From Izvestia, Feb. 6, 2026, p. 3. Condensed text:
The expiration of New START can certainly be considered a landmark in the history of strategic stability negotiations. As has been said many times, for the first time in more than half a century, Russia and the US are not bound by the provisions of the bilateral agreement that ensures nuclear deterrence. Of course, there have been critical moments in the past – for example, as a result of Washington’s refusal to ratify SALT II back under the [former US president] Jimmy Carter administration. However, as a rule, the arms control system has remained in a state of equilibrium: After all, the sides have de facto continued to observe the general obligations.
It cannot be ruled out that this will also be the case now: The presidents may still make an appropriate decision. Citing sources, media report that Russian and US representatives have agreed that the [two] countries will observe New START terms for at least another six months during negotiations. However, legally, a fundamentally different situation evolved on Feb. 5, 2026. Through Washington’s fault, the world is rapidly moving toward a new arms race – similar to the one that led to the Cuban missile crisis as well as other extremely dangerous historical events. Even if the treaty is partially resurrected, the general trends will remain unchanged.
Nevertheless, there is no need to panic or succumb to alarmism. Of course, we are entering a very difficult period. It is extremely important to maintain the nuclear balance amid the ongoing global processes. However, something else is more important. With all due respect to New START’s provisions, the treaty did not preclude the possibility of a catastrophic turn of events in the event of a clash of interests between Moscow and Washington. As a matter of fact, the Biden administration, which promptly extended it, did everything to put the US and Russia on the brink of military confrontation, a scenario for which the Pentagon analyzed quite seriously and in detail.
The strategic arms ceilings established by the expired treaty are insufficient to avoid a nuclear apocalypse. New START, with its built-in inspection mechanisms, largely symbolized the immutability of the reciprocal willingness for trust-based dialogue. But frankly, since the West unleashed a hybrid war against our country, commitment to the old rules of the game has started to look increasingly outdated. Under such circumstances, as befits polite people, we proposed that the US de facto extend the treaty, but our proposal was met with silence. Therefore, the time has indeed come to turn the page.
Needless to say, New START did not limit many new weapon systems that the US had long been developing, bringing a [commensurate] response from our specialists. [The treaty] did not affect hypersonic missiles, the militarization of space, underwater drones and so on. Furthermore, it did not affect other nuclear powers, specifically France, which is continuing to pursue an active course toward the militarization of Europe – and has even begun to offer its nuclear umbrella to neighboring countries. In a situation where Washington is effectively encouraging a discussion on its allies’ withdrawal from the nonproliferation regime, viewing the state of affairs in this area exclusively through the prism of Russian-US contacts is not always productive. It is necessary to build a new international security system. The new equal and indivisible security architecture in Eurasia proposed by President Vladimir Putin will be the first step toward [creating that system].
Will the US become our partner in this process? So far, it’s hard to say for certain. Of course, the Trump administration is continuing the policy of competition with Moscow and other centers of power in the struggle for global domination. [The US administration] is taking steps to crowd Russia out of energy markets [and] intimidate countries friendly to us. The silence in response to the Russian president’s strategic arms limitation initiative has also proved quite symbolic.
No doubt, the US elites view us as rivals, not friends. Nevertheless, we are leaving open a window for dialogue that is already bearing fruit as part of a Ukraine settlement. If the conflict is successfully resolved soon, some prospects for the development of economic interaction might emerge. And if the search for mutual understanding continues in the long term (which is far from guaranteed), then the threats posed by nuclear weapons will disappear on their own, becoming a vestige of history.
But that is still a long way off. We are currently at a stage where the very likelihood of peace looks far from certain. There are still many interest groups in the US that are hoping for dialogue to crumble. Many of them are fueled by the Western military-industrial complex. Even a compromise on Ukraine does not guarantee the peaceful coexistence of our states without the elimination of the root causes of the conflict.
It is necessary for the West to formalize the abandonment of its NATO expansion policy. It is extremely important to stop discussing escalation scenarios like those that Mark Rutte recently laid out in the Supreme Rada. Western elites should learn to listen to us and hear us. So far, only very modest steps are being taken in this direction. This is precisely why we must not sit back and relax until all the declared goals of the special military operation [in Ukraine] are achieved. Only by achieving the goals that the president has set will we eliminate historical threats to Russia’s security. And then strategic stability dialogue will finally regain its original purpose and allow us to build new treaty-based structures to replace those that have sunk into oblivion.