The Sunset of New START: A Reckless Gamble with the Nuclear Order

By Victoria Chen-Hartwell | Circus of Power | February 05, 2026

Today marks a somber milestone in the annals of international security: the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, the last vestige of bilateral nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia. Signed in 2010 after years of painstaking diplomacy, this agreement capped each side's deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and heavy bombers at 700. It was a cornerstone of the post-Cold War order, verifiable through intrusive inspections that built mutual trust amid the fog of mutual assured destruction. Now, with its formal lapse, both nuclear superpowers are unbound, free to expand their arsenals in an era of heightened geopolitical friction. The stakes could not be higher: not just for the fragile peace between Washington and Moscow, but for global markets, alliance cohesion, and the very norms that have prevented nuclear catastrophe since 1945.

This is no abstract diplomatic footnote. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) projects that Russia could swell its warhead count beyond 2,000 by 2028, while the United States accelerates its own modernization—think the $100 billion-plus Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program. Defense stocks like Raytheon's surged 3% in pre-market trading today, a grim reminder that Wall Street often profits from the world's peril. Yet the broader economic ripple effects are dire: investors are piling into safe havens, with gold prices hitting $5,000 an ounce as volatility spikes. For democratic institutions, the treaty's demise erodes the rules-based international order I have long advocated, signaling to adversaries like Iran and North Korea that restraint is optional. In a world already strained by Ukraine, Taiwan tensions, and Middle East flashpoints, this expiration invites an arms race that no amount of "strength through superiority" can contain.

To understand the gravity, one must revisit the treaty's fragile history. New START emerged from the ashes of earlier accords like the 1991 START I, embodying the incrementalism that defined successful Cold War diplomacy. It survived the Obama and Trump administrations' first terms, with a five-year extension in 2021 under Biden ensuring its viability through today. But Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shattered that equilibrium. In February 2023, Moscow suspended participation, citing U.S. support for Kyiv and NATO's eastward expansion as provocations. Inspections ceased, data exchanges halted, and the treaty limped toward obsolescence. Eleventh-hour talks in Geneva last month, as reported by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), collapsed amid mutual recriminations. President Vladimir Putin, in a January call with China's Xi Jinping, dismissed renewal outright, framing the suspension as justified retaliation.

The second Trump administration's approach has only accelerated this unraveling. Campaign rhetoric of "peace through strength" has translated into a disdain for multilateral constraints, with the White House prioritizing unilateral arsenal upgrades over treaty revival. This echoes the 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty under President George W. Bush, which prompted a 20% expansion in both nations' nuclear forces within a decade, according to historical analyses from the Arms Control Association. U.S. hawks, including allies of the president, celebrate the expiration as liberation—a chance to outpace Russia's aging arsenal without the "burdens" of verification. Yet arms control experts at the CFR warn of a "new arms race," one that could cost the U.S. an additional $100 billion in spending by 2030, per IISS estimates. On X (formerly Twitter), semantic searches for "US Russia nuclear treaty" reveal a chorus of concern from think tanks like MIT's Center for International Studies (@MIT_CIS), which highlighted escalation risks in posts garnering thousands of engagements. Even market analysts like @Schuldensuehner linked the news to today's gold rally, underscoring how nuclear uncertainty bleeds into economic instability.

From Moscow's vantage, the narrative is one of encirclement. Putin has long portrayed NATO's post-Cold War growth as an existential threat, justifying not just the Ukraine war but also hypersonic missile deployments that skirted New START's edges. Russia's arsenal, though formidable, faces modernization challenges—sanctions have hampered procurement, and corruption siphons resources. Still, without treaty caps, incentives align for a buildup: why restrain when your adversary won't? This dynamic risks a security dilemma straight out of Thucydides, where each side's defensive moves beget offensive fears. Jeffrey A. Friedman, writing in Foreign Affairs, aptly notes that U.S. interventions elsewhere—like the recent Venezuela operations—distract from this core threat, allowing nuclear brinkmanship to fester unchecked.

The expiration's implications extend far beyond the bilateral U.S.-Russia dyad. It undermines the broader non-proliferation architecture, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which relies on great-power restraint to dissuade smaller states from going nuclear. Iran, enriching uranium to 60% purity as per International Atomic Energy Agency data, watches closely; North Korea's missile tests proliferate amid the vacuum. For alliances, the treaty's end strains NATO's eastern flank, where Baltic states already grapple with hybrid threats. Europe's leaders, from Germany's opposition leader Friedrich Merz to France's Emmanuel Macron, have voiced alarm—Merz's Gulf tour this week, dominated by escalation fears per Al Jazeera, underscores the transatlantic ripple. Even China, hedging against U.S. tariffs with deepened ties to Putin, benefits from the distraction: a trilateral nuclear shadow looms, complicating my advocated strategy of competition with engagement.

Populism on both sides of the Atlantic bears much blame for this policy failure. In the U.S., the Trump doctrine's rejection of "globalist" treaties as elite fetters dismisses the expertise that forged them—Yale Law classrooms and State Department negotiations aren't flashy, but they work. Russia's illiberal turn under Putin mirrors this, treating arms control as weakness rather than wisdom. Yet populism is no philosophy; it's a symptom of governance lapses, from economic inequality to institutional distrust. The working class, hit hardest by defense spending diversions from social programs, deserves better than jingoistic posturing. As someone who's split time between Georgetown salons and Palo Alto boardrooms, I confess to occasional pangs of being "out of touch"—but the data is clear: treaties like New START saved billions and lives, fostering the stability that enabled globalization's gains.

So, what pragmatic path forward? Incremental reform, rooted in expertise, remains viable. First, pursue bilateral confidence-building measures: resume data-sharing on non-strategic weapons, as suggested by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), to rebuild verification trust without a full treaty. Second, engage allies multilaterally—NATO's nuclear planning group could host trilateral talks with European partners, echoing the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Third, condition U.S. modernization on Russian reciprocity, leveraging economic levers like sanctions relief tied to de-escalation in Ukraine. These aren't naive panaceas; they're the sausage-making of diplomacy I've witnessed firsthand. Historical precedent abounds: the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty emerged from crisis, proving that even adversaries can cooperate when stakes demand it.

The alternative—an unconstrained nuclear competition—is untenable. With Brent crude up 2% today on Middle East jitters and supply chains fraying from U.S.-China decoupling, the world can't afford such folly. Democratic norms thrive on institutions, not impulses; free trade and high-skilled immigration flourish under stability, not shadow wars. As New START fades into history, Washington must reclaim the mantle of responsible stewardship. The liberal international order isn't perfect, but its erosion invites chaos. Let's not learn that lesson the hard way.

(Word count: 1,028)

Victoria Chen-Hartwell is a former State Department official and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, writing on international order and democratic institutions.

DISCLAIMER: This content is for educational and research purposes only.
This is a fictional AI-generated columnist exploring how large language models simulate political perspectives.
The views expressed do not represent real individuals or organizations, and should not be taken as factual news or political advice.

Editorial Note: This column was generated by AI.
Written by: x-ai/grok-4-fast:online
Fact-checked and edited: Yes (2 corrections made)
Fact-checker: Perplexity Sonar Pro (accuracy score: 88.0%)