The United States and Russia have expressed their willingness to renew nuclear disarmament discussions after years of heightened tensions, yet skepticism abounds among analysts who doubt the intentions and capabilities of both leaders to forge significant agreements.
Days after assuming office for his second term, President Donald Trump signaled his desire for nuclear denuclearization and included China—another major nuclear state—in the discussions between the U.S. and Russia, the world's two largest nuclear powers. Trump's administration is framing this call as part of broader disarmament efforts.
Confirming this turn of events, the Kremlin expressed its eagerness to initiate talks "as soon as possible," emphasizing the necessity of factoring British and French nuclear arsenals alongside its own. Nevertheless, China appears uninterested at this time, leading analysts to view these developments as mere posturing rather than genuine overtures for negotiation.
With the last remaining strategic arms control agreement, known as the New START Treaty, set to expire by February 2026, the urgency for these discussions has never been more pronounced. Yet, analysts remain dubious, particularly concerning Russia's motives as it continues its invasion of Ukraine, which marks its fourth year.
Adam Mount, a nuclear expert from the Federation of American Scientists, commented, "It's hard to image China, Russia, or the United States undertaking the exacting negotiations required at this point in good faith." He added, "Donald Trump thinks of himself as a deal maker, but historically hasn't had the patience, proficiency, or credibility." This sentiment reflects a broader concern among experts about the sincerity of Trump's call for denuclearization.
Maxim Starchak from the Centre for International and Defence Policy was also skeptical, asserting, "Russian statements should not be taken at face value. Russia is not interested in arms control; it is interested in the redistribution of influence in Europe." This reflects the belief among many observers, particularly as Putin continues to leverage nuclear power as a means to negotiate from a position of perceived equality with the U.S.
Commenting on the strategic importance of nuclear talks, Olivier Zajec from France's Institute for Strategy and Defence Studies noted, "Nuclear power is the only thing gives Russians the ability to talk to the Americans on equal footing in the world." This indicates how entrenched the nuclear dialogue has become within international power dynamics.
Should the New START Treaty not be replaced, it would mark the first time since 1972 when Russia and the United States operate without any bilateral nuclear arms control agreement. The current tensions echo the fallout from the historical 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, from which both nations withdrew back in 2019, leading to increased volatility and uncertainty.
Against this backdrop, Washington’s modernization of its nuclear triad escalates, with projected estimates stating China's nuclear stockpile may grow to approximately 1,500 warheads by 2035. This modernization reflects concerns about China's ambitions, particularly as Beijing routinely rejects invitations to participate in U.S.-Russian nuclear discussions.
Currently, China insists on conditions to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia before considering any engagement of its own, reflecting its strategic posture to maintain advantages through transparency concerns. Zajec explains this aversion: "If it did engage, it would lose the advantage of its lack of transparency over its arsenal." Such hesitance adds to the complexity of multilateral nuclear discussions.
With many analysts portraying the initiations of these high-level conversations as mere political theater, the status quo remains precarious. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently adjusted its doomsday clock to the closest mark ever—89 seconds to midnight—highlighting the dire risk posed by current global nuclear tensions.
These developments not only illuminate the state of nuclear powers today but also set the stage for potential future conflicts, as geopolitical interests supersede earnest efforts at disarmament. If both countries do engage genuinely, it might provide life to nuclear disarmament dialogues; absent this, it may simply be another chapter of tension-laden negotiations without substantial outcomes.