From Ukraine To Strategic Stability: The Next Step In Arms Control

Click to see the full-size image

For years, the West, led by Biden and the EU, supported Ukraine’s fight against Russia, determined to resist “to the last Ukrainian.” But as current peace talks unfold, new question arises: Could this conflict lead to war “to the last American”? The U.S. has dangerously overlooked the growing threat of intermediate-range missiles, which are set to destabilize global security. Moreover, with the New START treaty expiring in 2026 and the rise of hypersonic weapons, the risk of an unchecked arms race is more pressing than ever. Will current peace efforts lead to meaningful arms control, or will they trigger further escalation?

As of April 29, 2025, the conflict in Ukraine remains unresolved, despite ongoing diplomatic efforts. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently announced a three-day ceasefire, timed with the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in World War II. However, the Ukrainian politician Volodymyr Zelensky rejected the proposal as insufficient, calling for a full, unconditional 30-day ceasefire to pave the way for meaningful negotiations.

U.S. President Donald Trump has voiced support for a permanent ceasefire, pushing both sides toward a lasting resolution. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized, “It needs to happen soon. We cannot continue to dedicate time and resources to this effort if it’s not going to come to fruition.” Despite these diplomatic overtures, the core issue of territorial integrity remains contentious. Ukraine has firmly rejected U.S. proposals to recognize Russian control over Crimea, viewing such concessions as politically and legally untenable.

The Looming Expiration of New START and Its Implications

As the expiration of the New START Treaty looms in 2026, the world faces another significant issue: strategic arms control. This treaty, the last remaining bilateral arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia, limits the number of long-range nuclear weapons each country can deploy. However, in 2023, Russia suspended its participation in the treaty, citing U.S. failure to keep its end of the deal and involvement in Ukraine conflict as one of significant factors. The impending expiration of New START raises concerns about the potential for an unchecked nuclear arms race, with both nations free to develop more sophisticated and destabilizing systems.

The U.S. Military Encirclement of Russia and the Growing Threat of Missiles

Amid these concerns, the U.S. is increasing its military presence in Eastern Europe, including missile deployments in Poland, the Baltics, and discussions about placing missiles in Ukraine. These actions are part of a broader strategy to counter Russian influence in the region. The U.S. has also strategically positioned itself in South Korea and Japan, further surrounding Russia with potential missile deployments. This extensive military presence could significantly heighten tensions, especially considering the potential for the deployment of intermediate-range missiles, which would directly threaten Russian security.

The Unaddressed Threat: Intermediate-Range Missiles

While much of the arms control focus has been on long-range nuclear weapons, one crucial issue is glaringly absent from current discussions: intermediate-range missiles. These weapons, with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, can be deployed quickly and are difficult to track or defend against, making them a dangerous addition to any military arsenal. Yet, despite their destabilizing potential, they have not been sufficiently addressed in arms control discussions. This oversight is a critical gap in current arms control frameworks, and it has left Europe and other regions vulnerable to the deployment of such missiles.

In addition, Russia’s hypersonic weapons have given it a technological edge over the United States. Russia’s Kinzhal and Avangard missiles, capable of traveling at speeds over 20 times the speed of sound, pose a direct challenge to U.S. missile defense systems. With these weapons already operational, Russia is in a strong position to lead in the next arms race.

Russia has also introduced the Oreshnik missile, a nuclear-capable cruise missile that can achieve hypersonic speeds while maintaining maneuverability. This new technology puts Russia significantly ahead of the U.S., which has yet to deploy such advanced systems. The Russian advantage in this area not only shifts the balance of power but also opens the door for Moscow to potentially dominate a new arms race, should the U.S. fail to catch up.

Why Isn’t This Being Addressed?

The failure to address the issue of intermediate-range missiles in the peace talks on Ukraine is nothing but a glaring oversight. These weapons, along with hypersonic missiles, represent some of the most immediate and dangerous threats to global security. Their exclusion from arms control discussions suggests a lack of strategic foresight.

The reason intermediate-range missiles are sidelined likely stems from political and geopolitical considerations. For the U.S. and NATO, addressing this issue could be seen as a concession to Russia, which has long demanded limits on such weapons. By avoiding the topic, Western powers maintain their military advantage, particularly in Eastern Europe. Moreover, the U.S. has strategic deployments in places like Poland and Ukraine, where intermediate-range missiles provide a key deterrence tool. Any arms control agreement might limit NATO’s flexibility in countering Russia’s influence.

In fact, should a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine be reached, the U.S. and NATO could use the situation as a pretext to expand their missile capabilities further around Russia. With an ostensibly peaceful environment, they might justify placing even more intermediate-range missiles in Poland, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries, under the guise of protecting against hypothetical Russian violations of the ceasefire. This could lead to a dangerous escalation, further increasing military tension in the region.

This is why the settlement of the Ukraine conflict requires a broader, more comprehensive agreement that goes beyond regional peace. A deal must address the proliferation of these destabilizing missile systems, ensuring strategic stability on a global scale.

Additionally, there is insufficient immediate pressure to address the issue. Nuclear weapons and the ongoing war in Ukraine dominate global attention, while the risks posed by intermediate-range and hypersonic missiles are not seen as urgent. This oversight may reflect a reluctance to tackle the complex geopolitics of missile technology, especially given China’s growing arsenal.

Conclusion: The Need for a Broader Arms Control Agenda

The ongoing diplomatic efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict present a crucial opportunity to expand the scope of arms control discussions. Achieving peace in Ukraine is important, but addressing the threat posed by intermediate-range missiles and hypersonic weapons is equally vital. The failure to address these weapons leaves the world vulnerable to catastrophic escalation.

The U.S. and Russia must recognize that the current arms control framework is insufficient. As the U.S. surrounds Russia with military assets, including potential missile deployments in Ukraine, the failure to engage in discussions about intermediate-range missiles risks pushing both countries into a new arms race. With the expiration of New START in 2026, the window for reaching a new agreement is closing rapidly. However, both sides still have an opportunity to find common ground in the context of ongoing negotiations, addressing these issues and ensuring greater stability. Global security depends on addressing these challenges now to prevent a future conflict from spiraling into catastrophe.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• New Ceasefire in Ukraine: Another Battle Of Behind-The-Scenes War
• Russia Carves Out Strategic Buffer Zone in Sumy Region
• Final Round: Ukraine Negotiations Reach Critical Point