Letter From the Editors

The demise of the New START treaty – and the brief geopolitical thaw following its 2011 signing by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev – evokes T.S. Eliot’s “The Hollow Men.” Written in the bleak aftermath of World War I, Eliot’s poem depicts “hollow,” scarecrow-like beings inhabiting a liminal space between salvation and damnation.

Today, arms control exists in a similar state of suspended animation. On paper, the treaty has expired. Inspections are frozen, and Washington and Moscow are trading accusations of noncompliance. Nevertheless, despite their fraught relationship, Putin and Biden agreed to extend it for five years back in 2021. So far, both Russia and the US have agreed to adhere by its limitations for the next six months – but this is just another “gesture without motion,” as Eliot puts it.

However, Oleg Karpovich says that the New START was hardly up to the task of ensuring strategic security anymore, since “strategic arms ceilings established by the expired treaty are insufficient to avoid a nuclear apocalypse.” That’s because the treaty “did not affect hypersonic missiles, the militarization of space, underwater drones and so on.” Furthermore, the rise of nuclear players like China, France and the UK makes the New START a relic of a bipolar era when only the US and USSR stood at the brink.

But don’t bury the classic system of arms control just yet, cautions Academician Aleksei Arbatov. It can be redesigned to adapt to new conditions. After all, “Nuclear arms control is not just an aspect of international relations, but a matter of survival for human civilization, and it must be above all the upheavals and disputes of global politics.” The question is, can the hollow men currently in charge realize this in time?

T.S. Eliot’s famous closing line – “not with a bang but with a whimper” – suggests a worst-case scenario driven not by a sudden blast, but by a slow erosion of political will and shared values. It’s also a cautionary tale against half-measures, which only seem like a solution but instead exacerbate the problem. In an NGE article, Estonian researcher Denis Antonov points the finger at the EU for its political appeasement and cowardice – not regarding Russia, but Europe’s erstwhile ally, the US. And when Donald Trump started throwing his weight around, they acted like “a needy teenager afraid that Dad will suddenly stop giving them an allowance.” The EU is a pillar of global economic and social stability, argues Antonov. “The US can’t afford to lose Europe. China can’t afford to lose Europe. But for some reason Europe is convinced that it can simply be removed from the equation.” And the kowtowing coming from European capitals essentially means the EU is giving up its status as an equal power player.

This trend certainly does not bode well for Ukraine, which needs a strong Europe behind it in its talks with Russia. Right now, the bone of contention is territory: Moscow is demanding that Kyiv give up the entire Donetsk Basin – including the strategically vital Donetsk Basin line, which is similar to the Maginot line of forts, France’s main line of defense against Germany after World War I. The Donetsk Basin Line is “the one true means of protecting not only the western Donetsk Basin but also, arguably, the rest of Ukraine,” a pair of British scholars write in NGE. And the various security guarantees offered by Europe and the US – as well as Putin’s alleged promises – are certainly not enough for Zelensky for one simple reason: He doesn’t trust Putin. Or the Europeans, for that matter, since their signatures on the Budapest memorandum turned out to be pretty meaningless. And while various leaders punch out peace formulas and dream of free economic zones in the Donetsk Basin during summits in Abu Dhabi and other exotic locations, their words are ringing pretty hollow for those living with the grim reality.