The New York Times highlighted the expiration of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, considering it not just a passing legal or technical event. The newspaper stated that this poses a threat to humanity, adding that the failure to renew the treaty is a pivotal moment that closes a page on more than half a century of efforts to curb the most destructive tools in human history. The newspaper argued that with the end of New START, the world suddenly finds itself facing a new nuclear reality, without ceilings or restraints in an era when the pace of the arms race is accelerating and trust between major powers and their allies is eroding. It confirmed that the international system has entered an unprecedented stage since the early 1970s with the expiration of the treaty, which was the last major agreement to impose legal restrictions on the size and type of the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. The newspaper stated that with the expiration of the treaty, there are no longer any controls regulating the number of nuclear warheads at a time when a global race to develop more advanced and capable nuclear weapons is accelerating. While the end of New START was expected, the war in Ukraine and the sharp deterioration in relations between Washington and Moscow prevented serious negotiations from beginning to reach a replacement agreement. The treaty ended without an alternative, amid direct accusations between the two countries. Moscow says it requested an extension of the treaty but received no response from Washington, confirming, according to the Kremlin, its openness to negotiation and at the same time its readiness to confront any new nuclear arms race. Last January, U.S. President Donald Trump rejected a Russian offer for an informal one-year extension, hinting at the need to draft a 'better' new agreement based on broader negotiations that include other nuclear powers, led by China.
