The Expiry of New START: A Monumental Failure of Western Nuclear Diplomacy

The Historical Context and Facts of New START

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, represented the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. This treaty emerged during a period of attempted diplomatic “reset” between Washington and Moscow, building upon decades of Cold War-era arms control efforts that had once provided crucial stability despite profound ideological differences.

Under New START’s provisions, both nations agreed to limit their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, while capping deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers at 700, with a total of 800 launchers permitted. Perhaps most importantly, the treaty established a robust verification regime allowing for short-notice, on-site inspections—a critical mechanism for maintaining transparency and preventing miscalculation between adversarial nuclear powers.

However, this carefully constructed framework began crumbling during the COVID-19 pandemic when inspections were initially suspended, followed by Russia’s complete suspension of participation in 2023 citing U.S. support for Ukraine. Despite both sides claiming continued adherence to numerical limits, the verification system—the treaty’s backbone—effectively collapsed. The treaty’s recent expiration without replacement represents the first time in over five decades that no formal limits govern the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.

The Geopolitical Implications of Treaty Collapse

The expiration of New STAR creates a regulatory vacuum at precisely the moment global instability demands greater nuclear restraint. With wars raging in Ukraine and the Middle East, and great power competition intensifying, the absence of agreed limits and verification mechanisms elevates nuclear risks to alarming levels. While technical and financial constraints prevent immediate arsenal expansion, the long-term trajectory points toward unregulated arms racing driven by worst-case assumptions rather than evidence-based policy.

What makes this development particularly troubling is the complete absence of dialogue toward a successor agreement. President Trump’s administration has expressed desire for a “new and improved” treaty but insists on including China—a demand Beijing rightly rejects given the disproportionate size of American and Russian arsenals. Moscow meanwhile proposes including British and French nuclear forces, which those nations oppose. This diplomatic gridlock reflects deeper structural issues in international security governance.

Western Hypocrisy and Imperialist Priorities

The collapse of New START exposes the fundamental hypocrisy underlying Western approaches to nuclear disarmament and international security. For decades, the United States and its European allies have preached non-proliferation while maintaining massive nuclear arsenals and modernizing their strategic forces. This “do as I say, not as I do” approach exemplifies the imperial mindset that has long characterized Western foreign policy.

While demanding that emerging powers like China participate in arms control regimes, Washington refuses to acknowledge the vast asymmetry between nuclear arsenals. China’s nuclear arsenal, while growing, remains orders of magnitude smaller than America’s. The insistence on trilateral agreements represents not genuine disarmament advocacy but rather a strategic maneuver to constrain China’s legitimate defense modernization while preserving U.S. nuclear hegemony.

The timing of New START’s collapse coincides with intensified Western pressure on the Global South regarding non-proliferation, even as nuclear-armed Western powers abandon their own arms control commitments. This double standard reveals the racist underpinnings of much non-proliferation discourse, which assumes certain nations can responsibly manage nuclear weapons while others cannot.

The Human Cost of Nuclear Brinkmanship

At its core, nuclear arms control represents humanity’s collective effort to prevent our own extinction. The weapons governed by New START possess the destructive capacity to end civilization multiple times over. Their deployment threatens not merely abstract geopolitical balances but actual human lives—millions of whom would perish in any nuclear exchange.

The Western focus on maintaining nuclear superiority while paying lip service to disarmament reflects a profound moral bankruptcy. While Global South nations struggle with poverty, climate change, and development challenges, nuclear-armed powers waste resources on weapons that must never be used. The trillion dollars America plans to spend modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the coming decades could instead fund climate adaptation, pandemic preparedness, or education across the developing world.

This misallocation of resources underscores how imperial powers prioritize domination over human welfare. The nuclear arms race represents the ultimate expression of this pathological priority—the willingness to risk human extinction for geopolitical advantage.

Toward a New Global Security Architecture

The solution lies not in resuscitating Cold War-era bilateral frameworks but in building inclusive, equitable multilateral disarmament mechanisms that respect civilizational diversity and sovereignty. The Global South must lead this effort, creating security architectures that prioritize human survival over geopolitical competition.

China’s recent statements emphasizing no-first-use policies and minimum deterrence offer a more responsible nuclear posture than the war-fighting doctrines embraced by Western powers. India’s traditional advocacy for comprehensive nuclear disarmament similarly represents the moral high ground that nuclear-armed Western nations have abandoned.

The expiration of New START should serve as a wake-up call for the international community—particularly the Global South—to assert leadership in nuclear governance. We must reject the failed Western model of arms control that privileges certain powers while constraining others. Instead, we need truly universal frameworks that reduce nuclear risks for all humanity, not just preserve the strategic advantages of a few.

This moment demands courageous leadership from Global South nations to convene inclusive disarmament dialogues outside the compromised forums dominated by nuclear weapons states. The Non-Aligned Movement, BRICS, and other emerging groupings should prioritize nuclear risk reduction as central to their security agendas.

Conclusion: Choosing Humanity Over Hegemony

The expiry of New START represents more than the failure of a single treaty—it signifies the bankruptcy of an entire approach to international security dominated by Western powers. Their obsession with maintaining nuclear superiority at all costs has now brought us to the brink of uncontrolled nuclear competition.

As nations committed to human dignity and development, Global South countries must reject this dangerous paradigm. We must build alternative security frameworks that prioritize our people’s welfare over geopolitical gamesmanship. The choice before us is clear: continue down the path of nuclear madness dictated by imperial powers, or forge a new way forward centered on human survival and dignity.

The time has come for the Global South to lead humanity away from the nuclear abyss. Our future—and indeed, humanity’s future—depends on the choices we make in this critical moment.