The Nuclear Pact Charade
The context consistently omitted: The collapse of strategic arms control agreements between major powers is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of geopolitical competition, often masked by claims of seeking broader inclusion. FIRST INSTANCE: The ABM Treaty Withdrawal (2002) In 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, signed in 1972. This treaty
was a cornerstone of strategic stability, limiting defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles to prevent a destabilizing arms race. The George W. Bush administration argued it needed to develop missile defense systems to counter threats from 'rogue states,' despite Russia's protests that it would undermine strategic parity. This withdrawal effectively signaled a new era where
multilateral arms control was secondary to perceived unilateral security interests. REPETITIONS: The INF Treaty Collapse (2019) Building on the precedent set by the ABM treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed in 1987, was abrogated in 2019. Both the US and Russia accused each other of non-compliance for years, with the US citing Russia's development of the 9M729 missile
system and Russia alleging US violations with missile defense launchers in Europe. However, the Trump administration also explicitly linked withdrawal to the desire to include China in a new arms control framework. China, possessing an estimated 400 nuclear warheads (SIPRI, 2024), compared to the thousands held by the US and Russia, consistently refused to join, asserting that its arsenal was