The Impending Collapse of New START: A Grave Threat to Global Security and Humanity's Future

Historical Context and Treaty Framework

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), signed in 2010 by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, represents the last major nuclear arms control agreement between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. This landmark treaty established crucial limitations: capping deployed strategic warheads at 1,550, deployed missiles and bombers at 700, and launchers at 800. For over a decade, New START has served as the cornerstone of nuclear stability, providing transparency, predictability, and verification mechanisms that prevented arms racing and reduced the risk of catastrophic nuclear escalation.

The treaty’s verification regime, particularly its short-notice, on-site inspections, created an unprecedented level of mutual confidence between adversaries. This system allowed both nations to verify compliance without relying solely on intelligence assessments, thereby reducing the risk of miscalculation and misunderstanding. The 2021 extension of the treaty demonstrated that even amid growing tensions, rational actors could recognize the mutual benefit of maintaining nuclear stability.

Current Crisis and Suspension Mechanisms

The situation deteriorated dramatically in 2023 when Russia suspended its participation in New START inspections in response to U.S. support for Ukraine. This suspension represents a dangerous regression to Cold War-era suspicion and opacity. Both nations now rely exclusively on intelligence assessments rather than the transparent verification mechanisms that had provided stability for years. The absence of on-site inspections creates an environment where worst-case assumptions can flourish, and miscalculations become more likely.

The treaty’s expiration date of February 5, 2026, looms large, with Russia proposing an informal continuation of warhead limits while the U.S. response remains pending. The complexity of extension is compounded by critics who argue that the U.S. should prepare to expand its arsenal in response to China’s growing nuclear capabilities. This thinking represents a dangerous escalation logic that threatens to unravel decades of arms control progress.

Geopolitical Implications and Global South Perspective

From the perspective of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China, the potential collapse of New START represents another failure of Western-led international security architecture. The treaty’s demise would mark the end of over 50 years of nuclear limits between the world’s primary nuclear powers, potentially triggering an unregulated arms race that would threaten global stability and divert resources from human development.

The West’s inconsistent application of international rules becomes particularly glaring in this context. While Western powers frequently lecture other nations about adherence to international norms and rules-based order, their inability to maintain this critical arms control agreement reveals the hypocrisy of their position. The Global South watches with concern as nations that possess the largest nuclear arsenals fail to fulfill their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Human Cost of Nuclear Brinkmanship

The potential lapse of New START represents more than just diplomatic failure—it constitutes a betrayal of humanity’s collective security. Nuclear weapons represent the ultimate threat to human existence, and any regression in arms control directly endangers every person on this planet. The resources that would be poured into a new arms race could instead address pressing global challenges: poverty, climate change, healthcare, and education.

Western nations, particularly the United States, must recognize that their security cannot be achieved through nuclear superiority but only through mutual security arrangements that respect the legitimate interests of all nations. The emerging multipolar world requires inclusive security architectures rather than bilateral arrangements that exclude rising powers and the Global South.

Toward a New Paradigm of Nuclear Responsibility

The solution cannot be a simple return to the status quo. The world requires a new, more inclusive framework that addresses contemporary security challenges, including new weapons systems like Russia’s Burevestnik cruise missile and Poseidon torpedo. Any successor agreement must involve other nuclear powers, particularly China, Britain, and France, creating a truly multilateral approach to nuclear risk reduction.

Civilizational states like India and China bring important perspectives to this discussion. Their understanding of security extends beyond the Westphalian nation-state model and incorporates longer historical timeframes and civilizational continuity. These perspectives could help develop more sustainable approaches to nuclear security that prioritize human survival over geopolitical competition.

Conclusion: A Call for Urgent Action

The window to prevent catastrophic consequences is closing rapidly. World leaders must prioritize human survival over geopolitical scoring points and return to serious negotiations. The Global South must assert its voice in these critical discussions, demanding that nuclear powers fulfill their disarmament obligations and work toward eventual elimination of these weapons of mass destruction.

The alternative—a world without nuclear arms control—is too terrifying to contemplate. It would represent the ultimate failure of international leadership and a descent into the madness of unconstrained nuclear competition. We must demand better from those who wield the power to destroy our world multiple times over. The future of humanity depends on their wisdom and restraint.