Nuclear Arms Treaty Expiry Sparks Fears of New Global Arms Race
The final remaining nuclear arms agreement between Russia and the United States has officially lapsed, creating a precarious international landscape where many analysts fear the onset of an unrestricted and dangerous nuclear arms competition. This development follows a period of diplomatic stagnation, with Russian President Vladimir Putin previously indicating willingness to extend the treaty's limitations for an additional year, contingent on reciprocal action from Washington. However, US President Donald Trump has maintained a notably ambiguous stance, offering no clear commitment.
Treaty Obligations Officially Terminated
In a formal statement released on Wednesday night, Russia's Foreign Ministry declared that the nation is 'no longer bound by obligations within the treaty' and is consequently 'free to choose its next steps'. This declaration effectively removes the last major legal barrier to a potential escalation in nuclear weapon development and deployment between the two superpowers.
Expert Warns of Heightened Global Danger
Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer with The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has expressed grave concerns in an interview with Metro. He contends that the world is already deeply entrenched in a renewed arms race, a situation he describes as profoundly alarming. 'What people often get wrong is that the Cold War stayed "cold" because leaders realised the risk of nuclear war was too high,' Eblenkamp explained.
This historical awareness, he noted, spurred a series of arms control and disarmament agreements throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Tragically, almost all of these critical frameworks have now either collapsed or become dysfunctional. According to Eblenkamp, this erosion of diplomatic safeguards means the current risk of nuclear conflict is 'even higher' now than it was during the Cold War era.
'This arms race may not stay cold forever. Nuclear weapons are becoming "thinkable" to use again. That is why we must continue promoting a universal ban,' he added, emphasising the urgent need for renewed global diplomacy.
The New Start Treaty: A Temporary Fix
The now-expired New Start Treaty was originally signed in 2010 by then-US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Its key provisions included:
- Restricting each nation to a maximum of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.
- Limiting the number of deployed missiles and bombers to 700.
- Establishing a verification regime for these limits.
While acknowledging the treaty's importance in capping nuclear arsenals, Eblenkamp characterised it as a sort of 'band-aid' solution—a temporary measure that failed to address the underlying pathology of nuclear proliferation.
European Nations Caught in the Crossfire
Eblenkamp strongly criticised the notion that national security is enhanced by possessing nuclear arsenals, calling it a 'foolish idea'. 'Quite the opposite would happen,' he warned. This is particularly pertinent for European nations, which he argues would have no control or decision-making power in the event of a nuclear confrontation between the US and Russia, yet would face catastrophic consequences.
He proposed concrete de-escalation measures, suggesting that removing American nuclear weapons stationed in European countries and withdrawing Russian nuclear weapons from Belarus would represent a significant step toward geopolitical sanity.
Eroding Trust and Broader Implications
The expiration of the New Start Treaty is symptomatic of a deeper, more systemic issue: the severe erosion of trust between Washington and Moscow. Eblenkamp predicts that this breakdown will lead to increased reliance on other nations to facilitate and potentially participate in the arms race.
'The UK and other European countries are right in the middle of it, and that’s a problem,' he stated, highlighting the precarious position of America's allies. He pointedly added, 'I don’t think anyone feels safer because Donald Trump has control over nuclear weapons on British soil.' This comment underscores the anxiety surrounding the command and control of nuclear assets in an increasingly volatile international climate.
The lapse of this pivotal treaty marks a sobering moment in global security, removing a key pillar of strategic stability and raising urgent questions about the future of nuclear deterrence and non-proliferation efforts worldwide.
