Hotspot Q&A | What is the Impact of the "Opening of Windows" in US-Russia Nuclear Arms Control?

新华社华盛顿／莫斯科2月6日电 Hot Q&A | What is the impact of the "opening" in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control?

新华社记者

On February 5, U.S. President Trump issued a statement regarding the expiration of the U.S.-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, stating that rather than extending this treaty, a "better and modernized" new treaty should be formulated. Should the U.S. and Russia discuss a new nuclear arms control treaty? What is the significance of nuclear arms control treaties? What impact does the "opening" in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control have?

Should the U.S. and Russia discuss a new treaty?

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is the only arms control treaty between the two countries following the expiration of the U.S.-Russia Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. There are clear differences in the positions of the U.S. and Russia regarding whether to extend the treaty or establish a new one, with media reports suggesting "an agreement is close" while the White House claims to be "unaware" of such developments.

The Russian side was the first to voice its position on the treaty's expiration. On February 5, Russian presidential press secretary Peskov told the media that the U.S. had not responded to President Putin's earlier proposal to extend the treaty for one year, expressing regret over the treaty's expiration. Peskov also stated that if the U.S. made any constructive response to Putin's proposal, Russia "would certainly engage in dialogue."

The U.S. side, however, conveyed a different message. On February 5, Axios reported, citing sources, that the U.S. and Russia were negotiating to continue adhering to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and were "close to reaching an agreement." The report stated that the two sides had been negotiating in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE, for the past 24 hours, and that the draft agreement still required approval from both presidents. The report also mentioned that both countries would continue to adhere to the original treaty for at least the next six months while negotiating a new nuclear arms control agreement.

However, hours later, Trump, who had remained silent on the matter recently, posted on social media, clearly opposing the extension of the existing treaty, calling it a "bad" agreement reached by the U.S. in negotiations and subject to "serious violations," advocating for the formulation of a "better and modernized" new treaty that would be effective in the long term.

Subsequently, White House Press Secretary Levitt reiterated this position at a press conference, but when asked whether the U.S. and Russia had agreed to temporarily adhere to the original treaty during the negotiations for a new treaty, she replied that she was not aware.

It can be seen that there are still differences in the positions of the U.S. and Russia on key issues such as whether to maintain existing constraints and how to advance subsequent negotiations.

What is the significance of arms control treaties?

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed in 2010, aiming to limit the number of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles deployed by the U.S. and Russia, and was later extended through negotiations until February 5, 2026.

It should be noted that this treaty has many flaws and is far from a comprehensive solution to the U.S.-Russia nuclear competition. For example, it only involves long-range strategic nuclear weapons as defined by the treaty, while the actual scale of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals is vast, including more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, including short-range tactical nuclear weapons. Additionally, over the past decade of the treaty's validity, both sides have developed new types of nuclear weapons outside the treaty's restrictions and have undertaken large-scale modernization of their existing nuclear arsenals. In recent years, core mechanisms of the treaty, such as on-site verification and data exchange, have also not been implemented.

The Russian newspaper Izvestia quoted expert Albatov from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of World Economy and International Relations as saying that the treaty's expiration would have serious negative impacts on international security and strategic stability, but it should not be overly dramatized. Albatov believes that strategic weapons negotiations hold an important position in the agenda of great power relations, and the expired treaty will serve as the basis for future negotiations on related agreements.

However, a flawed fence is still a fence. Analysts believe that this treaty has at least three significant values: first, it sets upper limits on the number of long-range strategic nuclear warheads and launch and delivery systems deployed by the U.S. and Russia; second, it establishes a treaty compliance mechanism that includes data exchange, mutual notification, and on-site verification, providing a degree of transparency; third, the expectation of compliance with the treaty can influence the behavior of all parties, prompting the U.S. and Russia to continue dialogue and enhance future predictability.

Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Karim Haggag, stated: "Transparency and predictability are intangible yet crucial benefits brought by arms control, forming the foundation of deterrence and strategic stability."

What is the impact of the "opening" in nuclear arms control?

According to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on February 4, after the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, both the U.S. and Russia are no longer bound by any obligations or reciprocal statements under the treaty and, in principle, "are free to choose subsequent actions."

Concerns in the international community about the emergence of a "gap" in nuclear arms control are increasing. On February 4, UN Secretary-General Guterres stated that the treaty's expiration occurs at the worst possible time, with the risk of nuclear weapon use at its highest level in decades.

According to AFP, some former senior arms control officials globally issued a joint statement on February 5, saying that the end of this treaty will weaken nuclear stability and predictability, increasing the risk of entering an era of "unconstrained nuclear competition." Many experts say that without treaty restrictions, the strategic nuclear arsenals deployed by both countries could effectively double in the short term, and the U.S. and Russia may also reconsider resuming nuclear testing.

The British magazine The Economist warned: "The world may fall into a more terrifying arms race than during the Cold War." The U.S. Wall Street Journal commented that in the current context of heightened geopolitical distrust and diminished diplomatic roles, preventing escalation and maintaining maximum restraint "is an urgent priority."