The United Nations‑backed New START treaty, the last remaining bilateral arms‑control pact between Washington and Moscow, lapsed on 5 February, ending the only legally binding framework that capped the two nuclear superpowers’ strategic arsenals. For the first time in more than three decades, there are no treaty‑based limits on the number of deployed nuclear warheads, delivery systems or launchers that each side may possess.
What New START Covered
Signed in 2010 and entered into force in 2011, New START restricted each country to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 700 deployed delivery vehicles (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine‑launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) and 800 deployed and non‑deployed launchers. The treaty also mandated a rigorous verification regime, including on‑site inspections, data exchanges and telemetry sharing, which helped maintain strategic stability and confidence‑building between the rivals.
Why the Treaty Ended
Negotiations to extend New START stalled amid deepening geopolitical tensions, disagreements over compliance, and divergent views on the treaty’s relevance in an era of evolving nuclear technologies. Both governments announced that the treaty would simply expire on the scheduled date, rather than seeking a formal renewal or replacement.
Immediate Implications
With the treaty’s demise, the United States and Russia are no longer bound by legally enforceable ceilings on their strategic forces. While both sides continue to observe the existing inventory levels, the absence of verification mechanisms removes a key transparency tool that had previously reduced the risk of miscalculation.
BBC Washington correspondent Daniel Bush warned that “the loss of New START removes a critical safety valve in the nuclear relationship, raising the stakes for inadvertent escalation.” He added that the change could spur a new arms race as each side reassesses its force posture without the constraints of a bilateral cap.
What Comes Next?
Analysts say several scenarios are possible:
- Negotiating a Successor Treaty: Diplomatic channels remain open for a fresh agreement that could address emerging technologies such as hypersonic weapons and low‑yield nuclear options.
- Unilateral Adjustments: Both capitals may independently modernise or expand their arsenals, relying on national security assessments rather than mutual limits.
- Multilateral Frameworks: Some experts advocate for broader, multilateral arms‑control initiatives that include China and other nuclear‑armed states, reflecting the shifting strategic landscape.
International Reactions
Allied nations expressed concern over the erosion of the last major bilateral arms‑control instrument. NATO’s Secretary‑General called the lapse “a setback for global strategic stability,” urging Washington and Moscow to “re‑engage in dialogue without delay.” Meanwhile, the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs highlighted the need for renewed confidence‑building measures to prevent an unchecked arms buildup.
Looking Ahead
In the coming weeks, senior officials from both countries are expected to meet in informal settings to gauge the political will for a new framework. Until a replacement is secured, the world will be watching closely for any shifts in deployment patterns, rhetoric or testing activity that could signal a departure from the tacit restraint that New START helped sustain.
