WASHINGTON, Feb.6 — The White House has allowed the U.S.-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) to formally expire on Thursday, ushering in a new era of nuclear uncertainty amid growing fears of a renewed arms race.
For the first time in more than half a century, the world has entered a period in which U.S.-Russian strategic nuclear forces are subject to no binding limits, no inspections, and no transparency. No talks are currently underway, nor are any plans in place, to negotiate a successor agreement in the near future.
As the world’s two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia together possess about 87 percent of the global nuclear arsenal. New START, which entered into force in 2011 and was extended in 2021 for five years, has long been regarded as a cornerstone of bilateral strategic stability. The treaty limited each side to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and established corresponding restrictions on delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers.
TRUMP SAYS NO
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed New START as a “badly negotiated deal” that was “being grossly violated,” arguing that extending the treaty would not serve U.S. interests.
Instead, he called for a “new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future,” signaling Washington’s readiness to move beyond the existing framework rather than preserving its constraints.
The Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed on Wednesday that it assumes the two sides are no longer bound by any obligations under the treaty following its expiration.
Trump’s skepticism toward arms control agreements is nothing new. During his first term, Washington withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, also arguing that the pact no longer reflected strategic realities and failed to restrain adversaries effectively.
“Perhaps the most worrying potential explanation for the Trump administration’s willingness to let New START lapse is that its nonchalance on the issue is an indication that the president and his advisors already plan to exceed the treaty’s current caps on warheads and launchers or to break through other limits and requirements set by the treaty’s terms,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.
With New START gone, Washington and Moscow have lost their last remaining arms control guardrail, creating a strategic vacuum that extends well beyond their bilateral relationship. Nuclear arms control has now entered uncharted territory, shaped by a more fragile and volatile geopolitical landscape.
STRATEGIC VACUUM
Trump’s renewed criticism of New START underscores a broader shift in U.S. strategic thinking — one that prioritizes flexibility and displays of military strength over negotiated restraint, in pursuit of a stronger nuclear deterrent to preserve U.S. supremacy. Analysts warn that such an approach risks fueling a renewed arms race amid intensifying great-power rivalry.
Russia, for its part, has signaled limited willingness to maintain restraint. In September 2025, President Vladimir Putin said Moscow would continue observing the treaty’s core limits for one year after its expiration, provided the United States refrains from actions that undermine the strategic balance. Whether such informal commitments can substitute for legally binding obligations, however, remains unclear.
The collapse of New START thus represents more than the end of a single treaty. Instead, it reflects a broader erosion of the global arms control architecture built over decades to reduce nuclear risks.
“With New START’s expiration, we have not only lost unprecedented verification measures that our military and decision-makers depended on, but we have ended more than five decades of painstaking diplomacy that successfully avoided nuclear catastrophe,” said the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in a statement.
As a result, analysts also warn that nuclear rhetoric may increasingly be used as a coercive political tool, weakening confidence even among U.S. allies and complicating Washington’s extended deterrence commitments.
Replacing that architecture with a “modernized” framework, as Trump proposed on Thursday, would require not only political will but also mutual trust, a commodity widely seen as in short supply nowadays.
“When there is an agreement, it means there is trust but when there is no agreement, it means that trust has been exhausted,” Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev said.
The expiration of New START could not come at a worse time, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement on Wednesday, calling the treaty’s lapse “a grave moment for international peace and security” as the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.
While U.S. policy hawks view the treaty’s expiration as freeing Washington from outdated constraints, many experts warn it raises risks of nuclear expansion, miscalculation, and the erosion of global non-proliferation norms.
According to Karim Haggag, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the end of New START risks further undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), whose core bargain is that the non-nuclear-weapon states will not develop nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear-weapon states making progress towards nuclear disarmament.
Negotiating a new treaty from scratch would be a daunting task amid current geopolitical tensions, leaving the prospects for a more comprehensive agreement deeply uncertain.
Kavanagh described as “wishful thinking” Trump’s hopes of a “better deal” after New START’s expiry.
“Trump may be the ultimate dealmaker, but in this case he would be better off hanging on to the agreement he has a little longer before trying to get a better one,” she added. (Namibia Daily News / Xinhua)
