Anthony J. Constantini: The Cold War is over. America can let go of the old bilateral treaties.

The Cold War struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union was frequently described as something resembling chess. For nearly 50 years, both vied for control of the global board until only one player remained. In order to manage that dangerous game, a system of bilateral treaties was established between both players. But now, as a multipolar world emerges, the game has changed — and the old order is falling apart.

In the past few months, Russia has pulled out of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and the Treaty of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, or CFE. And earlier this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Russia’s intention to suspend participation in New START, the only nuclear treaty remaining in force between Russia and America. While Russia has stated it will abide by the treaty’s limits on nuclear warheads, missiles and launchers, there is little hope for a renewal when the treaty expires in 2026.

To be clear, these pullouts go both ways: President George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, arguing that it hindered America’s ability to protect itself from terror. President Donald Trump took the United States out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, claiming Russian noncompliance. And when Russia pulled out of the CFE, the West responded in kind — rendering that treaty defunct. And America has never ratified the Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

The removal of these Jenga blocks of the international order has been portrayed by some analysts as calamitous. One analyst, writing for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, declared Bush’s pullout from the ABM treaty a mistake that caused a new arms race.

But these arguments miss the forest for the trees. The old network of treaties was almost entirely established in post-World War II by victorious powers that were preparing for a long and drawn-out Cold War. Over time, new treaties were added — like the ABM treaty — in order to meet new challenges and keep the possibility of a hot war as low as possible.

Chicago Tribune Opinion

Weekdays

Read the latest editorials and commentary curated by the Tribune Opinion team.

But now, the entire structure of the international order is changing. American and Western hegemony is ending and being replaced with a multipolar order: China, India and others are becoming serious players. China is of particular concern to the United States. Satellite photographs recently captured what seems to be a massive new Chinese military base in Cambodia, and the U.S. government revealed that the communist state has massively increased its nuclear arsenal.

[ Daniel DePetris: Xi Jinping and Joe Biden agree to meet as the US and China try to get on the same page ]

China has not broken any treaties in bolstering its forces, nor will India or other rising powers, should they endeavor to do so. This is because they are not restricted by any treaties limiting nuclear forces, nor are they required to provide information about their military to other powers.

A recognition of the lack of restrictions on China was one of Trump’s other reasons for pulling out of the INF treaty: Intermediate-range nuclear forces will be key in any potential struggle with China, and America had been restrained from deploying too many by a treaty that was focused on Russia.

To be clear, this is not to say that all treaties should be done away with. Universal treaties that ban the use of certain particularly heinous weapons — like the Geneva Protocol, which bans chemical and biological weapons and is adhered to by all major powers — can be of great use in a multipolar world, as the risk of conflict will always remain. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which also includes China, is likewise a helpful tool in ensuring that more multipolarity does not necessarily lead to a higher chance of nuclear war. As are the Geneva Conventions, which, among other things, ban mistreatment of prisoners of war.

However, the old bilateral treaties that bind the United States to a conflict now 30 years past are no longer necessary. The one-on-one game of chess is over, and a new multiplayer game — call it Chinese checkers — has begun. As the world moves on and starts playing by new rules and adopting new strategies, America should do the same.

Anthony J. Constantini is a contributing fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy think tank.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.