Enemies in Agreement: A Virtual Book Talk with Dr. Jane Vaynman
Why It Matters
Understanding how to craft adaptable arms‑control frameworks can prevent expensive arms races and reduce strategic instability, directly shaping U.S., Russian, and Chinese security policies.
Key Takeaways
- •New START expired, ending last US‑Russia bilateral verifiable arms control treaty
- •Domestic political volatility creates conditions for states to negotiate arms control
- •Arms‑control agreements vary widely in verification intensity and design flexibility
- •Perceived adversary cheating undermines willingness to enter new agreements
- •Tailored, lower‑monitoring deals can curb costly arms races without full treaties
Summary
The conversation centers on the February 5 2026 expiration of the New START treaty, the final bilateral, verifiable arms‑control pact between the United States and Russia. Host Heather Williams and Johns Hopkins scholar Dr. Jane Vaynman explore why such agreements emerged during the post‑Cold‑War “golden age” and what the loss of New START means for future security architecture.
Vaynman argues that arms‑control deals are rare because the security dilemma is usually intense; they only materialize when states perceive a mild dilemma, stable domestic politics, and mutual confidence in defensive postures. Her research maps a spectrum of agreements—from highly intrusive verification regimes to minimal information exchanges—and shows how power asymmetries, conflict termination timing, and domestic volatility shape that spectrum.
A striking quote from the book underscores the point: “Arms control is rare because of the pervasiveness of the security dilemma.” She also highlights the current narrative that U.S. restraint under New START contrasted with Russian and Chinese advancements, noting that without a formal treaty, it is difficult to judge whether such moves constitute cheating or simply independent development.
The takeaway for policymakers is that arms control is not dead but in a “hibernation” phase. Flexible, lower‑monitoring arrangements can still curb costly arms races, preserve relative stability, and free resources for other priorities. Designing such tailored instruments will be crucial as great‑power competition intensifies and new technological domains emerge.
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...