The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Charade
THE CLAIM: Eroding Arms Control The official narrative suggests that Russia’s criticism stems from US unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue, thus threatening the future of strategic arms limitation. The implication is that the US is primarily responsible for the treaty’s demise, potentially sparking a new arms race. This framing also positions the New START treaty as the 'last' existing
framework, emphasizing a critical loss of stability. THE EVIDENCE: A Pattern of Withdrawal and Rejection The public record demonstrates a more complex history of US disengagement from multilateral arms control frameworks, often predating current geopolitical tensions. In 2002, the George W. Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972, a
cornerstone of strategic stability for decades, citing the need to develop missile defense systems. This move was heavily criticized by Russia as destabilizing. Similarly, in 2019, the Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, alleging Russian non-compliance, despite calls from allies to maintain the pact (Council on Foreign Relations, 2019). These
withdrawals are not isolated incidents but represent a consistent strategic policy choice to dismantle existing limitations when perceived as constraining US technological or tactical superiority. The current impasse over New START is merely the latest iteration of this pattern, not an unprecedented event. THE CONTRADICTIONS: Selective Adherence to Non-Proliferation The US critiques Russia for a