The world woke up to an unfamiliar and unsettling reality this February. For the first time since the Cold War, the United States and Russia are no longer bound by any legally enforceable limits on their strategic nuclear arsenals.
The expiry of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, better known as New START, has reopened long-suppressed anxieties about nuclear competition, trust, and global security.
New START officially expired on February 5, 2026, closing the chapter on a treaty that since 2010 capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems for the world’s two largest nuclear powers.
Its lapse comes amid strained relations shaped by the war in Ukraine, Moscow’s suspension of treaty participation in 2023, and Washington’s growing concern about China’s expanding nuclear posture.
Although Russian and US officials met in Abu Dhabi a day after the expiration and agreed on the need to launch new talks, the absence of a binding framework has created what many analysts describe as a regulatory vacuum.
In an interview with The Vaultz News, Dr. Victor Doke, a seasoned analyst at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, explains why this moment matters, what is at stake, and why the road ahead demands urgency rather than complacency.
For him, the moment poses a test of political will, international responsibility, and the fragile idea that nuclear restraint is still possible in a world defined by rivalry, war, and mistrust.
He asserted that the implications of the absence of a binding framework cut in two directions. On the one hand, the treaty’s expiry places responsibility squarely on the broader international community to help bring Washington and Moscow back to the table. On the other, it exposes the risk that either side may simply walk away from arms control altogether.
“The international community, international organizations and other world powers will now have to look at how they can bring these two countries together and then re-look at the avenue of signing another agreement or re-enacting the same agreement.”
Dr. Victor Doke
Yet the danger lies in the alternative scenario. If either the United States or Russia refuses to recommit, the consequences could be severe.
Dr. Doke warned that the expiration lays bare longstanding contradictions in global nuclear politics, particularly Washington’s vocal opposition to proliferation elsewhere while its own strategic framework with Russia remains unresolved.
“What if the United States is not willing to sign any agreement again? Or what if Russia is not willing to sign any agreement again? Russia hasn’t shied away from the threat of using nuclear weapons with regards to the Ukraine conflict… and we know how vocal the US has been with regards to clamping down on the use of nuclear weapons.”
Dr. Victor Doke
This uncertainty reverberates far beyond Washington and Moscow. Among US allies in Europe and Asia, the end of New START could intensify debates about deterrence, extended security guarantees, and even nuclear sharing arrangements.
According to Dr. Doke, much depends on how quickly follow-on negotiations materialize. “The quicker, faster, efficient processes they take to come up with a new agreement will be better,” he said, noting that delays could embolden states already inclined to expand their nuclear capabilities or inspire new aspirants to emerge.
He argued that relying solely on US–Russia goodwill is insufficient. Regional organizations, allies, and other major powers, he said, should actively facilitate dialogue, offer technical assistance, and push for urgency.
The expiration of New START also raises questions about the health of the broader non-proliferation regime, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Dr. Doke was careful to stress that the end of one bilateral treaty does not dissolve the entire system. “That doesn’t mean that those who want to expand their nuclear capabilities can do so,” he said, pointing to the continued role of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “This institution would now play its role,” he added.
Still, he acknowledged that the symbolic weight of US–Russia cooperation is irreplaceable. When the two largest nuclear powers show restraint, it reinforces global norms; when they do not, confidence erodes.
Funding constraints and political tensions, he added, further complicate the enforcement role of international institutions. “By and large, Russia and USA will always be that check with regards to nuclear capabilities,” Dr. Doke said, emphasizing that their cooperation sends a signal no other actors can replicate.
Little Prospect For Multilateral Nuclear Arms Control Agreement With China
On the question of expanding arms control beyond a bilateral framework, Dr. Doke was blunt. He sees little prospect for a viable multilateral nuclear arms control agreement that includes China.
“A multilateral nuclear arms control act will not suffice. You’re dealing with superpowers with different interests. The fact that there’s no trust amongst these superpowers… it will never happen.”
Dr. Victor Doke
In his assessment, China’s strategic alignment with Russia and its ambition to dominate its region make tripartite negotiations deeply problematic.
Any future expansion of arms control, he suggested, would depend first on a stable US–Russia agreement that others might eventually choose to follow.
As the world waits to see whether new talks yield concrete results, Dr. Doke’s remarks show that the expiration of New START is more than a procedural lapse.
Without swift and credible action, the fragile framework of nuclear restraint risks giving way to a more dangerous and unpredictable era.
READ ALSO: Starmer’s Chief Of Staff Resigns
