A realistic plan to bring Russia and China back to nuclear arms negotiations

Related Video: NATO Tracks Russia’s Shadow Fleet In The Baltic | NEWSNATION

President Trump wants to engage Russia and China in nuclear arms control negotiations. Calling denuclearization “a big aim,” Trump told reporters, “Russia’s willing to do it, and I think China is going to be willing to do it too.” China rejected entering nuclear arms control negotiations two days after this report. 

On Monday, President Putin offered to extend the New START Treaty for one year if the U.S. agrees to do the same. It’s a good idea because the New START Treaty, the only nuclear weapons limitation agreement still in force, expires Feb. 5, 2026. 

First, let’s forget the word denuclearization because I’m not sure anyone knows what that means. We should be talking about restarting negotiations to control and hopefully reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by the U.S., Russia and at some point, China. 

I participated in negotiations to reduce, limit and control biological, chemical, conventional and nuclear weapons, and was a member of the Army backstopping group for the New START Treaty negotiations during the Obama administration. Limiting, controlling and reducing nuclear weapons are achievable goals. Eliminating nuclear weapons entirely is not. 

The big show stopper is that by the time the Russia-Ukraine War is over, Russia will be too weak financially, economically and militarily to risk giving up its nuclear arsenal, which will be its primary insurance against becoming a second rate power. 

Putin’s Russia is not the Soviet Union. Many still have Soviet Russia in mind when discussing “great power” issues today, but this is not Stalin’s Russia. 

The population is significantly smaller (about 144 million versus 286.7 million in 1989) and declining due to low birth rates, high death rates and emigration to avoid the war with Ukraine. Demographic projections show this downward trend continuing and causing major future economic challenges for Russia.

Russian casualties in Ukraine are well over 1 million killed and wounded and rising, impacting the most productive age cohorts for population growth and to sustain a dynamic work force.

Combat losses coupled with well over a million Russians leaving the country so far, including the young and educated, either to avoid military service or to use their skills in a more reasonable business climate where the rule of law still matters, will make a bad demographic picture worse. 

The Russian economy is increasingly unable to support Putin’s military ambitions. Budget policies favoring defense production over the civilian economy and targeted sanctions levied by the U.S. and the European Union are hindering the Russian military industrial base and beginning to impact the average Russian. 

The fact is, through his war of choice, Putin has put Russia on track for long-term decline. 

Russian aggression has rejuvenated NATO and the European members are energized to focus on improving defense capabilities more than at any time since the 1960s. The Russian army cannot even handle Ukraine and will increasingly face a stronger NATO.  

Consequently, for the indefinite future, Russia will need nuclear weapons as insurance against conventional defeat and to lay claim to great power status. 

Is negotiation now even possible? 

In the diplomatic environment created by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, engaging in a complex negotiation with Russia now might not be possible. And Russia could be expected to seek concessions in U.S. support for Ukraine’s freedom as a price for engaging. 

New START is the only U.S.-Russia nuclear weapons treaty still in effect and when it expires there will be no limits on Russian strategic systems and no inspection regime to verify what types and numbers of strategic systems the Russians are deploying. 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community would likely support extending New START again because they know what the adverse impact of no treaty limitations will be on our ability to assess the threat to the U.S. and planning to mitigate that threat. 

A bold approach President Trump should consider is to agree to another extension to New START for one year but immediately begin negotiations for a further extension at a lower number of 1,000 deployed warheads from the current 1,550. 

During the negotiations on New START, the Joint Chiefs certified that 1,000 would be adequate to support our deterrence strategy. Most of the rest of the New START text could remain the same. 

Currently, Russia and the U.S. are each permitted to deploy up to 1,550 nuclear warheads. China is engaging in a major nuclear buildup doubling the size of its arsenal from 300 nuclear weapons in 2020 to about 600 in 2025. The U.S. Department of Defense estimates that China may have over 1,000 by 2030. 

Given this disparity in numbers of nuclear weapons, China has little to gain from negotiating. If Russia and the U.S. can bring their numbers down significantly, there could be a basis to persuade China to join a trilateral negotiation. 

Extending the New START Treaty again at reduced numbers of deployed strategic systems is in the U.S. national interest, and the Trump administration should seize the opportunity to do it. 

Col. John Fairlamb, Ph.D., is a retired U.S. Army colonel with a 45-year military and Civil Service career including assignments formulating and negotiating arms control agreements.