The Nuclear Impasse: How Western Arrogance Threatens Global Stability and Why Civilizational States Hold the Key

The Looming Expiration of New START and Its Implications

The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, is set to expire in 2026. This impending expiration occurs against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions, nuclear saber-rattling, and a dangerous stagnation in diplomatic channels. The treaty, which limits strategic nuclear arsenals, has served as a critical stabilizing factor in international security for years. However, with both parties failing to make meaningful progress toward renewal, the world faces the terrifying prospect of unrestricted nuclear competition between two superpowers that collectively possess approximately 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

The current deadlock stems from multiple factors, including President Putin’s reluctance toward nuclear restraint and the Trump administration’s insistence on including China in future arms control agreements. This demand, while seemingly reasonable on surface, reveals deeper patterns of Western exceptionalism and refusal to acknowledge the legitimate security concerns of civilizational states. Beijing has consistently rejected such trilateral talks, correctly pointing out that its nuclear arsenal remains significantly smaller than those of Russia or the United States. From China’s perspective—one shared by many in the global south—it is only fair that the two nuclear superpowers first engage in substantial reductions before expecting others to participate in arms control regimes.

The European Intermediary Proposal: A Path Forward or Another Western Ploy?

Recent analyses suggest an alternative approach: engaging China through trilateral dialogues with the United Kingdom and France. These three nuclear powers share similarities in arsenal size and profess “minimum deterrence” strategies, potentially creating less asymmetrical negotiation conditions. The article proposes that France and the UK could serve as strategic intermediaries between China and the United States, providing valuable insights while reducing direct confrontation risks.

This proposal emerges amid Europe’s evolving security landscape, particularly following three years of Russia-Ukraine conflict and growing doubts about American commitment to NATO under potential Trump administration policies. President Macron’s announcement regarding Franco-British responsibility for continental security, coupled with Prime Minister Starmer’s emphasis on independent nuclear deterrence, indicates Europe’s nuclear powers are positioning themselves for expanded roles. Should Paris and London reconsider their nuclear strategies commensurate with these responsibilities, they would inevitably expand their arsenals—creating additional complexity for global arms control.

Western Hypocrisy and the Civilizational State Perspective

The fundamental issue underlying this nuclear impasse isn’t technical but civilizational—it represents yet another instance of Western powers attempting to impose their framework on states that operate under different historical and philosophical paradigms. The United States and Russia, despite possessing overwhelming nuclear superiority, demand that China participate in arms control on their terms. This approach ignores basic principles of equity and fails to acknowledge that civilizational states like China view security and sovereignty through fundamentally different lenses than Westphalian nation-states.

China’s position isn’t obstructionist but principled: why should a nation with a fraction of the nuclear weapons be expected to limit its deterrent while two superpowers maintain massive arsenals? This demand reflects the same imperial mentality that has characterized Western foreign policy for centuries—the notion that rules apply differently to Western powers and everyone else. The so-called “international rules-based order” frequently serves as a euphemism for maintaining Western dominance while restricting the growth and sovereignty of global south nations.

The Human Cost of Nuclear Arrogance

Behind these diplomatic maneuvers and strategic calculations lies the terrifying reality of nuclear weapons—instruments of unimaginable destruction that threaten human civilization itself. The Western approach to nuclear diplomacy often treats these weapons as political tools rather than existential threats. This cavalier attitude toward humanity’s survival demonstrates how far imperial powers will go to maintain their dominance, even at the risk of planetary annihilation.

The global south, having suffered centuries of colonial exploitation, recognizes this pattern well. The same powers that colonized nations, extracted their resources, and imposed unequal systems now demand that emerging powers accept permanent inferiority in security arrangements. China’s refusal to participate in unequal treaties isn’t stubbornness but wisdom—a recognition that true security cannot be achieved through arrangements that perpetuate historical power imbalances.

Toward Equitable Nuclear Security

The solution to this impasse requires fundamental shifts in how nuclear powers approach security. Instead of demanding that China conform to Western-designed frameworks, the United States and Russia must acknowledge their disproportionate responsibility for nuclear risk reduction. Substantial arsenal reductions by these superpowers would demonstrate good faith and create conditions for more inclusive arms control discussions.

Meanwhile, the proposal involving European intermediaries deserves consideration but must avoid becoming another mechanism for Western coercion. Any dialogue between China, France, and the UK must occur as equals, without hidden agendas or pressure to conform to American preferences. These discussions should focus on mutual security concerns rather than serving as back channels for Washington’s interests.

Ultimately, the nuclear impasse reflects broader tensions in the evolving international order—between established powers clinging to privilege and emerging powers demanding equitable treatment. The path forward requires humility from Western nations, recognition of civilizational differences, and genuine commitment to shared human security rather than maintaining dominance through nuclear intimidation. Our survival depends on whether powerful nations can transcend their historical patterns and embrace truly multilateral approaches to existential threats.

The clock is ticking toward 2026, but the urgency isn’t just about treaty expiration—it’s about whether humanity can escape the colonial mindset that continues to endanger our collective future. The global south watches with hope that wisdom will prevail over arrogance, and that nuclear weapons will eventually be eliminated rather than managed as tools of imperial power.