The decision to not extend the existing nuclear arms treaty with Russia is certainly a significant development, and it brings to mind the complex history and reasons behind these agreements in the first place.
Initially, these pacts were largely driven by cost. Both the United States and Russia found themselves locked in a tremendously expensive arms race. The desire to dial back this spending was strong, but neither nation wanted to risk falling behind if the other decided to continue its build-up unilaterally. So, the treaties emerged as a way for both sides to ease off the gas pedal while maintaining a level of transparency and mutual monitoring, ensuring neither side gained a significant advantage.… Continue reading
Following the collapse of the INF Treaty, Russia declared it would no longer adhere to its “self-restrictions” on deploying medium- and short-range missiles. The Russian Foreign Ministry cited a lack of reciprocity and listed alleged violations as justification for this decision. These self-imposed limitations were initially adopted after the U.S. and Russia withdrew from the INF Treaty in August 2019, with each side accusing the other of treaty violations. Consequently, Russia now views the conditions for maintaining its moratorium on these weapons as obsolete.
Read More
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced Russia will end its self-imposed moratorium on deploying intermediate- and short-range nuclear missiles, citing the US’s global deployment of similar weapons. This decision follows a recent Russian missile test and is presented as a retaliatory measure to US and UK arms supplies to Ukraine. The US plans to deploy long-range missiles in Germany in 2026, a move defended by Germany but criticized by Russia as a significant threat. This escalation reverses decades of arms control agreements, raising concerns about a new arms race and global instability.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker