The last US-Russia nuclear pact expires, prompting fears of a new arms race

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 5:41 AM EST, February 5, 2026


MOSCOW (AP) — The last remaining nuclear arms pact between Russia and the United States expires Thursday, removing any caps on the two largest atomic arsenals for the first time in more than a half-century.

The termination of the New START Treaty could set the stage for what many fear could be an unconstrained nuclear arms race.

Russian President Vladimir Putin last year declared readiness to stick to the treaty’s limits for another year if Washington follows suit, but U.S. President Donald Trump has been noncommittal about extending it. He has indicated that he wants China to be a part of it — a push Beijing has rebuffed.

Putin discussed the pact’s expiration with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Wednesday, Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov said, noting Washington hasn’t responded to his proposed extension. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday that Moscow views the expiration of the treaty “negatively” and regrets its.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-us-putin-trump-nuclear-weapons-treaty-0e82c7fb5e5feca89a9c3f45d6f4feae

[William Seger]

1. It's terrifying that such decisions are in the hands of an idiot with delusions of grandeur (nt)

[ancianita]

2. Miss me with the "fears of an arms race" with a country that can't even beat Ukraine.

The fact that Russia has the largest arsenal but has never once deployed any of it tells you all you need to know
-- that Putin is unwilling to risk any attempt knowing that the US, France and UK will bomb Russia to rubble within the 30 mins his nukes would take to get here and be taken out. Because the US Military already has tested intercept capabilities in the air and on water (some classified).

[RoseTrellis]

3. Agreed

Russia can barely replace their combat losses in Ukraine as it is.
They are pulling WW2 era tanks, T-54/T-55s, from storage into service.
There isn’t going to be an arms race.

[walkingman]

7. We weren't that impressive in Iraq or Afghanistan ourselves....

[walkingman]

4. Agree completely except for the danger of a "madman" (Jesus freaks or demented leaders)

[ancianita]

5. What danger. What "madman." Putin? Jesus freaks? Get real.

The only demented leader or madman around is the felon in the white house. The real "danger" to Putin is our US Military that can obliterate him and Russia before they can even strike.

[walkingman]

6. I don't think that starting a new nuclear arms race is in anyone's interest.

Even as we alienate our allies and send a message that makes them question US solidarity with them, it forces them to push for nukes themselves in order to ensure they are not venerable.

I hear the pundits talk about being able to defend against a combined Russia/China threat as rationale to built up or modernize our nuclear arsenal.

Had Ukraine not given up their nukes...do you think Putin would have invaded them?

Trump is just one step from the grave and I do not trust anything he says or does.

I also do not trust Jesus freaks - they long to go to their heaven as if it is a magical place and then you got the rapture folks....it is real and dangerous.

[2na fisherman]

9. Immanentize The Eschaton

I don't trust them either and my reply title is a semi-biblical way of saying they welcome doomsday as a prelude to the realization of heaven on earth. But the idea of "limiting" nukes is a red herring because it only takes a few to ruin civilization and the ecosphere. Russia once tested a 50 megaton bomb called Tzar Bomba and it was so powerful it exceeded the test zone by miles. And that test proved there is no theoretical limit to making bombs with bigger yields. So a new arms race with more and bigger bombs brings us all closer to some day of doom by design or miscalculation. The Doomsday Clock is now at 85 seconds to midnight. And this is because of religious zealots as well as mad leaders like Trump, Putin or Kim Jong Un who feel the need to prove their power by making threats with nuclear weapons.

[IbogaProject]

16. There is a good guess their big nukes are mostly useless

They require tritium recharges every 5 to 8 years and tritium has a decent value on the open market so it is ripe for theft being small and easy to transport.

[littlemissmartypants]

8. Pertinent video:

The last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia is set to expire on Thursday. The end of "New START" marks the first time in more than five decades that Washington and Moscow have no formal limits on their nuclear arsenals. What does this mean for global security — and for already strained U.S.-Russian relations?

Walter Isaacson speaks with Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Ambassador to NATO during Trump's first term, about what's at stake.

[walkingman]

11. Kay Bailey Hutchinson is simply a war hawk and it is ironic for her to speak about Russia

breaking it's treaties? Really? Like the US has ever honored its treaties?

As far as nuclear proliferation....although we have many times the number of weapons to destroy humanity the danger of accidental or likelihood of a nuclear incident increases the more widespread their presence becomes.

Ironically the US, the only country to have ever used a NUKE, likes to preach to others about nukes. For the American audience this is simply American nationalism. The rest of the world knows, without doubt, our history no matter how we try to spin it.

Note to KBH - Trump has kissed Putin's ass - speak the truth and stop making excuses for him. He could care less about NATO.

[littlemissmartypants]

13. Excellent reply, walkingman. TY ❤️

[Bayard]

10. Russia can't afford another arms race

But, you can bet trump will be diverting money from much needed programs to build more nukes--each will have his name emblazoned on it.

Ukraine should not have given up their nukes. At least, not all of them. They were tricked into it by the promise they would be protected by the U.S. and others against future invasions. That didn't work out so hot.

[Miguelito Loveless]

12. They don't need nukes

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2026, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Their mole in DC is doing everything they want.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Not just one either!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

15. MaddowBlog-As the New START treaty expires, is Trump prepared for what happens next?

The president said in July that New START is “not an agreement you want expiring,” adding that it would be “a big problem for the world.” Then it expired.

Seven months ago, Trump said that the New START treaty is “not an agreement you want expiring,” adding that it would be “a big problem for the world.”

Yesterday, it expired.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-02-05T18:22:42.230Z

https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/as-the-new-start-treaty-expires-is-trump-prepared-for-what-happens-next

The terms of the agreement lasted 10 years, though the policy included the option for a five-year extension, which Joe Biden embraced.

That kept the policy intact through Feb. 4, 2026. It’s now Feb. 5, 2026. The Washington Post reported:

For decades, the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals have been constrained by a series of treaties. But that changed Thursday, when the last remaining nuclear arms limitation treaty between the United States and Russia, known as New START, expired.

Russia said in September it is willing to continue adhering to the central limitations of the treaty for at least another year, if Washington does likewise — but the Trump administration has yet to officially respond to the offer.

This wasn’t inevitable. In fact, it was easy to predict the opposite outcome after Trump said last summer that New START is “not an agreement you want expiring,” adding that it would be “a big problem for the world.”....

Nevertheless, with the expiration of New START, what happens now? Georgia Cole, a research analyst at British foreign policy think tank Chatham House, told the Post that in the absence of the policy, the U.S. and Russia could build up their nuclear warheads and launchers “unchecked.”

“This would raise the risk of miscalculation, accidents and unintended escalation — especially in a crisis,” she added. “It would also encourage China to continue accelerating its nuclear buildup to reach parity.”

Reuters reported that U.S. and Russian officials might yet agree to temporarily maintain the terms of New START despite its expiration, which would likely ease the fears of many international observers.

But in the meantime, amid growing uncertainty, many are wondering whether the nuclear arms control era is over, and the underlying question needs an answer from a White House that barely seems to care.