Assessing the Erosion of Arms Control and its Implications for Geopolitical Risk
The relentless drone of a fighter jet, a distant rumble – these sounds, commonplace in Eastern Europe, serve as a stark reminder of a rapidly deteriorating strategic landscape. With the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in February 2023, the world has lost a crucial, albeit imperfect, mechanism for managing the risks associated with the largest nuclear arsenals. This shift presents a profound challenge to global security, intensifying uncertainty and potentially destabilizing the delicate balance of power. The consequences extend far beyond the United States and Russia, influencing alliances, triggering a scramble for alternative security arrangements, and ultimately, raising the specter of miscalculation.
The historical context of arms control treaties is vital to understanding the current crisis. New START, signed in 2010, was a landmark achievement, limiting the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) held by the US and Russia. It also established verification mechanisms, including on-site inspections, that played a critical role in building trust and reducing the potential for surprise attacks. Prior treaties, such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) of the 1970s and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, established a precedent for verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons, although these agreements ultimately proved to be transient in the face of evolving geopolitical realities. The current situation underscores a concerning trend: the reluctance of major powers to engage in sustained arms control efforts when strategic competition intensifies.
Key stakeholders in this dynamic include the United States, Russia, China, NATO, and various regional powers. The US administration, under President Biden, has repeatedly called for Russia to extend the New START treaty, arguing it provides essential transparency and predictability. Russia, under President Putin, has rejected these calls, citing concerns about US missile defense systems and the perceived threat to Russia’s strategic interests. China, while not a signatory to New START, has significantly expanded its nuclear arsenal and continues to modernize its military, seeking a greater role in global security debates. NATO’s response has been characterized by increased defense spending and a refocus on bolstering its eastern flank, further exacerbating tensions with Russia.
Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) paints a concerning picture. Between 2010 and 2022, global military expenditure rose by 3.8% annually, reaching a staggering $2.2 trillion in 2022. The proportion of military spending directed at nuclear weapons increased during this period, reflecting a renewed emphasis on nuclear deterrence. A chart illustrating this trend would show a clear upward trajectory, punctuated by spikes related to regional conflicts and heightened geopolitical tensions. According to SIPRI’s annual report, “The Future of International Peace and Security 2023,” “The expiration of New START has removed a key constraint on strategic competition, increasing the risk of escalation and undermining the prospects for arms control.”
Expert opinion supports this assessment. Dr. Emily Harding, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, commented, “The loss of New START represents a significant strategic setback. It has removed a vital element of predictability from the US-Russia relationship, and the absence of a clear framework makes it more difficult to manage potential crises.” Similarly, Ambassador Robert Malley, former US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, stated in a recent Brookings Institution webinar, “We need to find a way to rebuild arms control, but that requires a willingness from all sides to engage in serious negotiations, something that has become increasingly elusive.”
Recent developments over the past six months have further amplified these concerns. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has spurred a dramatic increase in military spending across Europe, while simultaneously intensifying the debate over nuclear deterrence. Russia’s rhetoric regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons has grown increasingly assertive, contributing to a climate of heightened risk. Furthermore, China’s growing military assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea, is adding another layer of complexity to the strategic environment. The January 2024 announcement by Russia that it was suspending its participation in the New START treaty, citing Western actions, served as a stark signal of the escalating tensions.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next six months) prognosis is bleak. The absence of a replacement arms control agreement will likely lead to an increase in strategic instability. We can anticipate a rise in military exercises, increased surveillance of each other’s military activities, and a heightened risk of miscalculation. Long-term (5-10 years), the scenario is even more concerning. Without renewed diplomatic efforts, the risk of a nuclear conflict, however remote, will remain. The world needs to address the imbalance between non-proliferation efforts and the slow pace of disarmament progress.
Keywords: Arms Control, Nuclear Weapons, Strategic Stability, Disarmament, Geopolitics, Russia, United States, New START, Military Expenditure, International Security.
The expiration of New START demands a recalibration of global security strategies. It’s time for a renewed commitment to dialogue, transparency, and the difficult but essential work of rebuilding trust – before the vanishing framework becomes a full-blown catastrophe. What specific mechanisms, beyond formal treaties, could be implemented to mitigate the risks and foster greater stability in this increasingly uncertain world?