Strategic Ambiguity: Is the World on the Brink of a New Nuclear Arms Race?

The end of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia marks a pivotal moment in the history of nuclear weapons, ushering in a new era of strategic ambiguity.

With the last remaining arms control framework gone, concerns are growing about the erosion of the nuclear deterrence that has governed international relations for decades.

Analysts have warned that the treaty's collapse not only signifies the end of legal obligations but also sends the wrong signal to the global order, potentially encouraging a new arms race and weakening what remains of the global culture of nuclear arms control.

Trump had already raised concerns last October when he announced the United States' intention to resume nuclear testing for the first time since 1992, while Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that his country would retaliate in kind.

Amid expert warnings and observers' anxieties, the question remains: Will this collapse push the major powers into a new arms race, or will it serve as a shock that revives the negotiating process?

Strategic Ambiguity

The New START treaty officially ended on February 5, closing the chapter on the last binding agreement limiting nuclear arsenals between Moscow and Washington.

The treaty was signed in 2010 under Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, imposing strict limits on the number of strategic nuclear warheads and their deployed and non-deployed delivery systems.

This treaty was the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, amid growing fears that its termination could lead to an unbridled nuclear arms race in which China could play a major role.

According to the French newspaper Le Monde on February 4, the treaty was an extension of the SALT agreements, which established the rules for nuclear stability during the Cold War.

However, its non-renewal represents a historical precedent, as the world has not witnessed a situation since the late 1960s where the two largest nuclear powers are without any shared legal obligation.

In its editorial, Le Monde held Russian President Vladimir Putin directly responsible for the treaty's non-renewal, particularly after his decision to suspend Russia's obligations under the 2023 agreement, justifying this by what he described as American hostility under President Joe Biden.

Trump's return to the White House did not change this stance, despite the personal relationship the two sides had previously discussed.

However, the newspaper did not absolve Trump of responsibility, noting that his past policies contributed to undermining the arms control system.

It pointed out that the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, then from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019, and the Open Skies Treaty in 2020, weakened mutual trust and entrenched a climate of strategic mistrust, opening the door to more dangerous deterrence policies.

This crisis also comes amid a deteriorating arms control system due to escalating tensions surrounding Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Moscow's selective adherence to previous agreements.

New Negotiations

Although Moscow announced last September its readiness to continue adhering to the treaty's core restrictions for at least another year, provided Washington reciprocated, the Trump administration has not officially responded to this Russian offer.

On the eve of the expiration of New START, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that any agreement on nuclear nonproliferation with Russia must include China.

He stated that President Trump has been clear in the past that in order to achieve genuine arms control in the 21st century, it is impossible to do anything that excludes China, given its vast and rapidly growing arsenal.

In turn, the Kremlin warned that the world would enter a dangerous phase within days, while Russian officials confirmed that their country was preparing for a reality without constraints following the demise of the treaty regulating nuclear arms control and establishing mechanisms to ensure global strategic stability.

Beijing, meanwhile, had previously refused to join the US-Russian talks or accept any restrictions on its growing nuclear arsenal, and called on both sides to overcome their differences on this issue.

China's representative in Geneva reiterated that China's nuclear capabilities are far below those of the United States or Russia. Therefore, China will not participate in nuclear arms control negotiations at this stage.

While Moscow expressed understanding for the Chinese position, it stipulated that any talks aimed at establishing a new agreement must include both France and Britain, a condition rejected by Washington.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) called on Russia and the United States to publicly commit to respecting the existing treaty limits while negotiating a new framework.

Nuclear Arms Race

Nuclear security experts indicated that the expiration of the New START treaty opens the door to alarming possibilities of a new nuclear arms race, not limited to the United States and Russia, but extending to other international powers.

China, despite its relatively small arsenal compared to Washington and Moscow, is rapidly expanding its capabilities and testing hypersonic missiles and launch vehicles that could undermine conventional deterrence.

China’s nuclear arsenal has more than doubled in size from 300 to 600 warheads in the past five years, and it is estimated that by 2030 Beijing could possess as many intercontinental ballistic missiles as Russia and the United States combined.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to develop new weapons capable of carrying nuclear warheads, including the nuclear-powered cruise missile Burevestnik, the torpedo Poseidon, and the air-launched hypersonic missile Kinzhal.

Meanwhile, US allies such as Japan, South Korea, Turkiye, and Poland have begun discussing options for strengthening their defenses or even pursuing independent nuclear capabilities should they feel that international protection is insufficient.

While Trump describes the expired treaty as a bad deal, actions on the ground reflect Washington's intention to impose its nuclear dominance through a strategy of overwhelming force.

Washington is spending approximately $87 billion to modernize its arsenal and is preparing to launch its giant Ohio-class submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles.

Experts believe that up to 40 countries now possess the technical capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, provided the political will exists.

With Trump's increasingly critical rhetoric portraying allies as a financial burden on his country, countries like Germany and Sweden have begun openly questioning whether they should build their own independent nuclear forces.

With the expiration of the New START treaty, three possible scenarios emerge for the global order:

Russia and the United States may seek to reach a new agreement that includes additional countries and incorporates mechanisms more suited to modern technologies such as hypersonic missiles and space weapons.

At the same time, the world could witness a potential nuclear arms race, as the two major powers could expand their nuclear arsenals, supported by regional alliances that fear being left without a clear nuclear umbrella.

The option of establishing a multilateral nuclear arms control regime remains on the table, but it faces outright rejection from Beijing, which considers the terms of any new agreement complex and unfair at present.

Political analyst Mahmoud Alloush explained in a statement to Al-Estiklal that the end of the New START treaty is not merely a technical event, but rather a sign of the fragility of the existing international arms control system.

He indicated that the chances of reaching an alternative treaty appear slim under the current political climate.

He predicted that the next nuclear arms race, should it erupt, would not be limited to increasing the number of warheads, but would also include hypersonic weapons, long-range missiles, artificial intelligence systems, and cyber capabilities, meaning that any future confrontation would be catastrophic.

He concluded that the true defining characteristic of the next phase might be all or none: either the major powers succeed in establishing a legal framework that protects the entire planet, or the world descends into nuclear chaos with no winners.