The head of RT, Margarita Simonjan, is rightly criticized for her statements. But no one dares to shake the Kremlin’s aim that Russia must win the war in Ukraine at all costs.
In her program “What should be proven”, Margarita Simonjan comments weekly on current politics. This week the Russian propagandist and editor-in-chief of RT commented on the Russian war against Ukraine. Simonyan was angry about the Ukrainian drones that flew over her properties in the Moscow area and would now also make southern Russia unsafe. “A drone crashed in front of our family home in Adler, where my mother grew up and where I spent my holidays,” she complained. And so Simyonyan continued to think about how Russia could finally win the war against the “collective West”.
The so-called “collective West” is a term commonly used in Russia today, which, in connection with the war in Ukraine, is used to assert that the Western world wants to destroy the Russian state. Ukraine, which is denied any subject status, is being exploited by the West for this purpose. This is a distortion of the facts: the Kremlin started the war of aggression against Ukraine unnecessarily more than a year and a half ago. Only then did Western aid to the endangered country gradually begin.
Atomic bomb explosion to deter the West
The West will only retreat, continued Simonjan, who is adorned in a striking blue musical shadow, when it understands that it could become “very, very, very painful in a matter of seconds”. The desired concession could be forced with a “nuclear ultimatum”, or more precisely with a “nuclear explosion somewhere in Siberia”. “Nothing bad will happen,” immediately assured Simonjan, who in her comments referred to an unidentified intelligent man, an engineer, who had told her, the “stupid woman,” that such an explosion was safe. There is no radiation danger to people or nature, no mass deaths or long-term health damage, just that all electronic devices – satellites, cameras and phones – would fail. Simonjan then managed to find many positive things about technological failure: “We are going back to the 1990s. (…) I tell you, back then we lived very well!” There is another advantage: she no longer needs to forbid her children from having gadgets because there are no more gadgets. In short: “I see no other way out than this”.