COLUMN: Trump Is Letting the Last Nuclear Bulwark Die, and No One Is Speaking Out

Russia’s 2023 Suspension

Let’s be honest: Trump isn’t the only one to blame for this debacle. Vladimir Putin suspended Russia’s participation in the treaty in February 2023, in the midst of the invasion of Ukraine. On-site inspections had already been suspended in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The treaty was already on its last legs, kept alive solely by the political will not to cross the point of no return. Yet Putin had proposed last October to continue adhering to the treaty’s core limits for one year if the United States did the same. Trump had replied that it “seemed like a good idea,” but the White House never formally responded to the Kremlin.

Moscow’s Dangerous Game

Moscow is playing its own part in this symphony of chaos. Russia likely has no intention of immediately embarking on a massive arms race. Experts believe that Moscow will keep its strategic forces deployed close to the former New START limits, at least in the short term. Why? Because it makes fiscal sense under sanctions and in times of war, and because it allows Putin to present himself as the voice of restraint in the face of a belligerent West. But make no mistake: Russia retains the option to increase its warheads at any time. Systems such as the RS-24 Yars and the future Sarmat were designed with latent MIRV capability. The upgrade can be implemented selectively, gradually, and in a reversible manner.

Putin plays chess while Trump plays bluff poker. One calculates, anticipates, and positions his pieces with the patience of a predator. The other bluffs, improvises, and charges headlong in, hoping that his legendary luck will save him once again. And we, poor pawns on this nuclear chessboard, watch the game unfold while praying that these two don’t knock the board over.

China’s Rapidly Expanding Arsenal

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Or rather, the dragon. China is building up its nuclear arsenal at a pace that deeply concerns Washington. The Pentagon estimates that Beijing could reach 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. Satellite images have revealed the construction of hundreds of new missile silos in the desert. China is filling its silos, asserting its strategic continuity, and stubbornly refusing any discussion of arms control. For Beijing, accepting limits while its arsenal is still far smaller than that of the United States and Russia would amount to accepting second-rate nuclear power status. Unacceptable to Xi Jinping.

The Trap of the Trilateral Race

This is where the trap snaps shut. Trump wants a trilateral agreement. China refuses. Russia does not want to be bound by a bilateral agreement with the United States while China has a free hand. The result: no one signs anything, and everyone can now expand their arsenals without restraint. A consensus has emerged within Washington’s military-industrial complex: China is already in the race. China and Russia are in cahoots. America faces a two-front problem. America needs more nuclear weapons. This logic—which rejects diplomacy in favor of unilateral militarism—will become the main driving force behind the 21st-century arms race.

Here we are. The moment when reason gives way to paranoia. When diplomacy is seen as a weakness. When the only response to fear is to accumulate ever more weapons, ever more missiles, ever more destructive capacity. As if we could feel safe by pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at our neighbors. As if history hadn’t already shown us where this madness leads.

The End of Nuclear Transparency

In practical terms, what does the expiration of New START change? A great deal. First, transparency disappears. No more biannual data exchanges on the number of deployed warheads. No more notifications on missile movements. No more on-site inspections to verify that each side is honoring its commitments. The United States and Russia will now have to rely on their “national technical means”—read: satellite espionage—to monitor each other. But these means have their limits. You can’t see inside submarines. You can’t accurately count the warheads stored in underground bunkers. Uncertainty will grow. And with uncertainty comes mistrust. And with mistrust comes the temptation to prepare for the worst.

Pressure to Expand Arsenals

Next, pressure will mount to expand arsenals. The United States has several short-term options: “loading” additional warheads onto existing land- and sea-based missiles, reactivating additional launch tubes on Ohio-class submarines, and designating additional long-range bombers for nuclear delivery. Russia has similar options. The “loading” process is considered faster in Russia, which could prompt Moscow to act first. But make no mistake: America will follow. The relative silence of lawmakers in Washington regarding the demise of New START speaks volumes. A bipartisan consensus has emerged: America needs more nuclear weapons.

And that’s how we’re sliding toward the abyss. Not with a great apocalyptic crash, but with a bureaucratic whisper. Meetings at the Pentagon. Classified reports. Budgets that are quietly swelling. Missiles being loaded. Silos being reactivated. All of this amid general indifference, while we scroll through our news feeds looking for the next distraction.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Is in Jeopardy

But the consequences extend far beyond Washington and Moscow. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of the global nuclear order, is already under pressure. Article VI of this treaty commits nuclear powers to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament in good faith. For decades, the United States and Russia could point to their arms reduction agreements as proof of their commitment. Now? Nothing. Non-nuclear states, particularly in the Global South, will view the expiration of New START as confirmation that the major powers have abandoned their disarmament commitments. Why should they continue to refrain from developing nuclear weapons if the major powers never keep their promises?

The Message Sent to the World

The message being sent is catastrophic. At a time when civilian nuclear energy is on the verge of a global resurgence driven by climate goals and the boom in data centers for artificial intelligence, the collapse of nuclear arms control sends a powerful signal about the value of the bomb. Countries that had renounced nuclear weapons might reconsider their position. Civilian programs could drift toward military applications. The Pandora’s box of proliferation could swing wide open—and once opened, no one will be able to close it again.

That’s what makes me sick. This monumental hypocrisy. For years, we’ve lectured the whole world. We’ve imposed sanctions, issued threats, and even bombed countries to prevent nuclear proliferation. And now, we—the self-proclaimed guardians of the nuclear order—are letting it all spiral out of control. We’re abandoning our own commitments. We’re paving the way for a new era of proliferation. And then we’ll be surprised when other countries want their own bomb.

