The last guardrail is gone. Russia says it will show restraint — but only if Washington does the same.
Russia said Wednesday it would continue observing the missile and warhead ceilings set under the now-expired New START agreement — provided the United States does not exceed those limits.
Speaking before the State Duma, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described Moscow’s position as a conditional moratorium. “Our position is that this moratorium on our side that was declared by the president is still in place, but only as long as the United States doesn’t exceed the said limits,” he said.
The 2010 treaty formally expired on February 5, removing binding constraints on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in more than 50 years. The lapse has fueled concerns among arms-control advocates about a renewed strategic competition — potentially involving not only Washington and Moscow but also Beijing, whose nuclear stockpile remains smaller but is expanding rapidly.
U.S. President Donald Trump declined an offer from Russian President Vladimir Putin to voluntarily extend adherence to the treaty’s limits for another year. Trump said he preferred negotiating what he described as a “new, improved and modernized” agreement rather than prolonging the existing framework.
Lavrov suggested Moscow believes Washington has little immediate incentive to break from the treaty’s numerical thresholds, though he did not detail the intelligence underpinning that assessment. He also renewed calls for a broader “strategic dialogue,” saying such talks were “long overdue.”
Analysts say Russia’s pledge leaves important gaps. Georgia Cole, a security analyst at Chatham House in London, noted that Moscow remains free to continue developing nuclear systems that were not covered under New START’s scope. At the same time, she said, the Kremlin’s conditional restraint allows it to frame the United States as the destabilizing actor should Washington move to expand its arsenal beyond previous limits.
Economic considerations may also shape Moscow’s approach. Russia’s budget remains under strain from its prolonged war in Ukraine. A full-scale nuclear buildup would carry significant financial costs, even if the Kremlin sought to match any major U.S. expansion.
If hostilities in Ukraine ease, more resources could shift toward strategic forces. Yet rebuilding conventional capabilities would also compete for funding. For now, both sides appear to be signaling caution — even as the formal architecture that once enforced it has disappeared.
