The era of nuclear anarchy a world without control over the arsenals of the US and Russia

February 5, 2026: the day the last fuse of nuclear catastrophe disappeared On February 5, 2026, the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (STO-3) officially expired. Which could mark the transition from the era of «strategic stability» to a state of «nuclear anarchy».

At present, this is nothing more than the collapse of the nuclear control architecture. After all, for the first time since 1972, there is no legally binding document between the two largest nuclear powers that would limit their arsenals. This means the disappearance of the ceiling on the number of deployed warheads (which previously amounted to 1,550 units) and carriers (700 units). Together with this treaty, the mechanisms of mutual inspections and data exchange finally cease to operate. In conditions of the «fog of war» and high political tension, this increases the risk of misinterpretation of the opponent’s actions, which could lead to unintentional escalation.

One of the reasons for the current finale is Washington’s desire to involve China, whose nuclear arsenal is rapidly growing, in the negotiations. Russia, in turn, demanded that the potential of Great Britain and France be taken into account. A situation has arisen in which the bilateral control format has become insufficient in the modern multipolar reality. It is obvious that there are great risks of a new arms race. After all, in the absence of restrictions, the parties may begin to increase the number of warheads on existing missiles. Although economic restrictions on Moscow may somewhat restrain this process, political pressure within both countries will require «symmetrical responses».

This does not necessarily mean the immediate start of mass production of missiles, but it is a signal of the final dismantling of the security system that has prevented global catastrophe for more than half a century. It has become obvious that the world has entered an era of «nuclear uncertainty». The lack of a new agreement means that for the first time since the early 1970s, the world’s two largest nuclear powers have no mutual obligations to limit the number of deployed warheads and their means of delivery.

This effectively paves the way for a new global arms race. And although the treaty was extended in 2021, Russia announced in February 2023 that it would «suspend» its participation, citing the United States’ support for Ukraine. The consequence of the lack of agreements between Washington and Moscow is that with the termination of the treaty, verification and inspection mechanisms disappear, which makes the military programs of both countries completely opaque.

And taking into account that the Russian Federation and the United States together possess about 90 percent of all nuclear weapons in the world, the question naturally arises – what could happen next when there are no nuclear deterrent safeguards. Since both states are already in a state of intensive modernization of their nuclear triads.

While it is not wise to jump to conclusions, the Russian Federation is currently developing and testing systems that Putin calls «invincible», including the Oreshnik hypersonic missile (range up to 5,000 km) and the Poseidon underwater drone, the successful test of which was announced by Moscow in October 2025. Despite the Russian dictator’s constant bluffing, Russia, with the help of China, is still capable of developing deadly weapons. And this should not be discounted.

In turn, the United States has begun implementing a large-scale modernization program that includes the construction of new submarines, bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missiles. The expected cost of modernizing and operating the US nuclear forces in the period 2025–2034 is estimated at $1 trillion. If America is ready to allocate such a huge amount for its security, will Moscow be able to compete with the United States by entering a nuclear race?

One of the key reasons for the lack of a new agreement is the US desire to involve China in the negotiations. Beijing has consistently refused to participate, increasing its arsenal faster than other nuclear powers. US President Donald Trump has previously indicated that any future treaty must take into account China’s potential. However, Western experts warn that if the US begins to sharply increase the number of warheads in response to threats from Russia and China simultaneously, this will only encourage Beijing to become even more active in armaments.

The decisive factor in the arms race in 2026 is that for the first time in more than 50 years, the deployment of nuclear warheads is not limited by any limits. And the situation is significantly different from the Cold War due to the emergence of artificial intelligence and hypersonic technologies, which critically reduce the time for making decisions about a retaliatory strike.

In addition, in 2024, the Russian Federation revised its nuclear doctrine, formally lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. And the traditional bipolar model (USA – RF) finally gave way to a complex tripolar competition with the participation of China.

Not to mention the risk factor of rash decision-making by the Kremlin Fuhrer, who will now clearly scare the Western world even more with his nuclear weapons.

In 2026, the world entered the «third nuclear era», which is characterized by fragmentation, less predictability and the dominance of the transactional approach («the right of the strong») over the rules of international law.

Thus, we can say that a turning point in modern geopolitics is coming. After all, we are witnessing the dismantling of the security architecture that was previously built over decades. The third nuclear era is not just a return to the fear of the Cold War, it is a fundamental change in the paradigm of nuclear deterrence itself.

And if the First Era was a duel (USA vs. USSR), and the Second Era was a period of non-proliferation and regional crises, then the Third Era is characterized by multipolar deterrence. In this case, a tripolar dynamic arises. When for the first time in history, the United States is forced to simultaneously deter two equal nuclear rivals – Russia and China. This creates a «three-body problem», where the calculations of one side automatically destabilize the strategic balance of the other two.

There is also a danger of regional players joining this process. The threshold for joining the «nuclear club» is lowered. Iran’s ambitions and the corresponding reaction of Saudi Arabia or South Korea create a network of local nuclear confrontations that do not obey global rules.

In light of this, the problem of nuclear blackmail as a tool arises. Because nuclear weapons have ceased to be only a tool for deterring aggression. They have become a «shield» for conducting conventional wars of aggression. Which, unfortunately, Russia was able to successfully implement during the war in Ukraine.

Even more serious is the collapse of guarantees. And after that, the Budapest Memorandum and other similar acts of «guaranteed guarantees» are finally perceived as «pieces of paper». This pushes many states to the conclusion: «only one’s own bomb guarantees sovereignty».

It is quite obvious that unions and alliances are becoming not value-based, but pragmatic. Support or non-support of the «nuclear umbrella» is turning into a bargaining chip, and not an iron norm of collective security. And Ukraine needs to decide now what to do under the current circumstances. After all, without the «nuclear umbrella» of NATO and the United States, we find ourselves even more defenseless against an aggressive Russia.

Will Russia again lose the nuclear arms race with America? Now it will depend on many factors, the main of which is China. Without Beijing’s support, Moscow will lose 100% to America. But when China joins the arms race, this issue will not be so clear-cut.

As we can see, the Russian Federation is already spending a huge share of its GDP on the war against Ukraine. Participation in a full-scale arms race with the United States, whose economy is many times larger, threatens to repeat the scenario of the USSR in the 1980s – economic collapse due to the inability to maintain technological competition on an equal footing.

In any case, for the Kremlin, nuclear weapons have become the main instrument of diplomacy. However, if the United States decides to lift quantitative restrictions, they will be able to increase the number of deployed warheads more quickly due to the greater number of launch capacities on their carriers (Trident II missiles on submarines).

In purely technical terms, Russia is ready for the race «here and now». However, in a strategic perspective, it is in a much weaker position. If America attracts all its industrial and financial potential, Russia again risks losing due to its economic inability to maintain parity with the United States.

We can conclude: the world has found itself in a situation where the only limiter of nuclear war is the «responsibility and prudence» of leaders, not international law. Russia is using the end of the SNO-3 as an instrument of nuclear blackmail, while the United States is forced to balance between the strategic deterrence of the Russian Federation and the growing influence of China.

A new arms race is no longer simply possible – it actually began in the technological plane, and is now moving into the stage of quantitative accumulation of arsenals without any external restrictions. Where such institutional safeguards as international law have given way to force parity.

It must be admitted that we have moved from a period of transparency and stability to an era of strategic uncertainty, where the accumulation of arsenals is dictated not by parity, but by the ability of the economy to maintain a technological gap in real time. Now the main thing for us is how Ukraine can find its place in this new world?