The fragile global legal framework for nuclear weapons control faces further setbacks in 2026, eroding guardrails to avoid a nuclear crisis.The first half of the year will see two key events: the US-Russia bilateral treaty, New START, expires on February 5, and in April, New York hosts the Review Conference (RevCon) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — the cornerstone of global nuclear security frameworks.The RevCon, held every four to five years, is meant to keep the NPT alive. But during the last two sessions, the 191 signatory states failed to agree on a final document, and experts expect the same outcome in April.”I think this is going to be a difficult RevCon,” said Alexandra Bell, head of US-based global security nonprofit the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, at a UN-hosted online conference in early December. “In terms of the current state and near future prospects of nuclear arms control architecture, things are bleak,” she added.Anton Khlopkov, director of Russian think-tank the Center for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS), took an even starker point of view, saying at the same event that “we are at the point of almost complete dismantlement of arms control architecture”.”We should be realistic in the current circumstances. At best, I think we should try to preserve what we have,” he said.- ‘Crumbling’ safeguards -From US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to Russia’s test of the new Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and US President Donald Trump’s remarks about possibly resuming nuclear tests — the international nuclear landscape darkened in 2025. At the same time, “the arms control architecture is crumbling”, Emmanuelle Maitre of France’s Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS) told AFP. A key challenge hinges on a shift in global relations. Nuclear control had been built over decades around a Moscow-Washington axis, but China’s growing power and rapid technological advances have shifted the international playing field, which is simultaneously increasingly strained.”The growing interlinkage between nuclear and conventional forces and the emergence of disruptive technologies (such as the US Golden Dome defence system and new hypersonic weapons) have transformed traditional nuclear deterrence into a multi-domain concept, especially in a multipolar world,” said Peking University’s Hua Han.”This trilateral configuration introduces complexities far beyond the Cold War-era bilateral model. Increasing China-Russia cooperation further complicates deterrence calculations, particularly in the two main theatres of concern: Europe and the Asia-Pacific,” she added, according to the minutes of an April event held by Pakistan’s Center for International Strategic Studies. A likely result of the changing landscape is the lapse of New START, which sets weapon limits and includes inspection systems.”The entire inspection component is no longer functioning, the notifications when a missile is moved, etc, all of that has vanished. What remains is only the voluntary commitment to stay within the limits,” said Maitre.- ‘Collective solutions’ -But allowing New START to lapse is “in American interest”, according to Robert Peters of the influential Heritage Foundation, reflecting the stance of much of the US strategic community to avoid tying Washington’s hands to Moscow alone. Beijing, which currently has fewer weapons, has so far refused to engage in trilateral disarmament talks.”China is the fastest growing nuclear power on the planet. It’s building 100 new warheads a year and now has more ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) silos than the US has active Minuteman III silos,” Peters said at a recent online International Institute for Strategic Studies event. “New START does nothing to address” that issue, he added. However, Maitre said, a New START lapse doesn’t mean the world should expect serious consequences as early as February 6. In both Washington and Moscow, “there is a small margin to bring some weapons back into service, but the numbers cannot be very significant. There are bottlenecks” that will slow any buildup, she said.Nor will the lack of a final document from the RevCon cause “immediate or damaging consequences” to the NPT, she said. But, she warned, fewer safeguards risks leaving the world without diplomatic tools to resolve tensions.”The less functional the NPT becomes, the harder it is to forge collective solutions in the event of a crisis.”

From fleets of private trailers to personal chefs and sprawling entourages, Bollywood stars’ “obnoxious” demands are driving up production costs and putting a strain on the Indian film industry’s finances, insiders say.Bollywood has long been unpredictable at the box office and the pandemic compounded problems, but producers argue that today’s losses stem less from creative failure and more from top artists’ runaway expenses.”It is not so much about production cost — it is more about star fees,” says producer Ramesh Taurani, best known for the successful Race action franchise.Actors, filmmakers say, increasingly arrive on set with a dozen-strong entourage — including makeup artists, hairdressers, stylists, gym trainers and assistants — all billed to production.Stars are paid hefty fees of up to $22.18 million per film but additional requests for first-class travel, five-star hotels, multiple private trailers and work-shy hours have become routine.”Expansive support teams, premium travel and luxury accommodations often inflate budgets without proportionate creative impact,” said veteran producer Mukesh Bhatt. “The kind of demands stars make is obnoxious.”Distributor and trade analyst Raj Bansal added: “One actor usually comes with 10 to 15 staff members.”Earlier, actors wouldn’t mind sharing one vanity van. Then they decided to give one vanity van each to a big star — and demand went on increasing.”A single trailer hired for the duration of a film shoot can cost as much $18,000. For some actors, insiders say, demanding more has become a status symbol.- ‘Self-respect’ -Bollywood has always been considered high-risk, producing more flops than hits, but producers say the balance has tipped sharply as star-driven costs spiral beyond what box office returns can sustain.The fragile model was shaken after the pandemic, when streaming platforms bought films at inflated prices. When those deals dried up, producers faced a painful course correction as income plunged but actors’ demands stayed elevated. And that problem continues today.Competition has also intensified. “Audience behaviour has matured, streaming platforms have broadened horizons and regional cinema has elevated creative standards,” says Bhatt.”Yet, alongside this progress, rising production costs — particularly talent-driven budgets — have introduced a significant strain. It is not the films that falter, but the economics that lose balance.”Actor-filmmaker Aamir Khan slammed stars for burdening producers with these costs.”You earn in crores (tens of millions of rupees),” Khan said, in a September interview with the YouTube show Game Changers. “Where’s your self-respect?”- ‘Power of storytelling’ -Industry insiders say actors’ demands also have a cascading effect, as stars seek to exceed each other’s perks.”A measured approach will allow us to redirect resources toward what truly defines cinema — the power of storytelling,” said Bhatt.Producers have pushed for partnership-style compensation models.”When a film thrives, every contributor should benefit,” Bhatt said. “When it struggles, the weight should not rest solely on the producer, who shoulders risk from the very beginning.”The 2024 science fiction action film Bade Miyan Chote Miyan (“Big Mister, Little Mister”), starring Akshay Kumar and Tiger Shroff, reportedly cost about $42 million. After poor ticket sales, producers were reported to have mortgaged property to cover debts.There have been exceptions.Actor Kartik Aaryan waived his fee for the 2023 action-comedy Shehzada, which tanked at the box office.”If your star value and the entire project’s value gives profit to the entire team, I think then the math adds up,” Aaryan said. “If it doesn’t, then you should take a cut.”Some producers argue that the industry must confront its own excesses.”If the star fee and entourage is affecting your budget, then don’t take stars,” says actor-writer-producer Viveck Vaswani.”I have made 40 films with 40 newcomers and have prospered. I took SRK (Shah Rukh Khan) when nobody wanted him. I cast Raveena Tandon when nobody knew her.”Vaswani, a longtime friend of Khan, notes that “SRK has no entourage cost, he pays his own”, as does Akshay Kumar.”Lots of them do that, they don’t burden the producers,” he said. “If you think your star is stronger than your script, you are wrong.”