Nuclear tensions have been a frequent reminder since the war in Ukraine began. This time it is a technical and strategic nuclear tension that will affect the whole world for the next century.
Piece by piece, the foundation of nuclear arms control is crumbling. The United States has played its part, contributing to the erosion by withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. However, Russia has dealt significant blows to what little remains, particularly through its war in Ukraine and unsettling declarations regarding nuclear weapon use.
On Feb. 20, 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that it would be suspending its participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the U.S. Later on, the Russian Parliament approved a bill to suspend Moscow's participation in the New START. The decision of the Kremlin to suspend the treaty has raised concerns about the future of the arms control regime and future negotiations and created nuclear tension, this time diplomatic rather than on the ground.
The New START treaty is the last remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia. It imposes specific constraints on the number of nuclear weapons held by either side. It sets a maximum limit of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear-capable bombers, and ballistic missile submarines. Additionally, the treaty allows for up to 1,550 deployed warheads and 100 non-deployed launchers. Moreover, it establishes a verification mechanism that enables both parties to assess and monitor each other's arsenals.
The treaty has been seen as a cornerstone of nuclear stability and a key element of U.S.-Russia relations. Its suspension by Russia has been met with strong criticism from the U.S. and other countries. Its termination could lead to a new arms race between the two countries and bode ill for global security.
The agreement, which expires in February 2026, does not appear to be renewed based on the parties' statements.
Tensions between the U.S. and Russia have been rising due to the accumulation of many issues, which has led to a stalemate. Moscow’s latest move could further exacerbate these tensions and make their resolution more difficult.
As is well known, the START treaty was extended for another five years via an agreement of both sides. Strategically, both countries attach great importance to this treaty, so much so that even the lowest level of relations in history between Russia and the West since the war in Ukraine has not prevented talks to maintain the treaty in the background.
However, after the suspension of inspections during the pandemic, the parties had already started to experience problems with the technical part of the agreement signed in 2011. In the latest report on the agreement, the U.S. accused Russia of not complying with the treaty and said it had not permitted to inspect certain areas.
Although Russia has suspended the treaty, it has announced that it will provide the U.S. with information on ICBM and SLBM (Submarine-launched Ballistic Missile) tests and will comply with the treaty's key provisions. However, Russia will not allow on-site inspections and the usual transfer of information required by the treaty. On the other hand, the U.S. announced in June that it had halted the flow of information to Russia as a “countermeasure.” The lack of information on both sides seriously trivializes the existence of the New START.
The fact that the weapons recently produced by both the U.S. and Russia, in particular the nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles that are the nightmare of air defense systems, are not covered by the treaty has reduced its relevance in today's world. In fact, this situation shows that the new START should be up to date. However, tense relations in the age of uncertainty, rising powers and a possible multipolar era make it impossible to update the treaty.
Despite the New START treaty being unrelated to the ongoing war, Ukraine has consistently been part of the negotiation process. Russia's recent action can be seen as a retaliatory response to Western support for Ukraine in various capacities. This nuclear saber-rattling came in the wake of U.S. President Joe Biden's visit to Kyiv. The escalation of nuclear tensions, at this point, hinges entirely on the course of the war in Ukraine.
Again, although the sanctions against Russia as a deterrence by denial failed to halt the war, that affected its weapons inventory and the ammunition it used months later. Therefore, Russia has managed to circumvent some economic sanctions, albeit it is clearly in an economic bottleneck. Given these circumstances, it would be irrational for Putin to attempt to increase its nuclear stockpile. Then he may struggle to keep the Russian elite in line.
Furthermore, Russia is currently experiencing a distinct situation with the aborted mutiny of Putin's secretive faction, led by Wagner and overseen by Yevgeny Prigozhin. This situation is expected to have significant implications for various aspects within Russia following June 23.
The way the world has been going lately, even if New START does not continue, a nuclear arms race may not happen in the near future due to the different agendas of the countries involved in the treaty.
At the same time, tactical nuclear weapons, which are not covered by the treaty, pose a threat, but even if they are considered small, their use would cause great destruction both to the target country and to neighboring states. This is because today's tactical nuclear weapons are far more destructive than “Fat Man” and “Little Boy.” It is therefore unlikely that Russia would use this weapon in Ukraine.
There is already an increase in global armaments and, as mentioned above, there are many hazardous weapons that are not covered by the last remaining nuclear treaty. While the U.S. and Russia are investing in these weapons, they are not expected to invest in technology such as nuclear weapons because it would be too noisy and the classic “nuclear war mantra” is so supported by every state. The nuclear arsenals of both countries are already deterrent enough. China, which does not want to be involved in a nuclear deal, would take years to catch up.
While the New START Treaty remains significant, its relevance has somewhat diminished in the evolving global landscape. Although nuclear armament is not currently a priority for the treaty's signatories, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to prevent any potential arms race. Such a framework should extend beyond the limitations on arsenals and states, encompassing emerging technologies and potential proliferators.
