Analysis of: Expiry of nuclear weapons pact between US and Russia risks new arms race
The Guardian | February 3, 2026
TL;DR
The last nuclear arms treaty between the US and Russia expires, ending 50+ years of weapons limits as both powers modernize arsenals. Inter-imperialist rivalry intensifies, with workers worldwide bearing the risk while defense industries profit from a new arms race.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The expiration of the New Start treaty represents far more than a diplomatic failure—it marks a qualitative shift in inter-imperialist relations as the post-Cold War framework of managed competition gives way to open rivalry. The treaty's collapse reflects the fundamental contradiction between capitalism's need for perpetual expansion and the finite limits of global markets and resources. As the United States faces the relative decline of its hegemonic position while Russia and China pursue their own imperial projects, nuclear arsenals become instruments of leverage in the struggle to redivide the world's spheres of influence. The framing of this crisis reveals ideological mechanisms at work. Trump's dismissal—'If it expires, it expires'—naturalizes catastrophic risk while his promise of a 'better deal' deploys the logic of market competition to matters of species survival. The inclusion of China as a precondition for new negotiations serves the strategic goal of containing a rising competitor while providing rhetorical cover for letting existing agreements lapse. Meanwhile, the article's emphasis on 'rules-based order' obscures that these rules were always structured by and for imperial powers, managing their competition rather than eliminating it. The material stakes are enormous: hundreds of billions flow into arsenal modernization programs, enriching defense contractors while social needs go unmet. The nuclear weapons establishment, as Kimball notes, actively lobbies for expansion. This is not irrationality but capitalist rationality—the military-industrial complex profits regardless of whether weapons are used, and inter-state competition ensures continuous demand. The contradiction between socialized risk (humanity bears the consequences of nuclear war) and privatized accumulation (defense capital extracts profit) exemplifies capitalism's tendency to externalize its most destructive costs onto the working class globally.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US and Russian state apparatuses representing their respective ruling classes, Military-industrial complexes in both nations, Arms control advocacy organizations, Nuclear weapons establishment technocrats, Working classes globally who bear existential risk
Beneficiaries: Defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, Military brass seeking expanded budgets, Political leaders using nuclear rhetoric for domestic positioning, Finance capital invested in defense industries
Harmed Parties: Global working class bearing existential nuclear risk, Populations in potential conflict zones, Workers whose tax money funds arsenal expansion rather than social needs, Future generations inheriting destabilized international order
The state functions as executive committee for the bourgeoisie of each imperial power, with nuclear policy serving capital accumulation through military spending while managing inter-imperialist competition. Arms control advocates, representing professional-managerial class interests in systemic stability, have limited influence compared to the material interests of the weapons establishment. The working class is entirely absent as an actor—their interests (survival, social spending over military) are not represented in these negotiations between ruling classes.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Hundreds of billions invested in arsenal modernization, Defense industry profit motives driving expansion lobbying, Competition for global markets underlying great power rivalry, Resource competition fueling proxy conflicts like Ukraine war
Nuclear weapons production exemplifies the contradiction between socialized labor (thousands of scientists, engineers, and workers produce these weapons) and private appropriation (defense contractors capture profits while risk is socialized globally). The military-industrial complex operates as a form of permanent arms economy, absorbing surplus capital and creating artificial demand independent of use-value—weapons need not be used to generate profit.
Resources at Stake: Control of nuclear arsenals as instruments of geopolitical leverage, Defense budgets representing massive capital flows, Spheres of influence in Eastern Europe and globally, Strategic resources in contested regions
Historical Context
Precedents: Pre-WWI arms races between imperial powers, Cold War nuclear competition and subsequent détente, Collapse of previous arms control agreements (ABM, INF treaties), Historical pattern of inter-imperialist rivalry leading to catastrophic conflict
This moment reflects the crisis of US hegemony established after 1945 and reinforced post-1991. The 'rules-based order' was never neutral—it encoded American dominance while managing inter-capitalist competition. As relative decline accelerates and multipolarity emerges, the institutions managing imperial rivalry weaken. Lenin's analysis of imperialism as capitalism's highest stage remains relevant: the drive to redivide the world among great powers intensifies as accumulation reaches limits within existing spheres. Nuclear weapons, developed as instruments of imperial competition, now threaten the system's survival—a contradiction inherent to capitalism's war-making tendency.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction between capitalism's need for competitive expansion and humanity's need for survival—nuclear arsenals serve capital accumulation and imperial competition while threatening species extinction.
Secondary: Contradiction between socialized risk (global) and privatized profit (national defense industries), Contradiction between stated goal of nonproliferation and actual arsenal expansion, Contradiction between 'deterrence stability' ideology and increasingly aggressive nuclear posturing, Contradiction between Trump's dealmaker self-image and actual failure to negotiate
Under capitalism, this contradiction cannot be resolved—it can only be managed temporarily through treaties that eventually collapse under competitive pressures. The trajectory points toward intensified arms racing, increased nuclear risk, and potential use in regional conflicts. Resolution requires transcending the capitalist state system that generates inter-imperialist rivalry. Short of that, working-class internationalism—opposing 'one's own' ruling class's military adventures—remains the only force capable of constraining this dynamic.
Global Interconnections
The New Start collapse cannot be separated from broader patterns of imperial competition reshaping the world system. The Ukraine war—explicitly mentioned as triggering Russia's suspension of treaty monitoring—represents a proxy conflict over spheres of influence in Europe. China's arsenal expansion responds to US encirclement strategy in the Pacific. These are not isolated developments but interconnected expressions of multipolarity's emergence as US hegemony weakens. The threat to the Non-Proliferation Treaty reveals how the entire post-WWII institutional framework depended on great power cooperation that is now unraveling. Core-periphery dynamics persist: the nuclear powers' failure to disarm while demanding non-proliferation from peripheral states exposes the imperial character of 'rules-based order.' Nations outside the nuclear club face immense pressure not to develop weapons while watching the weapons states abandon restraints. This hypocrisy undermines the system's legitimacy, potentially accelerating proliferation—another contradiction generated by inter-imperialist rivalry.
Conclusion
The death of New Start demonstrates that ruling classes cannot be trusted with humanity's survival. Their competition for markets, resources, and geopolitical dominance drives them toward catastrophic risk while their weapons industries profit regardless of outcome. For the working class, the lesson is clear: there is no 'national interest' in nuclear arsenals—only ruling class interests served by military spending and imperial positioning. Building international solidarity against militarism, demanding conversion of weapons production to social needs, and ultimately challenging the capitalist state system that generates perpetual inter-imperialist rivalry represent the only path toward genuine security. The alternative—trusting rival bourgeoisies to manage their nuclear competition indefinitely—is a wager on extinction.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry as inherent to monopoly capitalism directly illuminates why great powers cannot sustain cooperation and inevitably return to competitive dynamics including arms races.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Understanding the capitalist state as an instrument of class rule clarifies why state apparatuses pursue military expansion regardless of democratic rhetoric about peace.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's documentation of how crises serve capital accumulation helps explain how the defense industry benefits from instability and why arms control collapses serve material interests.