By Matt Underwood “If it expires, it expires,” Trump said of the 2010 New START accord in a recent interview, which has stirred up a lot of reaction. It’s a blunt statement, to be sure, and one that immediately raises eyebrows when dealing with something as crucial as a nuclear arms treaty. The sentiment seems to be a shrug – a letting go of a critical agreement that has, at least on paper, helped keep a lid on the number of nuclear warheads possessed by the United States and Russia. The immediate implication is that the existing agreement, which aimed to limit strategic offensive arms, is of little value and can simply be allowed to lapse.
This casual approach to something with global implications has understandably triggered a range of responses. Many people, and understandably so, are filled with trepidation, seeing it as reckless. The very idea of allowing a treaty designed to reduce the risk of nuclear war to expire, especially in the current geopolitical climate, is deeply unsettling. The potential consequences of a world without this treaty are, to put it mildly, concerning. It opens the door to increased arms races, potential misunderstandings, and a heightened risk of conflict. It’s a move that could destabilize an already tense international environment.
The context of Trump’s comments is also important. He also stated, “We’ll just do a better agreement.” This suggests a belief in the possibility of a superior deal, one that would somehow be more beneficial to the United States. However, the track record of this kind of promise is, at best, mixed. When looking at past decisions, such as the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 and the INF Treaty in 2019, the promise of “better” outcomes has not always materialized. The complexities of negotiating such agreements, especially in the current climate, are enormous. The idea of quickly forging a “better” deal appears unrealistic.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that Russia’s compliance with the treaty has been under scrutiny. There’s a question of whether the treaty is even worth the paper it’s written on, especially if Russia isn’t adhering to its terms. It’s valid to question whether the agreement is effectively functioning as intended. In a situation where one party may not be playing by the rules, the value of the agreement itself is diminished. The situation becomes even more complicated with China’s nuclear arsenal now a factor, bringing in a new dimension to negotiations that will be arduous at best.
The potential for a negotiation gap is a critical consideration. If the treaty expires, and no new agreement is in place, we enter a period where the existing framework is gone and the rules of engagement are unclear. The period when neither side is bound by deployment limits and verification measures are suspended. Historically, such periods haven’t exactly inspired confidence and have often led to accelerated proliferation. It’s a dangerous game to play with such a high-stakes scenario.
It’s also worth acknowledging the broader context of Trump’s worldview. His approach to international relations has often been characterized by a transactional, rather than a multilateral, approach. This mindset prioritizes perceived national interests above all else and a skepticism toward international agreements. This approach does not necessarily lend itself to the complex negotiations required to reach a new nuclear arms treaty.
Finally, the question of intent is raised. The idea that someone, for whatever reason, might be willing to risk the consequences of the end of the treaty is worrisome. The possibility that the former president does not see the implications of such actions is frightening. The situation is complicated by the fact that the international community is unsure of the stability and the intentions of the people involved. It’s all rather disturbing, in the grand scheme of things.