1. The Situation: New START expired on Feb. 5, ending the last legally binding cap-and-verify framework governing U.S. and Russian deployed strategic nuclear forces. President Trump chose expiration over a one-year “keep observing the limits” offer floated by Moscow, and publicly pivoted to a “modernized” replacement treaty concept. Simultaneously, Washington and Moscow moved to restart high-level military-to-military contact after a multi-year freeze—suggesting both sides want crisis-management plumbing even as formal arms-control law collapses. The ignition point isn’t that missiles will launch tomorrow; it’s that the verification and predictability layer is now optional—and optionality is where arms races breed. The Hill | BBC | Washington Post

2. The Mechanism: - Treaty expiration removes the audit trail. Without inspections, data exchanges, and agreed counting rules, “how many” becomes an estimate problem—and estimates trend worst-case, driving force-structure hedges. NPR - The choke point shifts from diplomats to industrial base. Once legal ceilings vanish, the binding constraint becomes warhead production/refurbishment throughput, delivery system upload capacity, and maintenance cycles—i.e., budgets plus factories, not signatures. - “Modernized treaty” is a bargaining reset, not a plan. Trump’s framing implies reopening scope (new systems, non-strategic nukes, novel delivery tech) and possibly adding China—moves that expand ambition and extend timelines, which functionally buys freedom of action now. FT | WSJ - Russia benefits from ambiguity as a cheaper deterrent multiplier. If Moscow can’t match U.S. spending, it can still raise U.S. planning costs by forcing upload hedges and missile-defense debates—strategic friction as substitute for cash. - Military-to-military talks become the deconfliction substitute. With treaty guardrails gone, both sides need hotline-like mechanisms to prevent misread exercises, bomber alerts, or submarine signaling from cascading—especially while Ukraine negotiations churn. BBC | CBS - Hidden incentive: domestic procurement coalitions reawaken. No treaty cap equals a cleaner political argument for modernization plus expansion—useful to hawks, labs, primes, and districts that monetize “gap” narratives, regardless of whether expansion improves survivability.

3. The State of Play:

Reaction: Media coverage frames this as a “grave moment” and the start of an arms race, with heavy emphasis on the symbolic end of a half-century arms-control era and warnings from international voices. That framing is accurate on direction but misleading on tempo: the immediate change is not arsenal size; it’s confidence, visibility, and crisis stability. Public theater will center on who “killed” arms control, while each side performs “responsibility” language to avoid being blamed for the first obvious breakout. NBC News | The Guardian | Al Jazeera

Strategy: Behind the scenes, both capitals are likely aiming for a tacit “soft observance” to avoid immediate destabilizing uploads while negotiations on Ukraine and broader security channels proceed. Trump’s “modernized” line signals he wants a headline-level renegotiation that can be sold as tougher and broader—especially if it pressures China rhetorically, even if Beijing refuses to join. Moscow’s optimal play is to trade limited restraint/visibility for sanctions relief, Ukraine terms, or constraints on U.S. deployments; Washington’s optimal play is to keep breakout capacity while extracting transparency and avoiding a three-front nuclear budgeting spiral (Russia + China + extended deterrence demands from allies). Axios | BBC

4. Key Data: - Feb. 5, 2026: New START expiration date. AP - 1,550: Treaty cap on deployed strategic warheads per side under New START (now lapsed). BBC - 700: Approx. number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, bombers) permitted per side under New START (now lapsed). Washington Post - 2010: Year New START was signed. NBC News

5. What's Next: The forcing function in the next 48–72 hours is whether Washington and Moscow publicly formalize a post-expiration “political” commitment to continue observing limits and/or restart transparency measures under the banner of renewed military-to-military talks. If they do, the near-term risk shifts from breakout to verification-by-press-release—thin, but stabilizing. If they don’t, expect rapid signaling moves (exercise tempo, bomber taskings, upload rhetoric, new basing chatter) designed to shape the first-mover narrative and lock in budget leverage at home while the world adjusts to a nuclear balance managed by inference instead of inspection.

For the full dashboard and real-time updates, visit whatsthelatest.ai.