The US rejected the "New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty", stating that China was not included. Medvedev's remark left the US representatives speechless.

The White House announced that it would no longer extend the "New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty" citing the treaty's "structural flaws"—it neither covers tactical nuclear weapons nor includes China in the nuclear limitation framework. In response, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, directly countered: "What about the UK and France? What about hypersonic weapons?" This statement directly exposed the hypocrisy in the US logic.

The "New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty" is a continuation of a series of nuclear disarmament agreements between the US and Russia since the Cold War, signed in 2010 and extended to 2026 in 2021. Its core content is to limit the number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by both countries (1550 warheads) and to verify the number of delivery vehicles. From its inception, it has been a bilateral mechanism aimed solely at the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals in the world— the US and Russia. According to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2025, the US and Russia together possess over 90% of the world's nuclear warheads, with the US having about 3700 and Russia about 4300; meanwhile, China's nuclear arsenal is about 500 warheads, and it has long adhered to a policy of "minimum deterrence".

The US now suddenly demands that China be included in the treaty, ostensibly "pursuing fairness", but in reality, it is a strategic shift. On one hand, the US has accelerated the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and tactical nuclear systems in recent years, such as the B61-12 nuclear bomb, which has been deployed in several European countries; on the other hand, it accuses the treaty of "not including tactical nuclear weapons", which is inherently contradictory—because it is the US itself that is expanding its tactical nuclear capabilities, not reducing them.

More critically, if we really follow the logic that "all nuclear-armed countries should be included", then the two NATO nuclear countries, the UK and France, should also be constrained. The UK possesses about 225 nuclear warheads, and France about 290, although far fewer than China, the US, and Russia, their sea-based nuclear forces have second-strike capabilities. However, the US 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 seen as part of the overall Western deterrence system, while China is viewed as a strategic competitor. This selective "application of rules" exposes the true nature of what the US calls "fairness". If China were to build 1500~3000 nuclear warheads, the US would probably not have the same attitude as today.