In the contemporary complex global security dynamic, traditional arms control regime has been teetering due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, rapid nuclear modernization, unchecked missile technology expansion of India, the emergence of new technology, including hypersonic missiles, drone swarms, and the decline of US extended deterrence, which increase the possibility of proliferation.
In 2019, during its first term, Trump withdrew from the INF, accusing Russia of violation by testing and deploying missiles that were banned under this treaty. After the Russian annexation of the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk region, the US suspended the arms control talks. However, after assuming office, Biden (an experienced negotiator with vast experience in arms control) reinitiated arms control negotiations with Russia, although he failed to achieve any desired outcome.
It is in the best interest of international peace and stability to cooperate in managing two of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals. Furthermore, the Ukrainian crisis further withers Russia’s belief that the US is taking advantage of the situation and wants to establish control. In contrast, the US seeks to minimize the nuclear risk. The Cold War era arms control regime between the US and Russia has ceased, and the optimism accompanying the New START in 2021 has deteriorated.
Ukrainian conflict and Covid-19 play a very crucial role in the collapse of arms controls. After the annulment of INF, New STRAT is the only treaty that keeps a check on both state’s nuclear forces. New START is tenuous, as inspection activities were suspended during the COVID-19. In 2022, Russia postponed the meeting on resumption inspection indefinitely, and in 2023, Russia suspended participation in the treaty. The US and China also met in 2023 to discuss arms control, but the meeting ended without any positive outcome. This meeting is crucial to arms control as both rarely meet and discuss these types of issues.
The gradual deterioration of arms control regimes poses a significant threat to global peace and stability. According to the IISS report “The Armed Conflict in Survey 2024,” there are 49 active conflicts worldwide. Most of these are geopolitical issues and block politics between great powers, and there is a high chance that these conflicts can be extended beyond traditional limits.
The active involvements of great powers makes it difficult for any constructive arms control progress. In addition, it will be very difficult to persuade countries like North Korea and Iran for any arms control and disarmaments measures. A successful arms control agreement between two states does not need any stable/positive diplomatic relations; it only requires that both recognize that they are better off with it than without it.
According to a report by CSIS, Russia’s behavior shows that it is leveraging the arms control agreement as a bargaining tool in the Ukrainian war. As long as this behavior and war in Ukraine continue, there is not any breakthrough going to happen in arms control between both states. While analyzing the complexities of current issues, the future arms control agreement should be more flexible and adaptive in dealing with the changing dynamics of a complex emerging security environment and new technologies.
Russia agreed temporarily to halt the attack on the Ukrainian energy facility, but if these peace talks did not detent, then this temporary halt would be useless. According to a report by BBC, the white house is also discussing a cease-fire deal in the Baltic Sea. It is the first step toward permanent peace in Ukraine and will pave the way for CBM, boosting the trust and laying the groundwork for the renewal of arms control talks between the two.
Peace talks in KSA have been very fruitful as they discussed limited prisoner exchange, halting the attack on energy infrastructures, and creating a working group to explore further areas of cooperation, like geopolitical cooperation between both, which will not only engender permanent peace but also renew arms control.
However, according to George Perkovich, an American political scientist, when American political actors are unwilling to compromise at home, they cannot compromise with foreign adversaries. Therefore, to reinitiate arms control, it must follow a secrecy and diplomatic back channel like the Cuban missile crisis. The fragile nature of domestic politics in America makes it quite tricky for the Senate to support any arms control agreement. That is why they should go for non-binding agreements.
As long as the Ukrainian war continues, nuclear sabre rattling and strategic ambiguity will dominate the discourse and leave no room for a constructive arms control framework. Peace talks not only de-escalate the tension but also reduce the nuclear rhetoric, which will set the stage for confidence-building measures and renewal of arms control. Moreover, both states need to address the challenges posed by new technologies.
A new treaty (NTACT), a New Tec Arms control treaty, should also be initiated, focusing on autonomous weapons, AI drones, hypersonic missiles, transparencies, and prohibiting offensive cyber and space attacks. Great powers must include emerging technology in their arms control, and they should delink the arms controls from political motives and disputes to preserve global peace and rule-based order.
If these peace talks were successful, other global players such as China, France, and the UK should also play their role. They should join the negotiations to pave the way for more inclusive arms control agreements. Peace talks are a ray of hope to prevent the further erosion of existing arms control agreements. However, domestic politics may cause some hurdles, so to make these peace talks fruitful and save world peace, both states must start renegotiating arms control to avoid any further arms race.
Author: Muhammad Shahzad Akram – Research Officer at the Center for International Strategic Studies, AJK. He holds an MPhil in International Relations from Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. He is an alumnus of the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University (NDU), and Washington, DC. His expertise includes cyber warfare and strategy, arms control, and disarmament.
(The views expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).
Image Credit: AFP (US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (right) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during their meeting in Riyadh, on Feb 18, 2025)
