Even at the height of their nuclear rivalry during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union struck a series of treaties to prevent the arms race from spiraling out of control, Reuters reports.
Although they agreed on little else, leaders in Moscow and Washington saw value in negotiating - from 1969 until well after the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 - to create a stable and predictable framework limiting the size of their nuclear arsenals.
Now the latest nuclear treaty between the United States and Russia, New START, is just weeks away from its expiration on February 5th and what lies ahead after that is uncertain. The two sides, locked in a war in Ukraine, have not held any talks about a successor treaty.
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that the two sides agree to stick to the New START parameters, which limit the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 on each side, for another 12 months.
US President Donald Trump has yet to give a formal response, and Western security analysts are divided on whether it is wise to accept Putin's proposal.
On the one hand, it would buy time to determine a way forward, while sending a political signal that both sides want to retain some vestiges of arms control.
On the other hand, it would allow Russia to continue developing weapons systems outside the scope of New START, including the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon torpedo. Former US defense expert Greg Weaver noted that since 2023, Russia has refused to accept mutual inspections that would give Washington assurances that Moscow is still in compliance with the treaty.
Agreeing to Putin's proposal would also send a message to China that the United States will not build up its strategic nuclear forces in response to China's rapidly growing nuclear arsenal, he added.
"This signal would likely undermine the prospects of bringing China to the arms control table and would show Beijing that American forces will remain limited no matter what China does".
Trump wants talks with Russia and China, Beijing says "no"
According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia and the United States have estimated their combined stockpiles at 5,459 and 5,177 nuclear warheads, respectively. Together, they account for nearly 87 percent of all such warheads worldwide.
However, China has accelerated its nuclear program and now has approximately 600 warheads. The Pentagon estimates that it will have more than 1,000 by 2030.
Although Trump has said he wants to pursue "nuclear disarmament" with both Russia and China, Beijing says it is "unwise and unrealistic" to be asked to join trilateral nuclear disarmament talks with countries whose arsenals are much larger.
Further complicating the prospects for global arms control, Russia has argued that the nuclear forces of NATO members Britain and France should also be subject to negotiations - something they reject.
Nikolai Sokov, a former Soviet and Russian arms negotiator, said that trying to conclude a new multilateral nuclear treaty in this environment is "almost a dead end. It will take forever.
Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, noted that one alternative would be for Russia and the United States to develop a successor to New START that would include flexible warhead limits to account for China's buildup.
A quicker and easier course, however, would be for the countries to focus on steps to significantly reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear war. Currently, for example, only Russia and the United States have a 24-hour hotline for use in a nuclear crisis, while "no European capital, not even NATO headquarters, can really communicate with Moscow. There is no special line," Sokov explained.
"If the countries simultaneously start arms control negotiations, that would be great. But you have to understand that the next treaty will be very, very complicated. It will take time. "So the number one priority is risk reduction and trust building," he stressed.