Analysis & forecasts
Assessing the strategic incentives for states to pursue arms control dialogues even amid deep political mistrust and rivalry.
Global powers navigate fragile trust to pursue dialogue, balancing deterrence, legitimacy, domestic pressures, regional rivalries, and long-term stability objectives within constrained, uncertain timelines.
Published by
Daniel Cooper
August 09, 2025 - 3 min Read
States often confront a paradox: deep distrust and intense rivalry coexist with persistent incentives to engage in arms control dialogue. Even when leaders doubt rivals’ sincerity, the strategic calculus includes reducing the probability of accidental escalation, calibrating risk in crisis moments, and gaining visibility for restraint commitments that can shape alliances and deterrence postures. Dialogues may serve as signaling devices, clarifying red lines, identifying verification feasible zones, and preventing misinterpretations that could otherwise spiral into miscalculated moves. Moreover, formal talks offer a venue to test practical cooperation on confidence-building measures without requiring full political alignment. The result is a measured approach to risk reduction amid adversarial environments, not a betrayal of competitive instincts.
In many contexts, leaders view arms control channels as a safety valve that complements traditional deterrence while offering a path to norm-building. Even where domestic politics amplify skepticism, executives can frame dialogues as shared insurance against catastrophic consequences, such as accidental launches or unauthorized use of weapons. This reframing helps domestic audiences perceive diplomacy as responsible stewardship rather than capitulation. At the same time, the existence of negotiation tracks can deter unilateral escalation by creating a structured process that imposes technical and bureaucratic constraints on both sides. The careful governance of information exchange, verification, and compliance can gradually erode suspicion, or at least manage it in a predictable, codified way.
Mutual assurances emerge from incremental, verifiable steps.
The incentives to talk are not purely strategic; they also reflect broader systemic interests in shaping regional norms. When rival states see that dialogue can produce verifiable steps toward transparency, they may accept incremental transparency measures even amid competitive discourse. These steps reduce the room for misinterpretation and create a shared vocabulary for risk assessment. Incremental progress can then be leveraged to broaden cooperation into areas such as civil-nuclear safety, export controls, or dual-use technology management. The cumulative effect is to raise the cost of conflict while lowering the expected gains from aggression, thereby nudging rational actors toward reframing their rivalry as a problem solvable through negotiated limits.
Additionally, arms control dialogues often produce ancillary benefits beyond the central treaty architecture. They can illuminate domestic constraints on leaders, clarifying what experimental or technological developments are permissible within a legal framework. The information flowing through technical talks improves crisis management and command-and-control practices across institutions. It also fosters professional networks among military officers, scientists, and diplomats who might otherwise operate in parallel tracks. These networks can serve as a quiet channel for de-escalation during high-tension episodes, offering a mechanism for back-channel communication that reduces ambiguity. Over time, such channels may become resilient components of a stable strategic environment, even if public rhetoric remains harsh and adversarial.
Dialogue as a bridge between legitimacy and restraint.
When crisis dynamics intensify, states often find it valuable to buttress deterrence with transparency rather than seek absolute secrecy. A carefully designed verification regime, even if imperfect, signals a commitment to restraint and reduces the likelihood of accidental breaches. Verification procedures can include on-site inspections, data exchanges, and routine simulations that verify compliance without revealing sensitive capabilities. The strategic logic is to create a credible picture of restraint that rivals must acknowledge even if they doubt other elements of the relationship. The credibility of such steps grows as independent observers, alliance partners, and third parties weigh the trust that is being earned through consistent demonstrations of good faith.
Domestic political calculations also influence incentives in tangible ways. When factions compete over national security budgets or public support for military modernization, a visible, credible arms-control track can serve as a politically palatable alternative to costly arms races. Politicians can claim leadership in restraint while still pursuing robust defense programs behind the scenes. This dynamic helps maintain popular legitimacy by reframing security policy as prudent stewardship, not weakness. The result is a layered strategy where public diplomacy emphasizes restraint, while technical negotiations quietly advance risk-reduction measures that could extend strategic stability beyond electoral cycles.
Interdependent security concerns push dialogue forward.
A crucial merit of arms control dialogue lies in its ability to reshape expectations about what is possible. Even skeptical audiences may be swayed by a sequence of tangible, verifiable commitments that accumulate into a normative baseline for state behavior. When states observe that rivals abide by agreed procedures, trust can slowly emerge in a domain that previously endured constant suspicion. The process is not instantaneous; it requires patience, disciplined negotiation, and the willingness to accept modest gains as footholds for larger, future concessions. Over the long haul, this approach can help decouple strategic competition from unilateral escalation, enabling more stable coexistence despite ongoing rivalry.
The role of external incentives should not be underestimated. Multilateral institutions, regional security architectures, and scientific communities can reinforce bilateral talks by providing independent assessment, shared norms, and peer pressure for compliance. When these actors endorse transparency and verification, domestic audiences encounter a wider, more credible chorus advocating restraint. External incentives also offer a framework for addressing non-traditional risk factors, such as cyber-espionage, space assets, or dual-use technologies that complicate traditional arms-control calculations. The collective push from many sides can tilt political calculations toward continuing dialogue, even when official rhetoric remains adversarial.
Looking ahead, incentives for continued talks endure.
A practical reason for sustained dialogue is risk management in a volatile security environment. The possibility of misinterpretation grows as military exercises intensify, weapons modernization accelerates, and regional flashpoints flare. In this setting, dialogue functions as a preemptive risk-management tool, aligning communication protocols, crisis hotlines, and last-resort communication channels. It reduces the chance that a misread signal triggers a dangerous response. By maintaining regular contact, states keep lines of communication open during crises, which is essential if expectations about restraint are to be credible. The process also fosters a shared language for de-escalation, making it easier to negotiate during moments of acute tension.
Another practical advantage is the ability to coordinate nonproliferation and disarmament steps with broader security ambitions. Dialogues can integrate efforts to secure fissile material, control transfers of sensitive technologies, and harmonize export-control regimes. Such integration helps prevent loopholes that would otherwise enable illicit gains or illicit procurement networks. When states negotiate these elements together, the resulting architecture tends to be more robust and easier to monitor. In turn, this coherence can reassure allies and civil society actors who demand demonstrable progress, thereby strengthening overall legitimacy for restraint policies.
Yet sustaining dialogue amid mistrust requires more than formal agreements; it calls for a durable political commitment to transparency and reciprocity. Leaders must cultivate domestic constituencies that value restraint as a priority, even when security budgets or strategic narratives privilege strength. Robust domestic support helps insulate dialogue from sudden political pivots and provides political capital to endure short-term setbacks. Equally important is maintaining clear, implementable steps that parties can measure, verify, and publicly acknowledge. Transparent reporting, periodic reviews, and independent verification can maintain momentum while low-intensity conflicts or competing narratives continue to shape perceptions of threat.
Looking forward, the strategic incentives for arms-control engagement are best understood as a mosaic rather than a single motive. Risk-reduction, crisis prevention, norm-building, and domestic political calculations all intersect to sustain dialogue over time. A robust approach combines credible verification, incremental concessions, and credible signaling of restraint with an adaptive response to evolving technologies and new security challenges. Even in environments of deep mistrust and rivalry, states may find that dialogue preserves space for cooperation, mitigates catastrophic risk, and quietly reshapes the strategic landscape toward predictable, manageable risk. The ultimate payoff lies not in immediate disarmament but in the steady construction of stable channels that keep crisis from spiraling.
