A dangerous “window” for the use of nuclear weapons has opened in the world, with the expiration of the New START Treaty and the broader crisis in nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia, as the return of Donald Trump to power has signaled the abandonment of the logic of bilateral arms control and the shift toward a unilateral, “from a position of strength” foreign policy.
It is no coincidence that Washington did not respond to the Russian proposal for a temporary extension of the treaty, while the Trump strategy, as described in the new National Security Strategy, emphasizes “peace through strength,” economic pressure, and transactional diplomacy, sidelining traditional arms control.
It is evident that the United States seeks to leverage its economic and financial influence, at a time when Russia has gained an advantage in the field of nuclear and military deterrence through modernized and new generation weapons systems (hypersonic, Poseidon, Burevestnik, etc.).
Moreover, intense processes are also taking place in Europe regarding the possible “Europeanization” of French and British nuclear weapons, a development which, if it occurs, would negate the non-proliferation regime.
A characteristic example of this is that the United Kingdom and France may be considering the transfer of nuclear weapons or technology to Kyiv, a development that would constitute a direct threat to Russia.
It is no secret that Moscow considers a possible transfer of nuclear weapons to Ukraine as an act equivalent to a joint attack against it and implies that it would respond even with the use of nuclear weapons.
The importance of New START
On 5 February, the New START Treaty, which was concluded under Barack Obama in 2011 and extended for five years by Joe Biden in 2021, expired.
Russia proposed its extension for one year, in order to preserve the continuity of bilateral arms control.
This time could have been sufficient for a general normalization of Russian-American relations and, within this framework, the two sides could have returned to seeking a new formula for strategic stability, either bilateral or multilateral.
Trump’s suspicious oversight
However, things did not function well.
The Donald Trump administration showed no interest in the Russian initiative.
Admittedly, the US president demonstrated consistency in this case, as he had no intention of renewing this last Russian-American arms control treaty during his first presidency, and had he won the 2020 elections, the treaty would not have been extended in February 2021.
The minimal chances of restarting dialogue between Washington and Moscow on strategic stability are also reflected in Trump’s overall foreign policy philosophy, as articulated in the US National Security Strategy, published on 5 December of last year.
There, the issue is described in the most general terms, as the need for “strategic stability” in relations with Russia, which experts view as a hint toward a desire for general normalization with Moscow, and nothing about arms control.
However, provisions such as “peace through strength” and a broader shift toward great power status make it clear that America will defend its security interests primarily unilaterally and from a position of strength.
Another initiative
Added to this is the creation of the Peace Council under Trump’s own presidency and the adoption of transactional diplomacy.
This, based on the experience of the first year of Trump’s second presidency, including the use of tariffs to exert influence on other countries, demonstrates the desire to build relations with international partners across all sectors from a position of strength, using trade, the economy, alliances, and other interdependencies as tools.
A clear example of this is NATO, which is becoming an American business project, and the arrest of the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, under false pretenses and the extraterritorial application of domestic American law.
Thus, bilateral arms control, a fundamental element of strategic stability, has been completely erased, returning the world to the period prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
No arms control
Furthermore, arms control simply does not fit within Trump’s broader foreign policy philosophy.
Here, America’s self-perception under Trump as a country that does not wish to build its relations with other states on the basis of equality and mutual obligations plays a role.
In practice, this is seen as the primary sin of the United Nations and the entire established system of international law, which presupposes the sovereign equality of all states.
Although only under Trump did Washington withdraw from 66 international agreements and structures, including 31 within the United Nations system, America’s turn toward unilateralism stems from the doctrine of a “rules-based order,” which in reality rejected the post-war international legal order centered on the United Nations, a broader Western position and also a form of reaction to the Ukrainian crisis that the West itself provoked in relations with Russia.
Russia’s tools
Russia holds veto power in the United Nations Security Council and, as a result, this key body of the organization was unsuitable for a rational discussion of the Ukrainian issue: the parties would have had equal rights to present their narratives of events, something entirely contrary to Western plans based on the position of “Russian aggression,” not to mention the impossibility of passing anti-Russian sanctions through the Security Council.
Another issue is that this nullification of international law has now rebounded against America’s own allies, especially its European allies, who believed they would enjoy equal exceptional status in a global order de facto controlled by the collective West under “American leadership.”
