#25 Gray Area

Nuclear Agreement Between the United States and Türkiye Ends

United States and Russia’s last remaining nuclear arms agreement, New START, has expired. This development signifies the collapse of the nuclear balance that had been preserved even during the most tense moments of the Cold War. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that there has never been a worse time for the agreement to end, emphasizing that the risk of nuclear weapon use is now at its highest level in years.

New START’s expiration means that for the first time since 1972, there is no nuclear agreement remaining between the United States and Russia. The first step in this area, SALT I signed in 1972, aimed to prevent an unlimited arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. This approach established the idea that mutual distrust could still allow for manageable nuclear deterrence and paved the way for subsequent agreements.

START I, signed as the Cold War neared its end, advanced this framework further. The agreement, signed in 1991 by U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, aimed to limit each side’s nuclear delivery systems to 1,600 and nuclear warheads to approximately 6,000. Gorbachev described the agreement as a path toward a new world order based on peace and cooperation, while Bush emphasized that half a century of mutual distrust had finally ended.

The main challenge in implementing START I emerged with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal remained on the territories of newly independent Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. Ukraine, in particular, suddenly became the world’s third-largest nuclear power with approximately 1,900 strategic and 2,500 tactical nuclear weapons.

This issue was resolved by the Lisbon Protocol signed in 1992. Under the protocol, Russia was recognized as the primary successor to START I, and Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine agreed to transfer their nuclear weapons to Russia. However, Ukraine resisted for a long time before finally surrendering its arsenal in 1994 under the Budapest Memorandum, in exchange for security guarantees from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. These guarantees, however, failed to protect Ukraine from Russia’s annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasions.

Although START II, which aimed to more comprehensively limit nuclear weapons, ultimately failed, it did not overshadow the success of START I. When START I’s validity expired in 2009, the gap was filled in 2010 by the signing of New START. Signed by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, the agreement capped deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550, achieving a roughly 30 percent reduction compared to previous treaties.

Another crucial element within New START, as important as the minimum number of warheads, was its verification and transparency mechanisms. Through mutual inspections and regular data exchanges, both parties could regularly monitor each other’s arsenals. However, New START could not escape the harsh winds of geopolitics. Mutual inspections declined during the COVID-19 pandemic and effectively ceased after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In 2023, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia was suspending its participation in the agreement, citing U.S. support for Ukraine. Although the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Russia would still comply with the warhead limits, the collapse of the verification mechanisms severely eroded mutual trust between the two countries. With the agreement’s formal expiration last week, nuclear control between the two nations has vanished entirely, and there is currently no initiative to replace it.

Today, the United States and Russia still hold approximately 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. As of 2025, Russia is estimated to possess about 5,580 warheads and the United States 5,225. Moreover, both countries are focusing not on increasing their nuclear arsenals but on modernizing existing weapons. Although Russia has declared it will continue to act as a responsible nuclear power despite the agreement’s termination, the significance of such statements without binding enforcement remains contested.

In this climate of uncertainty, Donald Trump’s rhetoric has further complicated the situation. In October, Trump stated his intention to resume nuclear weapons testing and dismissed Putin’s proposal to extend the agreement for another year with the phrase “it expires when it expires.” Trump’s real demand is not an extension of the current agreement but a new, long-lasting agreement that includes China.

For Trump, including China in any potential new nuclear agreement is critical. While the United States and Russia each possess around 5,000 warheads, China, with approximately 600, argues that entering into a binding agreement at this stage would be unfair. Although China’s nuclear arsenal is significantly smaller than those of the two major nuclear powers, it is the fastest-growing. China is expected to reach 1,500 warheads by 2035.

When considering a multilateral agreement that includes China, Russia insists that European nuclear capabilities cannot be ignored and demands the inclusion of France, with 290 nuclear warheads, and the United Kingdom, with 225. The possibility of renegotiating the agreement in a multilateral framework also closely concerns other nuclear-armed states: India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

Beyond New START, another point of debate is new nuclear weapon systems not covered by the agreement. For example, Russia’s Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon unmanned underwater weapon attract attention not only for their nuclear propulsion but also for their ability to carry nuclear warheads. These weapons fall outside the scope of New START and represent alternative nuclear capabilities.

With the expiration of New START, the world is moving toward an increasingly rule-free competition in the nuclear domain. The absence of any binding agreement not only makes controlling nuclear arsenals impossible but also increases the risk of miscalculation. For half a century, these agreements, despite their flaws, provided a foundation for communication and predictability between nuclear superpowers. Today, the future of this shared framework remains uncertain.

Super Bowl: From National Unity to Cultural Conflict

On January 20, 1985, while calendars marked the date, an event even more captivating than President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration ceremony dominated the American public’s attention: the Super Bowl final between the San Francisco 49ers and the Miami Dolphins. Everyone held their breath, waiting for kickoff. President Reagan was insistent on personally tossing the ceremonial coin, but changing the inauguration date was constitutionally impossible.

To resolve this dilemma, Reagan postponed the public inauguration ceremony to the next day and held a private, limited-attendance swearing-in. Immediately afterward, he connected from the White House to the stadium via satellite link to toss the coin. Reagan’s innovative solution served as only a simple example of the Super Bowl’s significance to American society.


Today, the Super Bowl has become more than a sporting event—it is a cultural spectacle for Americans. When we think of American culture, consumerism immediately comes to mind. For last year’s Super Bowl final in New Orleans, 115,000 visitors came solely for the game, spending a total of $685 million. This year’s Super Bowl was watched by approximately 125 million people in the United States alone, making it the second-most-watched television broadcast in U.S. history after last year’s game.

