From Izvestia, Nov. 10, 2025, p. 3. Complete text:
The system of strategic stability is close to ultimate collapse. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the US has deliberately refused to comply with the agreements that, starting in the 1960s, helped bring humanity back from the brink of global conflict. First, Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty [see Vol. 53, No. 50, pp. 1-2], burying a key element of bilateral deterrence. Then, at the instigation of the American leadership, the West abandoned attempts to revive the CFE [Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe], a crucial agreement designed to prevent the militarization of Europe.
During [US President Donald] Trump’s first term, under the influence of the “hawks,” the US withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty [see Vol. 72, No. 17, pp. 15-16] and from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty [see Vol. 71, No. 31, pp. 3-7]. Subsequently, the Americans did everything they could to undermine cooperation in implementing the New START Treaty, and even now, when Moscow is proposing to extend it for a year, they show no desire for meaningful work.
All these steps have been taken with amazing speed and ease, without any thought of the consequences. Unlike outstanding presidents of the past, such as John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, American leaders of recent decades have not demonstrated an aptitude for long-term thinking and seeing into the future. Meanwhile, the future arrived quickly – in the form of the Ukraine crisis.
Even under [former US president Joe] Biden, Washington began seriously considering nuclear escalation options, in many ways deliberately pushing our countries to the point of no return. At the same time, the rapid militarization of Europe began. Today, European leaders and military personnel calmly discuss the possibility of a direct clash with Russia within a few years, as though they do not understand the catastrophic consequences this scenario would bring for the peoples of the continent.
Unfortunately, despite positive impulses from the American side and the emergence of the Anchorage spirit [see Vol. 77, No. 33, pp. 3-8], the US is still unable to reverse the above processes, but is only intensifying crisis tendencies.
At stake is the fate of two key surviving international nuclear documents: the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
In the first case, Washington (like Moscow) was not legally bound by the document’s provisions, but, along with our country, it adhered to a moratorium on conducting such tests, reasonably believing that abandoning it would open Pandora’s box and trigger a chain reaction.
However, under the influence of the military-industrial complex and proponents of confrontation, who regularly misinform Trump, he is gradually beginning to lead matters back toward the days of the cold war: We all understand that for America, testing the functionality of nuclear weapons is more than just a rhetorical flourish. And Moscow will not remain inactive in response to such steps, unless, of course, the White House abandons this flight of fancy.
Meanwhile, the future of the NPT has also come into question: After all, in the Hobbesian world of rampant militarism, an increasing number of countries will want to ensure their security by extreme measures. And American politicians often push even their allies, like South Korea, to talk about the need to move toward nuclear status. As a result, the gun hanging on the wall will have to fire sooner or later.
Unfortunately, Trump’s statements about the need for denuclearization, voiced again during a meeting with Central Asian leaders, are not being put into practice. Let’s hope that this is just a temporary trend, and that common sense prevails.
The American establishment must understand that Russia will not allow a strategic imbalance and will respond appropriately to any attempts to change the status quo. And ultimately, the special military operation [in Ukraine], the objectives of which we are gradually accomplishing, will become only the first stage in the future history of a long and extremely dangerous confrontation between East and West – one that is not in the interests of anybody, on either side of the Atlantic.