Former President Trump has expressed a desire to involve Russia and China in discussions regarding nuclear weapons control. He described denuclearization as a significant objective, suggesting that “Russia is willing to do that. I think China is also trying to do that.” However, just two days later, a response from China indicated a rejection of Trump’s invitation for negotiations.
On Monday, President Putin proposed an extension of the New Start Treaty for a year, contingent on the US agreeing to the same. This treaty is the only current agreement regulating nuclear arms, set to expire on February 5, 2026.
Before diving deeper into this, it’s crucial to step back from using the term denuclearization. Instead, we should be focusing on resuming talks to better manage—and ideally reduce—the nuclear arsenals held by the US, Russia, and eventually China.
From my past experience in negotiations over various arms agreements, I’ve seen that limiting and controlling nuclear weapons is an achievable goal. Complete elimination? That’s more challenging, to say the least.
Yet, it’s important to recognize that as the conflict in Ukraine unfolds, Russia faces a weakened position that complicates the notion of relinquishing nuclear arms entirely.
Today’s Russia is not the Soviet Union. Many still think of it in those terms, but it’s quite a different situation now. The population has shrunk considerably—from about 286.7 million in 1989 to roughly 144 million today—and this decline is expected to continue, posing significant economic challenges down the road.
Moreover, the casualties in Ukraine have been staggering; over a million have died or been injured, significantly affecting the workforce and population growth in key demographics.
The impacts of war are detrimental, with many young and educated Russians choosing to leave the country to escape military service or seek better opportunities elsewhere.
Economically, Russia is struggling to sustain its military ambitions. Budgetary policies aimed at bolstering the civilian sector, along with sanctions from the US and EU, are starting to take a toll on Russia’s military manufacturing capabilities.
In essence, Putin’s choices have set Russia on a path towards long-term decline.
The ongoing aggression has inadvertently revitalized NATO, urging European nations to enhance their defensive readiness—something we haven’t seen since the 1960s. Faced with Ukraine’s resilience, the Russian military is far from capable, especially with NATO’s growing strength.
This creates a scenario where, for the foreseeable future, Russia may feel compelled to rely on its nuclear arsenal as a safeguard against potential military defeat and to maintain its status as a significant global player.
So, can negotiations realistically happen now? The diplomatic landscape shaped by the Russian invasion of Ukraine seems unfriendly to such complex discussions. The expectation is that Russia would demand concessions regarding US support for Ukraine in exchange for negotiations.
Currently, the New Start Treaty remains a valuable framework for US-Russia nuclear discussions. Without it, there would be no limitations on Russian strategic systems or checks on what they are deploying.
The Joint Secretary and Intelligence Reporting Agency may back the idea of extending this treaty, recognizing the potential threats arising from the absence of restrictions.
A potentially bold move for the Trump administration could be to agree to extend the New Start Treaty again but aim for a reduction in the number of deployed warheads from the current limit of 1,550 to 1,000.
During the original negotiations, military leadership indicated that 1,000 warheads would be sufficient for effective deterrence, and much of the treaty’s framework could remain intact.
Currently, the US and Russia can each have up to 1,550 nuclear warheads, while China has rapidly built up its arsenal—escalating from around 300 nuclear weapons in 2020 to nearly 600 in 2025. Estimates suggest it could surpass 1,000 by 2030.
This disparity in nuclear capabilities makes it difficult for China to see the benefits of engaging in negotiations. However, if the US and Russia significantly reduce their arsenals, there may be a chance to bring China into trilateral talks.
Ultimately, it is in the US’s national interest to extend the New Start Treaty again, along with reducing the overall number of strategic systems. The Trump administration should recognize this chance and act accordingly.
Dr. John Fairham is a retired US military colonel with extensive experience in military and civil service, including developing and negotiating arms management agreements.
