decades of nuclear arms control achievements unraveling at the worst possible moment
Por primeira vez em dezesseis anos, os dois maiores arsenais nucleares do mundo operam sem um acordo vinculante, após o presidente Trump recusar a extensão do tratado New START, que expirou hoje. Trump, alegando que o pacto de 2010 foi mal negociado e violado por Moscou, propõe um novo tratado modernizado — mas a exigência de incluir a China, que recusa participar, lança sombras sobre essa visão. Num momento em que o secretário-geral da ONU alerta para o maior risco nuclear em décadas, a humanidade se vê diante de uma lacuna histórica na arquitetura de controle de armas.
- O tratado New START expirou hoje sem renovação, deixando EUA e Rússia sem qualquer acordo vinculante sobre arsenais nucleares pela primeira vez desde 2010.
- Trump rejeitou publicamente a proposta russa de extensão por um ano, afirmando que o pacto original foi violado por Moscou — sem apresentar evidências concretas.
- Negociações paralelas em Abu Dhabi, à margem de conversas sobre a guerra na Ucrânia, não foram suficientes para evitar o colapso do marco existente.
- A exigência americana de incluir a China em qualquer novo tratado esbarra na recusa de Pequim, que cita a enorme disparidade entre seus 600 ogivas e os cerca de 4.000 de cada superpotência.
- O secretário-geral da ONU, António Guterres, classificou a situação como perigosa, pedindo urgência nas negociações para restaurar limites verificáveis às armas nucleares.
O tratado New START, que desde 2010 governa os limites de armas nucleares entre Estados Unidos e Rússia, expirou hoje sem renovação. O presidente Donald Trump anunciou que não aceitará a proposta de Moscou para estender o acordo por mais um ano, defendendo em seu lugar a negociação de um pacto inteiramente novo — mais moderno e duradouro. Em publicação na Truth Social, Trump classificou o tratado original, negociado entre Barack Obama e Dmitry Medvedev, como mal negociado e "flagrantemente violado" pela Rússia, sem oferecer evidências específicas.
A rejeição ocorre após relatos de que negociadores americanos e russos discutiam uma extensão em Abu Dhabi, à margem de conversas sobre o conflito na Ucrânia. O Kremlin havia proposto formalmente manter as restrições centrais do tratado por um ano enquanto trabalhavam em um novo acordo abrangente. Trump não havia respondido à oferta até tornar pública sua recusa.
A visão de Trump para um novo tratado esbarra em um obstáculo imediato: ele insiste na participação da China, que possui cerca de 600 ogivas nucleares frente às aproximadamente 4.000 de cada superpotência. Pequim recusa consistentemente negociações trilaterais, argumentando que a disparidade de arsenais torna tais conversas impraticáveis.
Tanto Rússia quanto China lamentaram a expiração do tratado. O porta-voz do Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, sinalizou abertura ao diálogo caso Washington respondesse positivamente. No plano internacional, o secretário-geral da ONU, António Guterres, soou o alarme: permitir que décadas de controle nuclear se desfaçam neste momento representa um erro perigoso, com o risco de uso de armas nucleares no nível mais alto em décadas. O caminho para um novo acordo permanece indefinido — sem mecânica clara, sem participantes confirmados e sem prazo estabelecido.
The New Start treaty between the United States and Russia expired today without renewal. President Donald Trump announced he will not accept Moscow's proposal to extend the agreement, which has governed nuclear weapons limits between the two superpowers since 2010. Instead, he called for negotiating an entirely new accord—one he described as improved and modernized, capable of enduring for decades to come.
Trump made his position clear in a post on Truth Social, claiming that the original New Start was poorly negotiated by his predecessors and has been "flagrantly violated" by Russia, though he offered no specifics to support the violation claim. The treaty was originally negotiated in 2010 between then-President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It was later extended by Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, but Trump has now rejected any continuation of that framework.
The timing of Trump's announcement came after reports that American and Russian negotiators had been discussing an extension in Abu Dhabi, where both delegations were present for separate talks about ending the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin had formally proposed that Washington and Moscow agree to maintain the treaty's core restrictions for one additional year while they worked toward a new comprehensive agreement. Trump had not previously responded to that offer, and his public rejection now closes that door.
Trump has previously insisted that any new nuclear agreement must include China, a condition that creates an immediate obstacle. Beijing possesses roughly 600 nuclear warheads, compared to approximately 4,000 each for Russia and the United States. China has consistently refused to participate in trilateral negotiations with Moscow and Washington, arguing that the vast disparity in arsenal sizes makes such talks impractical. This fundamental disagreement suggests that Trump's vision for a three-party treaty faces steep diplomatic hurdles.
Both Russia and China expressed regret at the treaty's expiration. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin's government remained willing to engage in dialogue if the White House responded positively to Moscow's extension proposal. The Russian position suggests an openness to negotiation, even as Trump moves away from the existing framework.
The international response has been one of alarm. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that allowing decades of nuclear arms control achievements to unravel at this particular moment represents a dangerous miscalculation. He noted that the risk of nuclear weapons use has reached its highest level in decades—a stark assessment given current global tensions. Guterres called on both Russia and the United States to resume negotiations urgently, seeking to establish a new framework that would restore verifiable limits on weapons, reduce the danger of miscalculation, and strengthen collective security.
What happens next remains unclear. Trump has signaled his preference for a new deal rather than an extension, but the mechanics of how such negotiations would proceed, who would participate, and what timeline might apply are all undefined. The expiration of New Start leaves the world's two largest nuclear arsenals without a binding agreement for the first time in sixteen years.
Notable Quotes
The risk of use of a nuclear weapon is the most high in decades— UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Instead of extending the poorly negotiated New Start, nuclear experts should work on a new, improved, and modernized treaty that can last a long time in the future— President Donald Trump (paraphrased from Truth Social post)
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Trump reject the extension rather than simply accept it while negotiating something new?
Because for Trump, accepting the old deal signals weakness—it looks like he's endorsing something his predecessors created. A new agreement lets him claim victory and reshape the terms on his own.
But doesn't rejecting it leave both countries without any limits at all?
Yes, exactly. That's the gamble. Trump believes he has leverage—that Russia needs a deal more than America does—so he's betting he can force better terms by walking away first.
What about the China condition? That seems designed to fail.
It might be. Or it might be a genuine belief that any modern agreement has to include the world's third nuclear power. Either way, it's a condition Beijing has already said no to, which gives Trump cover if talks collapse.
Is there any chance Russia and America just keep building weapons now?
That's the real fear. Without verification mechanisms, without limits, both sides can expand their arsenals without transparency. The UN Secretary-General was essentially saying: this is how accidents happen.
So Trump thinks he can negotiate better terms than Obama did?
He's claiming Obama negotiated poorly, yes. But what "better" means is unclear. Fewer weapons? Stronger verification? Different countries involved? Until he says, it's just a negotiating position.