What does the expiration of the START Treaty mean?

On February 5, 2026, New START, the last treaty between Russia and the United States that limited their nuclear arsenals, expired. RBC reports on how Moscow and Washington approached this date and what will happen afterward.

On February 5, 2026, the Russian-American Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), the last agreement that limited the two countries' nuclear arsenals, expired. For the first time since 1972, when Moscow and Washington concluded the first strategic arms limitation treaty, SALT I, there is no agreement on this area or disarmament negotiations between them.

The Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) is an agreement between Russia and the United States that stipulates how the parties are to reduce their strategic offensive weapons. The document was signed in 2010 in Prague by the two countries' leaders, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama. It entered into force on February 5, 2011; ten years later, it was extended for another five years, but no further extensions are possible.

The New START Treaty applies to the following categories of weapons: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), their launchers (PU) and warheads; submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), their launchers and warheads; heavy bombers and their nuclear armament.

Russia and the United States have set the following ceilings for these weapons :

• 700 pieces for deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers;
• 1,550 pieces for charges on deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and nuclear charges that are attributed to heavy bombers;
• 800 pieces for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers.

Why the New START Treaty was important

The value of the New START Treaty was not only in limiting nuclear arsenals, but also in the fact that it provided an opportunity to check how Russia and the United States were complying with these restrictions.

To this end, the following verification mechanisms were established in it:

• The exchange of notifications (Article VII of the Treaty and Chapter 4 of its Protocol) through national nuclear risk reduction centers. Parties were required to notify each other of any changes to weapons covered by the Treaty, from their destruction as a result of accidents and liquidation to their movements and launches;
• mutual inspections (Article XI and Chapter 5 of the Protocol) at ICBM bases, submarine moorings, and air force bases to confirm the accuracy of declared information on the numbers and types of strategic offensive arms covered by the Treaty.

To resolve contentious issues, the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) worked in Geneva.

According to the US State Department, as of February 1, 2023, during the treaty's term, the parties exchanged 25,449 notifications, conducted 328 inspections, and held 19 BCC meetings.

Mutual inspections were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The next BCC meeting, at which the US wanted to discuss inspections, was scheduled for early December 2022 in Cairo. However, the day before the meeting, Moscow announced that it was being postponed indefinitely.

In February 2023, Russia announced it was suspending its participation in the New START Treaty. The reason was the US involvement in the conflict in Ukraine . "The West is directly involved in the Kiev regime's attempts to strike our strategic aviation bases. The drones used for this were equipped and modernized with the assistance of NATO specialists. And now they also want to inspect our defense facilities," Russian President Vladimir Putin said , announcing his decision in his address to the Federal Assembly. He emphasized that Moscow "is not withdrawing from the treaty, no, but rather suspending its participation."

The concept of "suspension" does not exist in the New START Treaty, so the United States called Russia's decision "legally incorrect" and stated that it would continue to consider Russia bound by its obligations under the treaty. Effective June 1, 2023, Washington ceased sharing information with Moscow about the status and location of its strategic weapons.

How Russia proposed extending the treaty and how the US responded

Extending the treaty again is legally impossible—it's not provided for in its provisions. In September 2025 , Putin stated at a meeting of the Russian Security Council that Moscow would be prepared to adhere to the New START restrictions for at least another year after its expiration, that is, until February 5, 2027. He outlined two conditions for this: first, the United States would promise to do the same; second, it would "not take steps that undermine or violate the existing balance of deterrence potentials," specifically, it would not build up its missile defense (MD).

"A complete rejection of the legacy of this agreement would be, from many perspectives, a mistaken and short-sighted step, which, in our opinion, would also negatively impact the goals of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," Putin said at the time. In effect, the Russian president proposed maintaining the status quo that had been established in recent years, when Moscow and Washington stopped conducting inspections and exchanging data.

There was no official response or public statement from the United States accepting or rejecting the Russian proposal. US President Donald Trump commented on the Russian initiative several times, without specifying whether Washington would continue to adhere to the ceilings established by the New START Treaty. "It sounds like a good idea," he said in early October, answering journalists' questions on the White House lawn. A little later, during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, he reported that Putin "mentioned nuclear weapons in the context of de-escalation" during their phone call on October 16. "I think that's the right and very appropriate step," Trump said then.

However, as early as January 2026, he made it clear that he wasn't particularly concerned about the fate of the New START. "If it expires, it expires," the US president said in an interview with The New York Times (NYT). "We'll make a better deal."

According to Moscow, without the New START, the world finds itself "in a more dangerous situation than it has been up to now." "For the first time, the United States and the Russian Federation—the two countries that possess the world's largest nuclear arsenals—will be left without a fundamental document that would limit and establish controls over these arsenals. We believe this is very bad," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on February 3 ( quoted by TASS ).