Nineteen of the top 20 most-watched television broadcasts in U.S. history are Super Bowl events. This unique position elevates the Super Bowl to a critical platform for the advertising market. In last year’s final, a 30-second commercial cost $8 million; this year, prices have risen to $10 million.

The most striking feature of this grand stage is often not the game itself but the intersections of popular culture and political messaging. Cheryl Ladd’s dedication of the U.S. national anthem to hostages in Iran before the 1980 Super Bowl and Whitney Houston’s performance of the anthem during the Gulf War in 1991, conveying a message of unity, became iconic moments etched into public memory. Today, the Super Bowl’s political messages have shifted from pre-game performances to halftime shows.

Among the most memorable halftime shows in recent years are Beyoncé’s 2016 performance referencing the Black Lives Matter movement, Jennifer Lopez and Shakira’s 2020 tribute to detained immigrant children, and Eminem’s 2022 kneeling gesture, which had become a symbol of resistance to racism. This year’s most discussed halftime performer was Bad Bunny, the stage name of Puerto Rican artist Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, who delivered a performance laden with similar political messages.

The artist, who performed almost entirely in Spanish, transformed the show into a political manifesto by listing countries across North, Central, and South America one by one with their flags after uttering the only English phrase of the performance: “God Bless America,” implicitly asserting that the concept of “America” encompasses the entire continent, not just the United States. The political significance of this performance is further amplified against the backdrop of U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine.

The inclusion of both the official dark blue flag of Puerto Rico, a U.S.-associated autonomous territory in the Caribbean, and the light blue flag of the independence movement sparked controversy. Other elements reinforcing the Latin American presence included Chilean-American actor Pedro Pascal’s appearance and Lady Gaga’s salsa rendition of “Die With A Smile.”

The prominence of Latin American culture in the Super Bowl show coincides with a period of intensified raids and detentions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) against immigrant communities nationwide. Bad Bunny’s explicit protest against these practices during his Grammy acceptance speech—“ICE out, we are not aliens, we are human”—further contextualizes his halftime performance as a political act.

Reactions to Bad Bunny’s performance were swift. Some Republican members of the House of Representatives petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the show, while Donald Trump labeled it “terrible, one of the worst in history” in a post on Truth Social. Trump also complained about the performance being mostly in Spanish, stating, “No one understands what this guy is saying,” and criticized the dancing as inappropriate for children.

Turning Point USA, founded by Charlie Kirk, launched an alternative broadcast called the “Totally American Halftime Show,” featuring Kid Rock, who had previously drawn criticism for performing with a Confederate flag. This alternative broadcast, positioned as a cultural counter-narrative to Bad Bunny’s performance, quickly garnered over 20 million views on digital platforms.

Together, these opposing reactions have transformed the Super Bowl into one of the most visible arenas for long-standing American debates over identity and language. Once a symbol of national unity and solidarity under the U.S. national anthem, this major sporting event now functions as a public space where competing visions of America confront each other.

Layers of Genocide Behind the Ceasefire Curtain

In exchange for prisoners, Israel released some Palestinian detainees from its prisons while Hamas freed the hostages it held. Although these developments led to a temporary lull, they did not halt Israel’s attacks permanently. The Gaza Ministry of Health reported that since the ceasefire began, at least 556 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks. Israel’s 50 attacks in Lebanon last month, the highest number since the ceasefire, revealed that the truce holds little binding force for Israel on Lebanese territory. UNRWA, operating under the United Nations, also highlighted that humanitarian aid reaching the people of Gaza remains insufficient due to obstacles such as customs and visa restrictions.

One of the most severe consequences of the war is evident in the education infrastructure. According to UNRWA, approximately 90 percent of schools in Gaza have been damaged or completely destroyed. Children who survived the genocide now face immense trauma and uncertainty. Even if everything else returns to normal, the long-term impact of this destruction will be felt for years.

Meanwhile, Israel continues its attacks on a biological warfare level. Previously using incendiary materials launched via catapults to set fires in agricultural lands in Lebanon, Israel now targets agricultural areas in Lebanon and Syria with glyphosate, a chemical classified by the World Health Organization as carcinogenic. According to Lebanese authorities’ measurements, glyphosate levels in border regions are 20 to 30 times above average.

In addition, as Ramadan approaches, Israel has significantly tightened restrictions on access to Al-Aqsa Mosque. Israel has banned prominent Palestinian religious leaders from entering Al-Aqsa throughout Ramadan and has greatly expanded previously strict entry bans to include foreign Muslims from countries including Turkey.

Due to Israel’s restrictions, participation in prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan has sharply declined. According to data from the Jerusalem Waqf Administration, under Jordan’s Ministry of Awqaf, Islamic Affairs, and Holy Sites, 300,000 Muslims prayed at Al-Aqsa on Laylat al-Qadr in 2022; this number dropped to 280,000 in 2023, 200,000 in 2024, and to just 180,000 during last year’s Laylat al-Qadr.

It is clear that Israel’s genocidal policies continue not only through ongoing attacks but also through the obstruction of humanitarian aid, targeting schools, chemical attacks on agricultural land, and preventing Muslims from accessing Al-Aqsa Mosque. All these actions clearly demonstrate that Israel’s genocidal policies will not end unless a lasting solution for Palestinians is established.