FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The expiration of the treaty marks not only the end of an agreement, but also the consumption of strategic trust between the two blocs.
On February 2, 2026, Dmitry Medvedev warned of a danger that, with repetition, was increasingly being treated as normality: the expiration of the New START treaty, the latest agreement limiting and verifying the strategic nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia. The treaty, signed in 2010 when Medvedev was president, was set to expire on February 5, with no new agreement in sight.
According to Medvedev, the problem was not alarmism, but political vacuum. Allowing such a treaty to expire without knowing what comes next means paving the way for more dangerous scenarios, even if no one articulates them openly. He spoke not of an immediate catastrophe, but of something more fundamental: the disappearance of the rules brings not disarmament, but the temptation to reopen the power race by counting missiles.
On the other hand, Donald Trump had made it clear that he did not intend to extend the treaty. In an interview in January, he said that if the agreement expired, then a “better deal” could be reached later. His approach reflected the logic of negotiating from scratch: tearing down the existing framework to impose another, potentially broader one.
This is where the Chinese factor comes in. Washington has long sought China's inclusion in a new arms control regime, but Beijing has shown no willingness. The result risks being paradoxical: the only existing obstacle is removed, in the name of a larger table that never forms.
Arms control is not only a moral or strategic issue, but also an economic one. Restrictive treaties act as a brake on military spending. Without them, pressure on state budgets, the defense industry, and technological chains increases. A new arms race is paid for not only with weapons, but also with missing resources for infrastructure and development.
For Russia, this issue is directly related to the war in Ukraine and the adaptation of the military industry. Medvedev has emphasized the increase in the production of artillery and drones, signaling that Moscow is prepared for a reality without restrictions.
In military terms, the expiration of New START means not only more nuclear warheads, but also less transparency, fewer inspections, and less predictability. In a nuclear balance, predictability is stability. Its loss increases the risk of miscalculation, where fear and suspicion fuel escalation.
In this context, Europe risks remaining more of a pressure ground than a decision-making actor, while real dialogue takes place between Washington and Moscow. The expiration of the treaty marks not only the end of an agreement, but also the consumption of strategic trust between the two blocs.
Medvedev used the metaphor of the “apocalypse hour” not to incite panic, but to emphasize a gradual danger: the slide toward a world without brakes, where no one says they want global conflict, but everyone prepares for it.
The key question, at this stage, is not whether the treaty's expiration will bring immediate disaster, but whether the great powers are willing to live in a system without borders. If the answer is no, then politics faces a clear and difficult task: to establish new rules, before the rules disappear completely. /Adapted from "Inside Over"
Dmth do prodhohen arme me te sifistikuara berthamore, ku nese me keto te sotmet bota mund te shkaterrohet 100 here, me ato te nesermes mund te kete depozita qe mund ta shkatertojne boten 1000 here. Bravo Kjo eshte bota qe duan Trump e Putin, flake e zjarr, vdekjen e tyre e shikojme si fundin e botes. Ne vend qe te ulen per te bere gjera te mira per njerezimin, ate per te cilin deshiron populli qe i ka votuar, duan ti vene zjarrin botes.