ever on Europe and other allies for backing. Europe will also need to support the use of missiles into Russia, supplementing Ukrainian use of its drones.
Europe will need to be unified in its continued financial and other support. Germany’s chancellor, unilaterally and foolishly communicated directly with Mr Putin, undermined the present isolation strategy. The likes of Italy, and even more so Hungary, should back Ukraine more.
New Zealand waits and watches apprehensively from a long way away.
As a small country, we are invested in the international rules-based order. In other words, might must not equate with right. Larger Russia cannot be allowed to invade its neighbour and get away with it.
Such sentiments and worries are all the stronger for many countries to Russia’s west.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had no choice but to put a brave face on Mr Trump’s election victory.
Mr Zelenskyy has a point when he acknowledges the war will "end sooner" with Mr Trump in charge. Ukraine, given its weakness, could be forced to part with territory in the east. Crimea, taken by Russia in 2014, appears a lost cause.
Mr Trump, given his style, could speak direct language and engage in direct threats of power of the type Mr Putin understands. For once, his unpredictability could be an asset.
Is the war, as one commentator put it, "at the beginning of the end" of hostilities?
Whatever happens, the circumstances surrounding the 1000-day-and-counting invasion and the inexorable, grinding war have changed.
