UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that the expiration of the New START treaty represents a grave moment for international peace and security.
2026-02-05
The New START treaty between the United States and Russia expired, ending decades of restrictions on how many warheads the two nations can deploy.
2026-02-05
Russia expressed regret at the lapse of the treaty and stated it will act responsibly despite the expiration.
2026-02-05
China declined calls to enter nuclear talks with the US and Russia, stating it will not participate at this stage.
2026-02-05
NATO urged responsibility and restraint as the treaty expired, raising fears of a new arms race.
2026-02-05 13:25
Axios reported that the United States and Russia are closing in on a deal to observe the New START treaty beyond its expiration, citing three sources familiar with the talks.
Stakeholders
Russian Foreign Ministry
Russian government body responsible for foreign affairs and treaty compliance
Position: Expressed regret over the treaty expiration and stated Russia will act responsibly; criticized Washington's approach of ignoring Russia's ideas for both sides to continue observing treaty limits.
Motive: Maintain international image of responsibility while placing blame on US for treaty failure
US State Department
US government body negotiating arms control treaties
Position: Reportedly closing in on a deal to observe the treaty beyond expiration according to sources familiar with talks.
Motive: Maintain strategic stability while addressing concerns about China's nuclear buildup
China
Third major nuclear power being pressured to join arms control talks
Position: Rejected calls to enter talks on a new nuclear treaty, stating it will not participate at this stage; maintains its nuclear capabilities are for self-defense.
Motive: Preserve strategic flexibility and avoid constraints on its nuclear modernization program
UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Head of United Nations
Position: Warned that the expiration represents a grave moment for international peace and security as binding limits on US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons fall away.
Motive: Maintain global nuclear norms and prevent arms race escalation
NATO
Western military alliance
Position: Urged responsibility and restraint as the treaty expired, expressing concern about a new arms race.
Motive: Maintain strategic stability in Europe and prevent Russian nuclear expansion
Competing Narratives
Arms control collapse threatens stability
The treaty expiration eliminates binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals, creates a dangerous drift toward a new arms race, and removes transparency mechanisms that have managed nuclear competition for decades.
Held by: UN Secretary-General, NATO, arms control advocates, RAND Corporation analysts
China factor requires new framework
The bilateral US-Russia treaty is outdated because it excludes China, whose rapid nuclear buildup has increasingly shaped US thinking on arms control and necessitates a trilateral approach.
Held by: US defense strategists, analysts citing US concerns
Possible informal extension
Despite official expiration, the US and Russia are closing in on a deal to observe the treaty beyond its expiration date, suggesting continuity may be possible without formal extension.
Held by: Sources familiar with US-Russia talks
The Three Readings
The Treaty That Never Really Expired
Notice what happened in the twenty-four hours between the UN's grave warnings and the Axios leak about a deal. Russia says it will 'act responsibly' before anyone asks. The US floats that they're 'closing in' on observance without formal extension. This is theater for domestic audiences who need to see resolve, not compromise. The real message is in what's absent: neither side announced expanded deployments, accelerated production, or withdrawn inspectors. The treaty 'expired' the way a gym membership expires—technically lapsed but both parties still showing up. The performance of expiration lets both avoid the political cost of renewal while maintaining the constraints both actually want. China's refusal to join isn't obstruction; it's the excuse both superpowers needed to keep their bilateral arrangement without admitting they prefer it that way.
Mutually Assured Politeness After Mutually Assured Destruction
The world's two largest nuclear arsenals just got unmarried after decades together, and they're handling it like awkward exes who still share a gym membership. Russia preemptively announces it will 'act responsibly'—imagine needing to declare you won't be crazy now that the relationship is over. The US immediately leaks they're 'closing in' on still following the rules anyway. It's the geopolitical equivalent of 'we should see other people' followed by 'but let's still do trivia Tuesday.' NATO stands on the sidelines urging 'restraint' like a concerned friend watching their parents divorce. Meanwhile everyone's begging China to join this dysfunctional family therapy session and China's in the other room with headphones on, correctly reading that this drama isn't really about them. The treaty died but nobody's acting like it, which tells you everything about how much everyone needed to stage its death without actually meaning it.
China Wins By Staying Out of the Room
China just secured an uncontested decade of nuclear modernization by declining the invitation everyone knew it would decline. The US needed China's refusal to politically justify letting New START lapse without looking reckless. Russia needed it to deflect blame from its 2023 suspension. China understood that joining talks meant accepting constraints on the only nuclear capability still growing. By staying out, China converts a bilateral stalemate into a trilateral advantage. The real shift isn't the treaty expiring—it's the US and Russia discovering they can't compel China into their framework while simultaneously needing to maintain their own limits. The informal extension both sides are floating preserves bilateral predictability while accepting they've lost leverage over Beijing. China gains strategic freedom. The superpowers gain the appearance of control. The verification mechanisms die quietly. Everyone gets what they actually wanted while performing concern about what they're losing.
Historical Parallels
SALT/START negotiations during Cold War(1970s-1990s) — Previous periods of US-Russia arms control negotiations alternated between treaties and gaps, with stop-start history of agreements. Eventually led to multiple successful treaties including original START and New START, though with periodic breakdowns.