As the geopolitical landscape evolves, the erosion of key nuclear stability agreements has become a focal point of international concern. The article From ABM to New START: the slow collapse of an era of restraint delves into the dismantling of these agreements and the broader implications for global security. The piece opens with a poignant reflection on the importance of precise language in diplomacy, especially when the subject matter is the potential for nuclear conflict. The author underscores that a misstep in communication could inadvertently accelerate tensions, a lesson that the current administration seems to have overlooked.
Historically, the system of strategic stability agreements has been a cornerstone of international relations, providing a framework for restraint and mutual understanding. However, the article traces a clear trajectory of disintegration, starting with the abandonment of the 1972 ABM Treaty in 2002. This event marked the beginning of a series of treaty collapses, including the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty, and most recently, New START. The article suggests that each of these breakdowns has been either ignored or deliberately dismantled, contributing to a growing sense of instability.
Even the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is under scrutiny, as the author points out that the obligations under Article VI, which require nuclear powers to negotiate in good faith for disarmament, are effectively abandoned. This has led to concerns among non-nuclear states, as they begin to question the long-term viability of the current security framework. The article emphasizes that while most countries may still hesitate to pursue nuclear capabilities, the emergence of even a few new entrants could redefine global power dynamics in unpredictable ways.
The deeper issue, according to the article, lies in the complacency of Western political leaders. The fear of nuclear conflict that once permeated Europe has significantly diminished, with some policymakers acting as though their decisions are insulated from the consequences of their rhetoric. This perception of invulnerability has led to a culture of irreverence toward nuclear strategy, where leaders treat such matters as a political spectacle, often making inflammatory statements without regard for the potential fallout. The article criticizes this approach, arguing that it has created an environment where strategic stability is no longer a priority.
Russia, as the sole counterbalance to Western nuclear capabilities, has not abandoned the framework of arms control lightly. Instead, it is responding to a consistent pattern of erosion by Washington, which has been followed by an absence of commitment or understanding from its allies. The article warns that if the world is to return to a nuclear arms race, it will not be because Moscow seeks to revive one, but rather due to the vacuum left in leadership. This loss of seriousness in arms control is the true harbinger of an era’s end, as the article concludes with a call for the restoration of political will and accountability to prevent an irreversible descent into conflict.