America just entered its first day in more than 50 years with Russia operating under zero binding limits on strategic nuclear weapons—because New START is now officially dead.
Story Snapshot
- New START expired on February 5, 2026, ending the last U.S.-Russia treaty that capped deployed strategic nuclear forces.
- The treaty’s inspection and data-exchange tools are gone, raising uncertainty about what each side is fielding and where.
- The State Department publicly rejected reports of any informal “gentlemen’s agreement” to keep following the treaty’s limits.
- President Trump has signaled interest in a broader, modern deal that includes China, while Russia has pushed to include the U.K. and France.
New START’s Expiration Removes the Last Legal Cap
New START, signed in 2010 and extended in 2021, formally expired on February 5, 2026. The agreement limited each side to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 deployed delivery systems, with an overall cap of 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. With its end, Washington and Moscow now lack any binding, bilateral legal ceiling on strategic nuclear forces—a major break from decades of managed competition.
Russia’s suspension of participation in February 2023 already weakened the treaty’s day-to-day value by halting inspections and data exchanges, which were central to verification. That suspension did not immediately erase the treaty text, but it did erode transparency long before the final expiration date. The practical reality for Americans is straightforward: when verification disappears, mistrust grows, and worst-case planning becomes the default on both sides.
Watch;
https://youtu.be/0jmsN-XKWL8?si=WwNUBTC_EXcb9-RD
State Department Denies Any “Gentlemen’s Agreement”
Confusion around what comes next intensified after the treaty lapsed. On February 17, 2026, State Department official Christopher Yeaw rejected suggestions that the United States and Russia had quietly agreed to keep honoring New START limits. That statement matters because it clarifies the current baseline: no formal treaty, no confirmed informal extension, and no verified limits. Policymakers now have to operate from first principles rather than inherited guardrails.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry signaled its own posture just before expiration. On February 4, 2026, it said that without a formal U.S. response it would view New START obligations as no longer binding and would decide next steps based on the “evolving strategic environment,” while keeping the door open to future engagement. That language preserves diplomatic flexibility, but it also underscores that Moscow intends to act based on perceived advantage, not sentiment.
Trump Sees an Opening for a Bigger Deal—But the Geometry Is Hard
President Trump’s team has framed New START’s end as a chance to negotiate something that matches today’s power realities, especially China’s growing role. The research indicates Pentagon officials have been meeting to define what a successor framework should include, with China as a central requirement. Russia, however, has pressed for any future arrangement to include the United Kingdom and France, complicating talks by adding allied nuclear forces to the equation.
That negotiating map highlights a core tradeoff for U.S. interests. A broader deal could, in theory, prevent loopholes that allow an unchecked buildup by third parties. But adding more countries also makes verification, enforcement, and timelines harder—especially when U.S.-Russia relations remain strained after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
The End of New START Can Be a New Beginning https://t.co/OXCuyC8BS9
— RealClearDefense (@RCDefense) February 18, 2026
What the U.S. and Allies Lose Without Inspections and Data
The most immediate impact is not an announced rush to build; it’s the loss of agreed transparency. New START’s on-site inspections and regular data exchanges gave both sides a clearer picture of deployed strategic systems. Without that, analysts and commanders must rely more on national technical means and inference, which can widen error bars. In nuclear strategy, bigger uncertainty can increase pressure to hedge—and hedging can look like escalation.
International reactions have been blunt. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called the expiration a “grave moment for international peace and security,” emphasizing the absence of binding limits on the two largest strategic arsenals. Outside government, experts and institutions have warned that this could weaken long-standing norms of restraint.
Sources:
The US and Russia let START nuclear arms treaty expire — experts say it’s a ‘dangerous move’
U.S. State Department Denies ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ With Russia After New START Expiration
4 things to know about the end of the U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty
As New START expires, experts warn of a more dangerous nuclear future
Nukes Without Limits: A New Era After the End of New START
Running to Stand Still: Russian Nuclear Modernization After New START
