US-Russia nuclear pact nears expiration as uncertainty looms over global security

Even at the height of their Cold War nuclear rivalry, the United States and the Soviet Union worked through a series of landmark agreements to prevent the arms race from spiraling out of control.

While they agreed on little else, leaders in Moscow and Washington recognized the value of negotiations from 1969 until long after the Soviet collapse in 1991. These talks established a stable and predictable framework that successfully capped the size of their respective nuclear arsenals.

Now, with New START—the final remaining nuclear treaty between the US and Russia—set to expire on February 5, the future of global strategic stability is shrouded in uncertainty. Preoccupied by the war in Ukraine, the two nations have yet to engage in any substantive discussions regarding a successor agreement.

In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested that both sides should commit to observing New START’s limits—which restrict each nation to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads—for an additional 12 months.

US President Donald Trump has not yet issued a formal response, and Western security analysts remain divided on the merits of accepting Putin’s proposal.

Proponents argue the move would buy critical time to draft a future roadmap while sending a powerful political signal that both powers remain committed to preserving at least a remnant of the arms control architecture.

Trump seeks trilateral talks with Russia and China

According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia and the US possess an estimated 5,459 and 5,177 nuclear warheads, respectively. Together, these two nations account for approximately 87% of the global nuclear stockpile.

However, the geopolitical landscape has shifted as China accelerates its own nuclear program. Beijing currently possesses an estimated 600 warheads, a figure the Pentagon projects will surpass 1,000 by 2030.

While Trump has expressed a desire to pursue “nuclear disarmament” involving both Russia and China, Beijing has dismissed the idea. Chinese officials argue that participating in trilateral disarmament talks with nations whose arsenals are vastly larger is “illogical and unrealistic.”

Further complicating the issue, Russia has insisted that NATO members Great Britain and France must also be brought to the negotiating table—a demand both London and Paris have rejected.

Nikolai Sokov, a former Soviet and Russian arms negotiator, told Reuters that attempting to forge a new multilateral agreement in the current climate is “almost a dead end and would take forever.”

Sokov, now a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP), suggested that one alternative could be a New START successor featuring flexible warhead limits that account for China’s growing capabilities.

However, Sokov believes a faster and more direct path would be for nations to focus on immediate steps to reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war. “For example, while the US and Russia maintain a 24/7 emergency hotline for use in a nuclear crisis, no European capital—not even NATO headquarters—can communicate directly with Moscow. There is no dedicated line,” Sokov noted.

“If the parties also begin negotiations on arms control, that would be excellent. But it must be understood that the next agreement will be very, very complex… it will take time. Therefore, the top priority must be risk reduction and confidence building,” he added.