Without Treaty and Trust: Where Nuclear Pendulum Swings After Collapse of New START?

The more than 50-year era of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) has ended. Military-political analyst and candidate of sociological sciences Alexander Tikhansky discussed causes for the collapse of the not extended key agreement and what awaits the world in the new reality.

According to the expert, the treaty's demise left the international security system without a fundamental document that had ensured strategic stability for decades. Not only was a legal norm lost, but also a critically important mechanism of mutual trust.

"For more than 50 years this provided some strategic stability, making each other's movements understandable to opponents. Moreover, the verification mechanism, which was very well developed, provided at least some degree of mutual trust. Today, there is neither a treaty nor trust," Alexander Tikhansky stated.

On-site inspections played a special role, enabling the parties to inspect not only deployed systems but also arsenals in storage. Now this tool is a thing of the past.

Russia proposed extending the treaty as early as September 2025, but the Trump administration failed to take advantage of this opportunity. The roots of this situation go back to the first U.S. presidential term (2017-2021), when Washington, negotiating a new treaty, insisted on including China.

"Trump wanted to add a third party—China—back then, but that was completely negated. Work on a new treaty never even began," the expert recalled.

Later, under Biden, the treaty was urgently extended, as there was no time left to develop a new one. Now, according to Alexander Tikhansky, "the treaty has expired, there's nothing to extend."

The expert cites the period of active modernization of nuclear arsenals, especially delivery vehicles, as one of the key reasons for the US's reluctance to maintain the old framework.

"The US's main desire is to gain access to these carriers. Since the weapons that have emerged and even been tested by the Russian Federation—the Oreshnik, Avangard, Kinzhal, Zircon, Poseidon, and Sarmat—all of this naturally irritates and makes the U.S. a bit nervous," the analyst noted.

Therefore, in his opinion, Washington wants a new treaty that would allow "forbidding what I don't have, but you do."

The expert cites the complete dismantling of the verification system as the key negative consequence of the collapse of the New START Treaty. While previously a party could request an inspection and personally inspect a facility, even in a warehouse, this trust mechanism has now been lost. Only elements of so-called "gentlemen's agreements" remain, as in the case of launch warnings.

"Previously, if satellites failed to detect anything, I could order it from you, for example, and then come to the facility and inspect it in person. Today, beyond this call about a launch taking place on a certain date, there's nothing else," Alexander Tikhansky explained.

Speaking about the consequences, the analyst doesn't expect an immediate and uncontrolled arms race, which is limited by the industrial capabilities of the parties. However, the world is expecting a "complete collapse of all legal frameworks."

The US's increasing nuclear presence in Europe poses a particular danger. Alexander Tikhansky recalled Washington's plans to deploy nuclear-armed medium-range missiles on the continent by 2026-2027.

"This is a return to the 1980s stage of international relations and the European security situation. Of course, no one is attracted to this," he emphasized.

The expert's forecast is bleak: without a new comprehensive agreement, escalation will become a matter of the next two to three years, as modernization programs are completed.

However, the range of participants in future negotiations has become more complex: now the discussion may involve not only Russia and the United States, but also China, France, Great Britain, and India.