The world now finds itself without any nuclear arms control or non-proliferation treaty between the United States and Russia, formerly the Soviet Union, for the first time since 1972.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start) is set to expire amid the ongoing war in Ukraine and European claims that Russia is seeking to maintain its threats against the Eastern European states. At the same time, Washington continues to frame China as the primary strategic danger in Asia in an assessment that demands a robust deterrent posture.
While the US political leadership does not openly define Russia as its principal adversary, its stance towards China is far sharper. This divergence could subtly reshape the perspectives of both parties to New Start once the treaty lapses, signalling a shift in the balance of strategic priorities.
The most pressing question for many observers is why the spotlight remains fixed on the United States and Russia, despite the fact that other nations also now possess nuclear warheads. The answer lies in two fundamental reasons.
First, there is the history of the treaty. Washington and Moscow were the central players in the Cold War arms race, conducting extensive nuclear tests and edging dangerously close to direct confrontation on several occasions. This volatile situation demanded agreements that imposed more responsible rules on the possession and potential use of such devastating weapons.
Second, there is the sheer size of the two countries’ nuclear arsenals today. Together, the United States and Russia still control roughly 85 per cent of the world’s nuclear warheads. According to Federation of American Scientists 2026 estimates, Russia holds about 4,309 warheads, while the United States maintains around 3,700.
By contrast, China’s arsenal stands at roughly 600, and France and the United Kingdom together account for about 515.
This overwhelming concentration of nuclear firepower makes American and Russian decisions pivotal to global security. That is why the expiration, or possible extension, of New Start, as negotiations continue between Washington and Moscow, is viewed as a defining moment for the future of nuclear arms control.
Both sides fully understand this reality, and there are ongoing efforts to establish future understandings on the matter.
The US website Axios has reported that the US and Russia are closing in on a deal to continue to observe the expiring New Start beyond its expiration on 5 February, but according to sources the draft plan still needs approval from both the Russian and the US presidents.
An additional source confirmed that negotiations were taking place in Abu Dhabi, but not that an agreement had been reached.
In February 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended his country’s compliance with the treaty, though he did not formally withdraw from it. The move was presented as a protest against the steady flow of Western, and particularly American, support to Ukraine.
In the same year, Russia carried out four test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, conducted in February, April, October, and November 2023.
In October last year, US President Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social that “because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.”
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), wrote on X at the time that “Russia and the United States have so far failed to prepare a replacement treaty [for New Start]. At best, the two may agree voluntarily not to exceed the limits for a while. Even so, the damage seems to be done. Both sides are preparing steps to increase their deployed nuclear forces.”
“Below the strategic level, both sides are fielding new nukes that are adding to the sense of insecurity and further fuelling military and political competition. Smaller nuclear states are also increasing their postures. Some non-nuclear states are debating going nuclear,” he warned.
“With limits falling away and norms eroding, the world is facing an open-ended nuclear competition that has all the warning signs of a nuclear arms race. Everyone is busy demonstrating resolve and symbolically throwing more nukes at security challenges, making things worse.”
Nuclear weapons have long been regarded as the most powerful tools of deterrence between rivals. Yet, they are also seen as instruments of threat that must be neutralised, either by preventing their acquisition, a strategy Israel pursued against Syria, Iraq, and now Iran, or by exploiting them as a means of balancing power with an adversary.
Nuclear weapons are thousands of times more destructive than conventional munitions. The use of even a few of them would deliver crippling blows to enemy forces, while leaving long-term damage to the soil and environment, not to mention the devastating psychological impact on opposing troops.
Whether at the strategic or the tactical level, any state’s use of nuclear force against an adversary with comparable capabilities risks triggering nuclear suicide.
Undoubtedly, the current global landscape has been unsettled by multiple military conflicts. Yet, the conclusion of a new nuclear deal between the major powers could be leveraged as a bargaining chip to resolve several political and military disputes.
Most likely, priority will be given to the possibility of including China in such an agreement, given its ongoing efforts to expand its nuclear arsenal and deploy delivery systems capable of using these warheads with full effectiveness.
For this reason, it is unlikely that the current situation will persist, as its continuation would carry increasingly negative consequences for the future.
In the words of B H Liddell Hart, a British military historian and strategist, in October 1955, “I put it to you that the words ‘win’ or ‘lose’ no longer apply to contests between nations which have nuclear power of any magnitude... I have been studying nuclear war for a considerable time, and I have come to the conclusion that man will have it in his power in the future to destroy himself and every living thing on this planet.”
“Our aim must be to prevent war; the prospect of winning or losing is not a profitable subject.”
The writer is a researcher in the Security and Defence Programme’s Amament Unit at the Egyptian Centre for Strategic Studies (ECSS).
* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 February, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: