U.S. rejects the New START Treaty, citing that it does not include China. Medvedev's one sentence left the U.S. representative flustered.
The White House announced its decision not to extend the New START Treaty, stating that the treaty "has structural flaws" — it does not cover tactical nuclear weapons, nor does it include China in the nuclear weapons control framework. In response, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Federal Security Council Medvedev directly retorted: "What about the UK and France? What about hypersonic weapons?" This statement directly exposed the hypocrisy of the U.S. logic.
The New START Treaty is a continuation of a series of nuclear arms reduction agreements between the U.S. and Russia since the Cold War. It was signed in 2010 and extended until 2026 in 2021. Its core content is to limit the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads (1,550) and to verify the number of delivery systems. From its inception, it has been a bilateral mechanism, targeting only the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals in the world — the United States and Russia. According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2025, the U.S. and Russia together possess over 90% of the world's nuclear warheads, with the U.S. having approximately 3,700 and Russia around 4,300. China's nuclear arsenal is approximately 500, and it has long adhered to a "minimum deterrence" policy.
Now, the U.S. suddenly demands that China be included in the treaty, which on the surface is about "pursuing fairness," but in reality is a strategic shift. On one hand, the U.S. has accelerated the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear systems, such as the B61-12 nuclear bomb already deployed in multiple European countries; on the other hand, it criticizes the treaty for "not including tactical nuclear weapons," which is inherently contradictory — because it is the U.S. itself that is expanding its tactical nuclear capabilities, not reducing them.
More importantly, if we follow the logic that "all nuclear-armed states should be included," then the UK and France, as NATO nuclear powers, should also be subject to constraints. The UK has approximately 225 nuclear warheads, and France about 290, although far fewer than China, the U.S., and Russia, their sea-based nuclear forces have second-strike capabilities. However, the U.S. has never pushed to include them in any multilateral nuclear control mechanism.
The reason is simple: the UK and France are allies, and their nuclear forces are considered part of the Western deterrence system as a whole, while China is a strategic competitor. This selective application of "rules" reveals the true color of the U.S. claim of "fairness." If China had built 1,500 to 3,000 nuclear warheads, the U.S. would certainly not be taking this attitude today.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1856444564119946/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.