On equal terms
Regarding bilateral arms control, Trump faces the problem of equality: there was no other basis for such agreements during the Cold War, nor could there ever have been.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that he may prefer to wait.
The pretext is the participation of China in such a dialogue, although China has made it clear that it has no interest in this.
According to American assessments, the level of its deployed strategic warheads will be equal to that of Moscow and Washington by 2030.
The illusion of unipolarity
A significant aspect of America’s self-perception, a legacy of the illusion of unipolarity and the doctrine of George Bush as the “sole superpower,” is that over the past two decades Russia has significantly modernized its strategic deterrent forces.
This includes not only traditional strategic delivery systems, land based ballistic missiles, submarine launched ballistic missiles and strategic cruise missiles, but also fundamentally new capabilities based on new physical principles: hypersonic technology, aero-ballistic systems, the Poseidon underwater unmanned system, the nuclear powered cruise missiles Burevestnik and Oreshnik of unlimited range, and others.
The emerging power
These systems create a more complex weapons configuration with devastating effects, including massive tsunami generating capabilities targeting naval powers, the United States and nearly all of Europe, and generally undermine any missile defense system, whether in terms of speed or trajectory, including Trump’s proposed Golden Dome.
America has focused on cyber warfare and strengthening its presence in space, while its military industrial complex has concentrated on expensive conventional weapons systems such as the F-35, which required approximately 20 years and 1.3 trillion dollars to develop and remains incomplete despite being delivered and sold to allies.
As a result, even Trump’s Golden Fleet currently lacks a production base.
There is also the ambition to compete with Russia in the Arctic.
The actions of the United States
Under these conditions, it is reasonable to assume that the United States will not feel in a position of strength when seeking a formula to offset the corresponding warheads.
Moreover, the issue will inevitably become publicly known, something that will affect America’s reputation.
This may explain Trump’s proposal for denuclearization, that is, the elimination of nuclear weapons, something that is difficult to imagine under the current circumstances.
Moscow, for its part, is ready, without preconditions, to resume negotiations on strategic stability, which sooner or later must become global and include the nuclear weapons of the European allies of the United States.
The issue is only exacerbated by the current remilitarization of Europe, with discussions about the “collectivization,” bypassing the American “nuclear umbrella,” of French and British nuclear weapons, as well as the granting of Germany’s access to them.
This constitutes a threat to the non-proliferation regime itself, something that the Americans should point out to their allies.
Economic terms
The overall direction of Trump’s foreign policy suggests that Washington will seek to leverage its perceived advantage in its international position, namely control over global trade, economic, monetary, financial, and other structures, especially as this control is gradually disappearing.
In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, American expert Stephen Walt described this strategy as “predatory hegemony,” which, partly due to its nakedness and focus on short term goals, has no chance of success.
An Americanist once defined relations between Russia and the United States in the 21st century as “asymmetrical confrontation,” referring precisely to Washington’s aforementioned advantage, to which Moscow responds with an advantage in nuclear, or more broadly military, deterrence.
At the very least, the conflict in Ukraine, with the comprehensive sanctions pressure from the collective West, can serve as confirmation of this theoretical balance of power.
Search for balances
It is safe to assume that in their relations with Russia, the United States will focus on finding a balance of economic interests and corresponding large scale joint projects, setting aside issues of strategic stability and arms control in the hope that they will either become obsolete in the new atmosphere of relations, or that they will manage to buy time and gain leverage for such a discussion on equal terms, if not from a position of strength.
In any case, the Americans clearly judge others by themselves and do not take into account Russia’s cultural particularity.
That is, that it harbors no aggressive intentions, has never lived at the expense of others, and is always ready to behave in a Christian manner and reciprocate the goodwill of its partners.
The absence of the latter lies at the root of Russia’s disagreements with the United States and the West as a whole since the end of the Cold War.
Will we ultimately see the situation change radically? That is the question.
The issue with Ukraine has been settled
Meanwhile, it is no coincidence that Bloomberg reported that Trump was willing to conclude the matter of Ukraine by the 250th anniversary of American independence, 4 July, while the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, SVR, published information that the Kyiv regime and its accomplices had entirely different plans.
According to recent SVR reports, the United Kingdom and France are preparing to transfer nuclear weapons to Kyiv: “London and Paris have lost faith in victory over Russia at the hands of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.”
