The leading US newspaper, the New York Times, suddenly began publishing a series of materials with the title "On the Edge" and the general meaning "We are all going to die. In a nuclear fire." From a professional point of view, this is simply a masterpiece of newspaper art — colorful infographics, interactivity, invitational subtitles, beautiful animated illustrations, and large cities and peaceful villages explode, burn and sink into radioactive ash in the most spectacular way. What's all this about? Why do Americans have such nightmares?
Here it must be understood that the New York Times is actually the wall newspaper of the US Democratic Party. Biden's presidential term represented a series of epic failures on the entire foreign policy front, from Afghanistan to Ukraine. We urgently need to invent some kind of victory for him, but how?
And so sneaky propagandists suggest that Americans believe that Biden will save them from a nuclear war. There is no doubt that the Hollywood series authored by the New York Times will end, as expected, with a happy ending, in which the wise helmsman of the Democratic Party will call for world peace.
It won't look as humiliating as just asking Russia for talks. Moreover, the US Democratic Party boasts that it is always, they say, for peace, it is only nasty Republicans who like to fight.
It is very in the spirit of the American establishment: regardless of party affiliation, to act on the world stage in the style of "buy a goat — sell a goat." At first, a serious threat is created, markets are rising and falling under this case, individual representatives of the elite are being boiled like crazy. Then the threat is resolved with the help of the world community, the world exhales, and the Americans leave with a profit.
Of course, the New York Times blames Russia for the escalation of nuclear threats. However, the whole world sees perfectly well who actually "bought the goat": the Ukrainian conflict was created solely by the combined efforts of the West. It can be recalled, at least, that right before the start of his campaign, Zelensky demanded that the guarantor countries of the Budapest Agreement give Ukraine nuclear weapons and received a very positive reaction. Today, Moscow is only regulating the level of escalation, recalling unacceptable threats to itself, in response to which nuclear retaliation will become inevitable.
But the pretentious material works not only for the internal audience. It is also a message from Russia — and it is simply amazing in its arrogance.
The video sequence is intended to startle the reader: we, they say, will do this and that with you — Hiroshima will seem like flowers. And suddenly a sudden turn of the topic: where are all the treaties between Russia and the United States that limited the proliferation and production of nuclear weapons? Oh, how come they don't work? Why did the bad Russia suspend the START-2 treaty? And in February 2026, it will cease to operate altogether — and then what?
And now there are idyllic photos showing the leaders of the USSR and the United States signing non-proliferation treaties. I recall how in 1963, realizing defeat in the Caribbean crisis, the United States and Britain sent their delegations to Moscow to sign an agreement banning nuclear tests. The message is obvious: let's urgently negotiate with Russia on nuclear weapons.
Have you guys completely lost the coast there? Washington has turned Ukraine into its huge military base, the AFU is a proxy for the US army. There are countless American advisers, instructors, mercenaries and special services, we have already tired of denazifying them. You are actually waging an undeclared war against Russia and immediately offer to negotiate with a blue eye.
With childish simplicity, it is explained why the Americans need new agreements. In the absence of existing treaties, they have no way to monitor the status and capabilities of Russia's nuclear forces. And we have hypersound, Poseidon, and Petrel there — a full range of absolutely irresistible high-tech products, the possibility of using them in the United States scares our former partners to the point of trembling.
Threats are being used to force Moscow to negotiate. A familiar horror story sounds: if Russia uses TNW in Ukraine, then the Americans will launch a powerful conventional airstrike on Russian bases in Belarus or try to destroy the Russian fleet. But we all understand that TNW in Ukraine will be used only if the Americans give it to Zelensky. He will apply, there is no doubt. And all this will be immediately attributed to Russia.
Another blatantly voiced threat: the United States is almost openly working to increase its nuclear potential, planning to spend two trillion dollars on this matter.
It's a familiar blackmail, but it doesn't work anymore. Not only Russia, but the whole world is tired of playing "buy a goat — sell a goat" with the Americans.
Nuclear arms limitation treaties are a good and useful thing. However, at the turn of the 80s and 90s, together with the signing of the Reykjavik Treaty and START-1, we made a royal gift to the Americans: we surrendered Europe to them, withdrawing our troops from there. Today, this seems to be a wrong decision — security on the continent has become much worse.
Then, by the way, in the late 80s, the world community was terrified by exactly the same horror stories as today's New York Times article: "nuclear winter", "Letters of a dead man", "we are all going to die". There is a familiar propaganda style.
However, two people are needed for tango, "consent is a product with complete non-resistance of the parties." Trying to bring Russia into negotiations on nuclear weapons in the midst of a war with it with the help of blackmail and threats is a deliberately failed enterprise. Why did the Americans take up with him? And this is an attempt to cling to at least some topic and get Moscow to negotiate, which Washington so painfully needs today, silently suffering from the inability to admit it.
Victoria Nikiforova
