When algorithm replaces ...
Page 1
START II (1993) never entered into force, while START III was never signed and remained at the stage of proposals and negotiations. New START, the final link in this chain, expired on February 5, 2026, leaving, for the first time since 1972, no legally binding ceiling on the US and Russian strategic arsenals. The arms control architecture of the Cold War has effectively collapsed.
This collapse is not accidental. When the principal balancer of the order is no longer the bomb alone, treaties that only counted bombs lose their relevance. The question is: What is the new balancer?
Every technological leap, a new order
History offers a fairly clear answer to this question. Whenever a technological leap has entered the arena, it has disrupted the balance of power and pushed the international order toward a new configuration. Gunpowder made feudal fortresses obsolete and gave rise to centralized states. Steam power and electricity replaced land-based power with industrial power. Air power broke through the boundaries of the battlefield. The internet turned information into a field of competition.
Artificial intelligence is now making inroads simultaneously into the economy, military, information, education and governance, and this reach is broader than that of any previous technological leap. Chinese scholars such as Yan Xuetong, one of the country’s leading international relations theorists, argue that the turning point in the transformation of the international order in our time will come through competition over digital technologies. If that is the case, the question is not whether AI will reshape the order, but who will rein it in and how.
Washington moment
The news of the end of the Trump-Xi meeting should be read through this very question. According to the White House, the two sides agreed to establish a “US-China dialogue on superintelligence” to exchange views on its risks and benefits, as well as to launch a dedicated “bilateral communication channel” for AI-related incidents. The idea for the channel was put forward by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng: if either side identifies an AI-related incident that threatens national security, such as a cyberattack or a biological risk, it would notify the other side. Xi also stressed that the two countries share a responsibility to keep the technology “under human control.”
Let’s be honest: this agreement still has no ceiling and no counting mechanism. Reports have also emphasized the absence of a major substantive agreement on tariffs, rare earths and chips. Critics argue that the channel is more akin to the direct hotline established in 1963 following the Cuban Missile Crisis than to SALT I.
But that very resemblance to the hotline is itself part of the argument. SALT I was not a comprehensive ceiling either. It was an interim agreement that froze the number of launchers at existing levels and paved the way for subsequent negotiations. Its significance lay not in the numbers, but in the “moment of recognition.” The two rivals acknowledged that an unrestrained race over nuclear bombs capable of determining the balance of power would hurt both sides. Precisely this logic was reproduced in Washington in 2026: what came to the table was not a race over development, but a mechanism for control. And what is noteworthy is that, unlike any previous technological agreement, the two sides are discussing how and to what extent to constrain an emerging technology before it reaches full maturity.
Order taking shape
If “AI SALT I” succeeds, the order that emerges from it will be fundamentally different from the previous one. It will have three characteristics.
First, it will be post-bipolar. The bomb concentrated power in two poles, but AI is a multilayered technology: chips, data, algorithms, computing infrastructure and human expertise each create a separate center of power. Instead of a single pole, we will face multiple centers of power, with different actors occupying positions within each of them.
Second, it will be post-human. Robots and intelligent systems will play decisive roles in economic, military and information-related decision-making. The role of humans will shift from executors to framework designers and overseers. China’s leader’s emphasis on keeping AI “under human control” shows that this concern has moved from academic circles into the leaders’ negotiating room.
Third, it will be post-Western. The growth of digital technologies and AI in non-American and non-European countries is breaking the West’s historic monopoly over rule-setting. SALT I was written by two European-descended powers; this time, one of the signatories is in the East, while middle powers and developing countries will ultimately seek a share as well.
SALT I consolidated the bipolar order and gave the world several decades of relative stability. It is still too early to know whether what began in Washington will lead to SALT II or, like it, stall somewhere along the way. But one thing is clear: the new balancer of the global order has acquired a name and an identity. The difference is that this time, the subject of negotiations is not a warhead that can be counted, but an algorithm that is changing every day. And perhaps that is the hardest and most consequential difference between the two orders.