The fragile global legal framework for nuclear arms control could face further obstacles in 2026, potentially undermining barriers to avoiding a nuclear crisis, AFP reports, writes UNN.
Details
Two key events will take place in the first half of the year: on February 5, the bilateral treaty between the US and Russia, New START, expires, and in April, New York will host the Review Conference (RevCon) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – a cornerstone of global nuclear security systems.
RevCon, held every four to five years, aims to preserve the NPT. But during the last two sessions, the 191 signatory states failed to agree on a final document, and experts expect the same outcome in April, the publication writes.
"I think it's going to be a difficult RevCon," said Alexandra Bell, head of the American non-profit global security organization Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, at an online conference organized by the UN in early December.
"Regarding the current state and immediate prospects of the nuclear arms control architecture, things are grim," she added.
Anton Khlopkov, director of the Russian analytical center "Center for Energy and Security Studies" (CENESS), took an even more severe view, stating at the same event that "we are on the verge of an almost complete dismantling of the arms control architecture."
"We must be realistic under the current circumstances. At best, I think we should try to preserve what we have," he said.
From US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities to Russia's testing of a new nuclear-powered cruise missile "Burevestnik" and US President Donald Trump's remarks about a possible resumption of nuclear tests – the international nuclear landscape darkened in 2025, the publication notes.
At the same time, "the arms control architecture is collapsing," Emmanuelle Maitre from the French Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS) told AFP.
The key challenge lies in the change in global relations, the publication writes.
Nuclear control has been built for decades around the Moscow-Washington axis, but China's growing power and rapid technological progress have changed the international playing field, which is simultaneously becoming increasingly tense, the publication writes.
"The growing interconnectedness between nuclear and conventional forces and the emergence of breakthrough technologies (such as the US 'Iron Dome' defense system and new hypersonic weapons) have transformed traditional nuclear deterrence into a multi-domain concept, especially in a multipolar world," said Hua Han from Peking University.
"This trilateral configuration creates complexities that go far beyond the bilateral model of the Cold War era. Increased cooperation between China and Russia further complicates deterrence calculations, especially in two major theaters of operations: Europe and the Asia-Pacific region," she added, according to the minutes of an April event hosted by the Pakistani Center for International Strategic Studies.
A likely outcome of the changing landscape is the expiration of New START, which sets limits on weapons and includes inspection systems, the publication writes.
"The entire inspection component is no longer functioning, notifications of missile movements, etc. – all of that is gone. All that remains is a voluntary commitment to stay within the limits," Maitre said.
But allowing New START to lapse is "in American interest", according to Robert Peters of the influential Heritage Foundation, reflecting the stance of much of the US strategic community to avoid tying Washington's hands to Moscow alone.
Beijing, which currently has fewer weapons, has so far refused to participate in trilateral disarmament talks.
"China is the fastest growing nuclear power on the planet. It is building 100 new warheads a year and now has more ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) silos than the US has active Minuteman III silos," Peters said at a recent online event of the Institute for Strategic Studies.
"New START does not address" this issue, he added.
However, according to Maitre, the expiration of New START does not mean that the world should expect serious consequences as early as February 6.
In both Washington and Moscow, "there is a small margin to bring some weapons back into service, but their number cannot be very significant. There are bottlenecks" that will slow down any buildup, she said.
Also, the absence of a final document from RevCon will not cause "immediate or devastating consequences" for the NPT, she said.
But, she warned, fewer guarantees risk leaving the world without diplomatic tools to resolve tensions.
"The less functional the NPT becomes, the harder it is to develop collective solutions in a crisis," she noted.