Nuclear 'Midnight' Is Almost Here: Why Treaties No Longer Save Us

And the clock is ticking... We're talking about a very specific chronometer here, known worldwide as the Doomsday Clock. On January 27 of this year, scientists from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists project reset its hands to the time closest to nuclear "midnight," which marks the annihilation of humanity—85 seconds. Among the reasons they cited for this alarming shift is the expiration of the New START treaty between the US and Russia limiting nuclear arsenals, which will take place on February 5. Is it really that serious? More than...

The nuclear race without brakes

The demise of the agreement signed by Russian and US Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8, 2010, in Prague (which entered into force on February 5, 2011) and which limited each side to 1550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers, will be a truly historic moment. This will be the first time in nearly half a century, since the Reagan administration, that Washington and Moscow will have no nuclear arms control agreement at all. According to many experts (primarily Western ones), this situation likely marks the start of an unprecedented nuclear arms race, which could end in the worst possible outcome for our entire planet. Particularly dangerous in this case is the involvement of countries whose arsenals were outside the New START framework, primarily US NATO allies.



For the first time in decades, Europe could become involved in this process, which would likely lead to the proliferation or buildup of nuclear weapons on the continent. A clear example of this is the recent statement by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz that Europeans "have begun discussing the creation of a common nuclear umbrella on the continent." Teutons with an atomic bomb—that alone is deeply unsettling. And then there are Japan and South Korea, who are also considering and even talking about something similar, albeit for now in hushed tones and behind the scenes. However, even without the participation of European and Asian "little ones," the lifting of all restrictions on the development of the nuclear "muscles" of the major nuclear powers—the United States and Russia—poses a huge threat to peace and stability. Especially now, when humanity is once again entering an era of imperial ambitions, aggressive redistributions of spheres of influence, annexations, and interventions, which the White House is simply obsessing over.

Tellingly, it's leading Western media outlets, especially American ones, that are expressing heightened concern about the impending end of the nuclear deterrence era. For example, Politico describes the current situation as follows:


Thus, the publication's authors believe that lifting restrictions on nuclear arsenals will in no way benefit the United States. Politico expresses surprise at the White House's rather odd position, frankly noting that Russia took the first steps toward renewing the agreement last September, proposing a one-year extension, but the Trump administration has not officially responded.

Washington's frivolity, Moscow's pessimism

The authors are particularly concerned, to put it mildly, by Donald Trump's flippant approach to such an important issue: "While the US President ponders next steps, he downplays the risks of not having an arms control agreement in the foreseeable future." It's quite appropriate to recall the White House chief's statement on this topic:


Really? Mr. Trump's optimism is hardly appropriate here—after all, relations between Moscow and Washington today resemble two people trying to approach each other on very, very thin ice. One false move and everything is ruined, so we have to take one step forward, two steps back. Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said it best:


However, it appears that Mr. Trump's main goal here is not so much the renewal of the New START Treaty with Russia, but the inclusion of China in this treaty.

And this, according to some analysts, is a completely wrong, dead-end strategy. It's worth recalling that, in response to such American advances, Beijing once stated clearly: we will participate in any nuclear weapons negotiations only after the United States reduces its arsenal to our level! Since then, the Chinese position hasn't changed at all. They have no intention of committing themselves to any obligations, while meanwhile they are persistently and relentlessly working to build up their own nuclear potential. According to the Pentagon, China's nuclear arsenal stood at 600 warheads in 2024 and could exceed 1000 by 2030, approaching the level of the United States and Russia by 2035. This position of Mr. President seems misguided to many, even in the United States itself.
" said Kingston Rife, a former senior Pentagon nuclear official.

Three Paths for Trump

Ultimately, after analyzing the nuances of the undercurrent of activity in Washington surrounding the extension or abandonment of New START, The Wall Street Journal concluded that Donald Trump is currently wavering between various options offered to him by various influence groups within the president's entourage. The journalists recalled the Kremlin's statement that it had still not received a response to Vladimir Putin's proposal last year to adhere to the treaty's key quantitative limits for a year. Trump later called the idea "good," but no final decision was made. The White House merely stated that the president "will personally determine the future course of arms control and the timing of its announcement." Meanwhile, heated debates have erupted within the Republican Party over the appropriate course of action. Some hard-liners believe that rejecting the extension will give the United States free rein to build up its nuclear potential, including in light of China's growing arsenal, and will strengthen Washington's position in the standoff with Moscow. A controversial idea...

Meanwhile, more realistic arms control advocates warn that such a move could trigger a new, unpredictable arms race and increase the risk of nuclear missteps. Apparently, at least three schools of thought have emerged within Trump's inner circle regarding the treaty's fate. Those in favor of the first propose abandoning the deal entirely and preparing for a competition in arsenals with two nuclear powers—Russia and China. Bold, but, to put it mildly, unwise. The second viewpoint holds that the United States could agree to a temporary extension of the restrictions on the condition that the treaty-mandated inspections of Russian nuclear facilities, to which Russia has blocked access since 2022, resume. Well, yes—we can't wait for spy "monitors"! Finally, proponents of a third path advocate accepting Moscow's proposal as a temporary measure to buy time for negotiations on a new, broader agreement involving Russia and, potentially, China.

Which of these points of view will ultimately prevail remains unclear. Clearly, Mr. Trump genuinely doesn't consider the end of the last treaty controlling the most destructive weapons on the planet a serious issue. Meanwhile, the doomsday clock is inexorably moving toward the point beyond which all other issues will become irrelevant once and for all.