Experts Sound the Alarm

Fortunately, a few clear-headed voices are still trying to make themselves heard in this sea of complacency. John Holdren, of Harvard’s Belfer Center, points out that shared resources—the ocean, the atmosphere, peaceful international relations—depend on “mutually agreed-upon restraint.” The collapse of New START, likely followed by the collapse of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, could usher in an era of a multipolar, unbridled nuclear arms race that would end in total disaster. Matthew Bunn, also of the Belfer Center, points out that for the first time in half a century, we are living in a world without agreed-upon limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces.

The Ignored Call for Reason

These experts are calling on Trump to accept Putin’s offer, to announce an agreement to keep U.S. and Russian nuclear forces in check for the time being, and to launch talks with Russia and China to explore whether the “best deal” Trump envisions can actually be achieved. But who listens to the experts in 2026? Who still cares about rational analysis when you can have catchy slogans and impossible promises? Trump prefers his instincts to expertise. Putin prefers the balance of power to negotiation. And Xi prefers silence to engagement. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

I want to scream. To shake people awake. To tell them: Wake up, for heaven’s sake! Experts who have spent their lives studying these issues are telling us we’re heading straight for a wall, and no one is listening. We prefer Trump’s tweets, Putin’s bellicose statements, Xi’s enigmatic silence. We prefer spectacle over substance. Noise over reflection. And while we’re having fun, the world is becoming a little more dangerous every day.

The 21st-Century Arms Race

So, what happens next? The most likely scenario is not a dramatic and immediate arms race, but a steady pattern of selective adaptation. Russia will cover its bases, test the waters, and shift the competition to less transparent domains, increasing ambiguity and complicating efforts to control escalation—even in the absence of major numerical changes. The United States will likely begin stockpiling additional warheads, reactivating systems, and ramping up production. China will continue its rise in power, quietly but surely. And in a few years, we’ll wake up to a world where the three major nuclear powers will have arsenals far larger than they are today, with no mechanism to verify what the others are doing.

Growing Strategic Instability

Strategic instability will grow. Without transparency, each side will assume the worst intentions of the other. Nuclear doctrines will evolve. Thresholds for use could drop. Early-warning systems, already under strain, will be pushed to their limits. The risk of an accidental nuclear war, triggered by a false alarm or a misunderstanding, will increase. And all this for what? To satisfy the egos of a few leaders who refuse to acknowledge that in the nuclear realm, there are no winners—only survivors or the dead.

It’s mind-boggling. Terrifying. We’re talking about weapons that can wipe entire cities off the map in a matter of seconds. Weapons that can trigger a nuclear winter and condemn humanity to extinction. And we treat them like pawns on a geopolitical chessboard. Like symbols of power. Like bargaining chips. We’ve lost our minds. Completely lost our minds.

Europe and Asia in Turmoil

And let’s not forget the allies. Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia—all these countries that rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella will be drawn into this arms race. They will have to increase their defense budgets, strengthen their own capabilities, and perhaps even reconsider their non-nuclear status. Germany, Japan, and South Korea all have the technical capabilities to develop nuclear weapons within a few months if they chose to do so. So far, they have chosen not to, relying on U.S. security guarantees. But if those guarantees become less credible in a world of multipolar arms races, what will they do?

The Middle East on the Brink

And what about the Middle East? If Iran decides to cross the nuclear threshold—and the expiration of New START could well convince it that the time has come—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey might follow suit. A cascade of proliferation that would transform the world’s most unstable region into a nuclear powder keg. Trump boasts of having prevented nuclear wars between Pakistan and India, between Iran and Israel, and between Russia and Ukraine. But by letting New START die, he may well have sown the seeds of future nuclear conflicts that are far more devastating.

The allies. We always forget about them. We think this is a problem between major powers, that it concerns only Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. But no. The whole world will pay the price for this madness. Countries that had renounced the bomb will want it. Stable regions will become unstable. Alliances will crack. And all because three men—Trump, Putin, Xi—decided that their pride was worth more than the security of humanity.

There’s still time—but barely

So here we are. February 6, 2026, the day after New START expired. The world hasn’t blown up. Missiles aren’t flying. Everything seems normal. But beneath the surface, something fundamental has changed. The safeguards have been breached. The limits have vanished. The race is on. And no one knows where it will lead us. There’s still time to turn back. Trump could accept Putin’s offer. The three major powers could sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith. A new agreement could be reached—imperfect, perhaps, but better than nothing. Better than the current vacuum. Better than the arms race that looms ahead.

The Choice That Will Define Us

But for that to happen, our leaders would have to show wisdom. Vision. Courage. They would have to prioritize the security of humanity over their short-term political calculations. They would have to recognize that in the nuclear realm, there is no such thing as victory—only survival or annihilation. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so. So here we are, powerless spectators of a tragedy unfolding in slow motion. A tragedy whose ending we already know if no one changes course. History will judge us. Our children will ask us: How could you have let this happen? And we will have no answer. Just silence. That same deafening silence that accompanied the expiration of New START.

I don’t want to end on a note of despair. I don’t want to believe we’re doomed. But damn, it’s hard to stay hopeful when you see what’s happening. When you see the indifference. The complacency. The arrogance. We have the tools to avert disaster. We have the intelligence, the technology, the institutions. What we lack is the will. The will of our leaders to do what is right rather than what is politically convenient. The will of all of us to wake up and demand better. Because if we don’t, if we let this madness continue, then perhaps we deserve what’s coming. And that is the most terrifying thought of all.

Signed, Jacques Provost