And the supporters of the Kyiv regime believe that “Ukraine must be equipped with ‘wunderwaffe,’ after which Kyiv will be able to claim more favorable terms for ending hostilities if it possesses a nuclear bomb or at least a so called dirty bomb.”
One important detail: London and Paris want to disguise the transfer of their nuclear weapons to Kyiv as developments within Ukraine itself, for example a small nuclear warhead for a ballistic missile.
The denials
As expected, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately stated that this information is “false” and that “Ukraine has repeatedly denied such claims.”
Clearly, it would have been very interesting had they said: “Yes, absolutely correct, here is another photo of the bomb and the coordinates of the launchers.”
But the internet remembers everything, and in particular it remembers the countless testimonies that the Kyiv regime has not for a single second abandoned its desire to acquire nuclear weapons, or at least a dirty bomb, by any means.
We also remember Arakhamia’s statement in 2021 that “the renunciation of nuclear weapons by Kravchuk was a fatal mistake.”
The dangerous Zelensky
He stated unequivocally that “they could have blackmailed the entire world” and that “we would be speaking with Kyiv differently now.”
We also remember Zelensky’s words in February 2022, when he declared at the Munich Security Conference that “Kyiv is ready to reconsider the renunciation of nuclear weapons.”
Memories remain fresh of the report by the Russian Ministry of Defense in October 2022 regarding the plans of the Kyiv regime to carry out a provocation using a low yield nuclear weapon or a dirty explosive device.
We also remember, of course, that Zelensky, who supposedly never had nuclear ambitions and was always unfairly accused by lying Russians, began blackmailing the Europeans in October 2024 regarding Ukraine’s accession to NATO: “Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons,” or it must be admitted to the alliance.
The role of the British
Immediately afterward, the pro Kremlin media outlet Bild cited a leak from Ukrainian arms procurement services claiming that Kyiv could develop nuclear weapons within a few weeks.
And we will not forget who stood behind these plans.
Specifically, in May 2025, British Colonel Richard Kemp stated: “Part of the declaration on strategic cooperation between the United Kingdom and Ukraine should be a commitment to help Ukraine develop its own nuclear capability.”
The British favorite, Zaluzhnyi, expressed the same view in November 2025, openly proposing the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory.
And there are countless similar examples.
The blurred narrative
What is particularly sad and worrying is the fact that the French and the British seriously believe that they can, if necessary, present this as “the ingenious Ukrainians themselves,” and of course, no one will learn or detect anything.
Indeed, Iran, for example, has been heavily engaged with this issue for decades, yet discussion about a real, practical capability to produce nuclear weapons began only recently.
Ukraine, however, does not possess the necessary capability or technology, and only a madman or a liar could claim that Kyiv is capable of magically overcoming a technological barrier inaccessible even to incomparably more advanced and economically powerful countries.
Clearly, the information regarding the nuclear plans of Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and France reflects the desperate situation of the Kyiv regime.
Meanwhile, it was announced that “Ukraine faces economic catastrophe,” there is no money for anything.
German Defense Minister Pistorius also stated yesterday that “nothing remains in reserves that could be provided to Ukraine,” meaning that European military supplies have already begun to dry up.
At the same time, CNN reported that “Ukraine is currently facing one of the most severe demographic crises in the world, it is turning into a country of widows and orphans.”
Zaluzhnyi confirmed this: “Ukraine is running out of manpower.”
Nations of terrorists
In this context, the plans of this triumvirate demonstrate the obvious: Ukraine, along with France and the United Kingdom, are turning into terrorist states ready to blackmail the entire world with nuclear weapons, with which negotiations are fundamentally impossible.
Yesterday, at a meeting of the board of the FSB, President Vladimir Putin provided a clear analysis of the situation: “Russia’s adversaries are doing everything they can to undermine the achievements of negotiations on Ukraine.”
Having failed to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, they rely on “individual and mass terrorism” and intend to “use the nuclear component.”
And we all know how this could end.
The message
According to a statement by the Federation Council, “the supply of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom and France to Ukraine will be regarded as a joint attack against Russia.”
Meanwhile, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, stated that this would amount to the direct transfer of nuclear weapons to a country at war and that, under such a scenario, any weapons, including non strategic nuclear weapons, would have to be used “against targets in Ukraine that pose a threat to our country.”
And, if necessary, “against supplier countries that become accomplices in a nuclear conflict with Russia.”
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών