Russia Says It Will Maintain New START Limits So Long as U.S. Does

Russia says it will continue to observe the numerical limits on strategic missiles and warheads set by the 2010 New START treaty - which expired on February 5 - provided the United States does not exceed those caps. The Kremlin’s stance follows a rejected proposal from Moscow for a voluntary one-year extension and comes amid concerns that the treaty’s expiry could spur an arms race involving China.

Key Points

Russia will maintain the New START treaty’s numerical limits on strategic missiles and warheads as long as the United States does the same - implying a conditional moratorium rather than a new formal pact.
The 2010 New START treaty expired on February 5, removing binding constraints on the U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals for the first time in over 50 years.
Sectors most directly affected include national defense budgets and government fiscal planning, as maintaining or expanding nuclear forces would influence defense spending priorities and fiscal pressures.

Summary

Russia has announced it will keep to the limits on strategic missiles and warheads that were prescribed by the 2010 New START treaty, which formally lapsed on February 5, on the condition that the United States continues to respect those same limits. The declaration from the Russian foreign ministry underscores Moscow’s intention to hold to a self-imposed moratorium for now, while highlighting the uncertainty that has followed the treaty’s expiry.

Details of Moscow’s Position

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the State Duma that Russia will continue to observe the missile and warhead ceilings established under the New START agreement so long as Washington reciprocates. The 2010 treaty expired last week, removing binding constraints on the two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in more than half a century.

Lavrov reiterated that a moratorium announced by the Russian president remains active - conditioned explicitly on U.S. compliance. In parliament he said:

"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."

Context and Reactions Noted

The treaty’s expiry has prompted worries that the removal of legal caps could lead to a broader arms competition that would include China - a country that currently fields far fewer warheads than either the United States or Russia but which is expanding its capabilities. Separately, analysts cited in the public discussion argue that Russia may also seek to avoid the financial burden of entering such a contest while its budget remains under pressure from its four-year military campaign in Ukraine.

The Kremlin’s decision to condition continued adherence on U.S. behavior follows a Moscow proposal for a voluntary one-year extension of the treaty limits, a proposal the U.S. president chose not to accept. That refusal leaves the two countries without a binding framework governing strategic nuclear limits at present.

What Remains Uncertain

At present, Russia’s moratorium is tied to U.S. restraint rather than to any renewed, binding agreement. How Washington will respond over time, and whether Beijing’s growing arsenal will influence longer-term policy choices by any party, remains a subject of public concern and debate.

Risks

Without a binding treaty, there is an elevated risk of an arms competition involving Russia, the United States and China, which could drive higher defense spending and strategic uncertainty - impacting defense contractors and national budgets.
Russia faces fiscal strain from its ongoing four-year military campaign in Ukraine, which analysts say could make an expensive arms race politically and economically costly for its state budget - a risk to sovereign fiscal stability.
The absence of formal constraints following the treaty’s expiry leaves uncertainty over future force posture and verification arrangements, increasing market and policy volatility tied to defense and geopolitical risk.

Menu

Key Points

Risks

More from World