Точка Синхронізації

The global security landscape is approaching a precarious threshold as the final pillars of nuclear arms control continue to erode. At the center of this geopolitical shift is the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which currently serves as the last remaining bilateral agreement limiting the nuclear deployments of the world’s two largest atomic powers: the United States and the Russian Federation. With the treaty set to expire in February 2026, concerns are mounting that the international community is on the verge of returning to an era of unconstrained military competition, reminiscent of the early Cold War period before formal limits were established. Historically, treaties like New START provided vital transparency and stability by capping the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched systems. These agreements also facilitated intrusive on-site inspections and data exchanges that prevented miscalculations between Washington and Moscow. However, the suspension of Russian participation amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the lack of substantive diplomatic dialogue suggest that a renewal or a successor agreement is increasingly unlikely. Without these legal constraints, both nations possess the technical capacity to rapidly expand their arsenals by 'uploading' stored warheads onto existing delivery systems. The potential end of nuclear arms control signifies more than just a bilateral breakdown; it threatens the broader non-proliferation regime. As the U.S. and Russia move toward a landscape without limits, other nuclear-armed states—most notably China, which is rapidly modernizing and expanding its own strategic forces—may feel compelled to accelerate their programs. This creates a dangerous 'three-way' arms race dynamic that complicates traditional deterrence models. Experts warn that an environment devoid of caps will lead to heightened global tensions and an exponentially more expensive and volatile military standoff where strategic parity is no longer a regulated objective, but a moving target.