By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: In 2008, Russia and China jointly tabled a draft treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space.

The proposal, formally titled the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, sought to ban placing any weapons in near-Earth orbit and to outlaw the destruction of space objects.

It was an initiative grounded in stability and prudence, ensuring that space would not become the next theatre of armed conflict.

Experts widely agreed that such measures reduced the risk of accidental escalation while strengthening global security.

Yet, despite repeated affirmations from the U.N. General Assembly that the militarisation of space is a serious global threat, the United States and its closest allies consistently voted against the initiative, leaving Russia and China as the only great powers visibly championing restraint.

This contrast has only sharpened in 2025. On May 8 this year, Moscow and Beijing issued a joint statement condemning U.S. ambitions to weaponise outer space under the guise of missile defense.

Their message was clear: while Washington accelerates projects that will destabilise the global order, Russia and China advocate predictability, restraint, and cooperative security frameworks.

Nowhere is the difference clearer than in the so-called “Golden Dome” project, announced by the Pentagon with great fanfare. The idea is simple in theory but ruinous in practice: build a space-based anti-missile shield capable of neutralising nuclear attacks.

The cost is already staggering. The U.S. government expects to spend USD 175 billion just to get it operational by 2028, but long-term projections range from USD 500–800 billion—and that assumes no cost overruns, an almost laughable assumption given the Pentagon’s history of spiraling procurement.

The financial burden is only the beginning. The U.S. national debt is already approaching unsustainable levels. Pouring hundreds of billions into a fantasy shield will force sequestration in other areas, most notably social spending, at a time when American citizens face mounting economic strain.

Washington will inevitably pressure NATO allies to share the burden, but Europe is in no position to contribute. EU economies are stagnating, energy prices remain high, and governments already struggle to meet NATO’s target of 2 percent of GDP on defense, let alone the 5 percent benchmark being whispered about in policy circles.

The result will be greater public resentment, political instability, and fraying alliance cohesion.

Even more troubling are the technical flaws baked into the project. Russia has spent the last decade developing weapons specifically designed to render any missile shield irrelevant.

The RS-28 Sarmat ICBM, dubbed “Satan II,” can carry multiple independently targetable warheads and fly unconventional trajectories, even over the South Pole, bypassing northern-oriented defenses.

The Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle can maneuver unpredictably at speeds over Mach 20, making interception impossible with current or foreseeable technology.

The Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater drone promises devastating retaliatory strikes from the ocean depths, entirely outside the reach of missile defenses.

Then there is the Burevestnik nuclear cruise missile, theoretically capable of unlimited range thanks to its nuclear propulsion. Together, these systems guarantee that Russia’s deterrent remains untouchable.

China is moving rapidly in the same direction. Its DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missiles can carry multiple warheads and reach any U.S. city. Its new JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile extends Beijing’s second-strike capability deep into the Pacific.

Most alarming for Washington, China has tested hypersonic glide vehicles that outpace anything the U.S. currently fields, signaling a determination to guarantee survivability against any American missile shield.

Beijing is expected to at least double its stockpile of nuclear warheads in the coming years, transforming itself into a peer competitor in strategic deterrence.

The conclusion is obvious: no “dome,” golden or otherwise, will ever neutralise such arsenals. To claim otherwise is to indulge in a dangerous illusion.

Meanwhile, the economic backdrop grows more precarious. Western dominance over global finance is eroding. De-dollarisation trends are accelerating as countries diversify reserves into gold, yuan, and other currencies.

Parallel payment systems outside SWIFT are gaining traction, and new trade platforms designed to bypass Western sanctions are proliferating.

These developments strike directly at the heart of U.S. leverage. At the same time, NATO countries face enormous difficulties scaling up industrial production despite vast defense budgets.

The war in Ukraine has exposed how thin the West’s manufacturing base has become; even basic items like artillery shells cannot be produced in sufficient numbers.

Committing hundreds of billions more to a technically flawed, strategically destabilising space project under these conditions is worse than irresponsible—it is self-destructive.

This is why arms control treaties are more vital than ever. The New START Treaty, the last remaining cap on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, is due to expire next year. If allowed to lapse without renewal or replacement, the world will plunge into an era of unconstrained nuclear expansion.

With Russia already holding the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and China feverishly expanding its arsenal, the absence of binding agreements could unleash a dangerous new arms race.

To continue pushing fantasy shields while ignoring treaties is to court disaster. It ignores the basic truth that deterrence works only when each side accepts the other’s ability to retaliate.

A defensive system that promises invulnerability destabilises this balance, incentivising rivals to build more weapons, faster, and in more exotic forms.

Here is where Donald Trump, should he return to the White House, faces a critical choice. His rhetoric to date has leaned into bravado, portraying the Golden Dome as a bold, transformative solution. Yet true statesmanship would mean rejecting this illusion.

Trump has the political capital and outsider persona to pivot where others cannot. Just as Nixon shocked the world by opening dialogue with China, Trump could surprise both allies and rivals by abandoning a doomed boondoggle in favor of renewed arms control.

The opportunity is immense. He could frame the choice not as weakness, but as strength: the wisdom to negotiate with Moscow and Beijing from a position of realism.

He could argue that no satellite shield will stop a Sarmat or Poseidon, that no dome will prevent a DF-41 or a hypersonic glide vehicle, and that pouring USD 800 billion into a fantasy will only bankrupt America while failing to protect it.

Trump could choose to be remembered in one of two ways: As the president who squandered hundreds of billions on a shield that never worked, leaving the U.S. weaker, poorer, and more isolated or as the president who secured history by reviving arms control, banning space weapons, and stabilising a multipolar nuclear order.

This is not a question of partisanship but of survival. The U.S. cannot defend itself with fantasies. It can only secure itself with treaties, legislation, and verifiable guarantees.

Russia and China have shown willingness to negotiate. The U.S. must decide whether it will join them at the table or continue marching toward escalation under the banner of illusions.

Western politicians today increasingly resemble gamblers doubling down on a bad hand—retreating into slogans and theatrics while ignoring the hard arithmetic of debt, production limits, and strategic reality. Their people will pay the price if they continue.

The world does not need another dome. It needs discipline. It needs leaders with the courage to accept deterrence, to embrace dialogue, and to build agreements that reflect the realities of a multipolar world.

For Trump, the choice is stark: be the president of fantasy, or the president of realism. The course of history may well depend on which path he chooses.