Russia made no demarches or official appeals in the days leading up to the New START Treaty's expiration. "We did everything we needed to do earlier, in a timely manner, well in advance; they had plenty of time to process it all. A lack of response is also a response," said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on February 3.

On the evening of February 4, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement clarifying its future approach to the New START Treaty. The US's failure to provide an official, formalized response to Putin's proposal was perceived as a deliberate omission. "This approach appears erroneous and regrettable," the ministry noted. Moscow now assumes that the parties to the New START Treaty are no longer bound by its obligations under the treaty and are therefore "free to choose their next steps." The ministry assured that Russia will "act responsibly and deliberately, formulating its policy on New START based on a thorough analysis of US military policy and the overall strategic situation."

"The Russian Federation remains prepared to take decisive military-technical countermeasures to mitigate potential additional threats to national security. At the same time, our country remains open to exploring political and diplomatic avenues for comprehensive stabilization of the strategic situation based on equitable and mutually beneficial dialogue solutions, should the appropriate conditions for such interaction emerge," the Russian Foreign Ministry concluded.

How will the expiration of the New START Treaty affect global security?

According to experts interviewed by RBC, the treaty's expiration will negatively impact international security. "The main threat is that it will be much more difficult to resume negotiations for a subsequent agreement. The transparency and predictability associated with control mechanisms are currently absent, and we will gradually lose track of each other's strengths," says Alexei Arbatov, head of the Center for International Security at the IMEMO RAS and Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. "Previous treaties typically served as benchmarks for new agreements. Now, these benchmarks will become a thing of the past. We will find ourselves in a situation of great uncertainty, and such a situation is always dangerous." Such a situation occurred in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis , the expert recalled, and "we could approach that situation again, especially since now there will be not just two players, but many more."

"At the same time, we must understand that there will be no immediate deterioration," clarifies Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (Geneva). "The deterioration that could have occurred has already largely occurred, and the expiration of the treaty is a symptom of this deterioration, not a result."

According to the expert, countries' ability to increase their nuclear forces is limited. "What can be done relatively quickly is to return warheads that were previously put into reserve to their carriers. The United States will be able to roughly double the number of deployed warheads within a year or two, while Russia will be able to increase this number by about 50 percent. But it's unlikely that such an increase will be achieved quickly or to the full extent," Podvig notes.

Nikolai Sokov, a leading researcher at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP), believes that the New START treaty currently serves largely symbolic purposes—its primary purpose was to ensure transparency of nuclear arsenals, but in recent years, it has failed to fulfill this purpose. "Furthermore, Russia is developing weapons not covered by the treaty (Burevestnik and Poseidon), and the US is considering a significant buildup of strategic weapons in response to the growth of China's arsenal—the New START will prevent none of this," the expert told RBK.

However, this symbolism also matters, Sokov continues. The NPT Review Conference will be held in New York in April-May 2026, and the absence of any agreements (at least an agreement between Russia and the United States not to exceed the START ceilings for at least another year) could further weaken the global non-proliferation system. Under the NPT, nuclear-weapon states commit to conducting disarmament negotiations in good faith; non-nuclear-weapon states accuse them of not doing enough in this regard.

"The [non-proliferation] treaty is currently in far from its best shape; there are many reasons for this, but one of the key ones is the ongoing breakdown of the international nuclear arms control system," Sergei Batsanov, a member of the Pugwash Council of the Scientific Conference and retired Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, told RBK.

Why China , Britain, and France did not join the New START Treaty

Both during his first term (2017–2021) and now, Trump has insisted on China's participation in nuclear disarmament negotiations . During his first presidency, Moscow and Washington held consultations on extending the treaty without preconditions, and the issue arose precisely because of the US position on Beijing's participation. For example, on the eve of one of the consultations in Vienna in June 2020, the US side posted a photo of the negotiating room with Chinese flags on social media, writing that "the talks are about to begin," but "China didn't show up," as if there had been an agreement on its participation. Ultimately, the New START Treaty was extended in 2021— Joe Biden agreed to do so in the first days of his presidency .

China refuses to participate in the bilateral New START Treaty and disarmament negotiations. This is because China's nuclear arsenal is much smaller than that of Russia and the United States. According to SIPRI estimates, in 2025, Moscow and Washington would have 4,309 and 3,700 nuclear warheads, respectively, while Beijing's arsenal was 600.

"Given the vast disparity between China's nuclear arsenal and those of the United States and the Russian Federation, we simply don't believe there is any fair and equitable basis for China to join the United States and Russia in their nuclear arms control negotiations," Fu Cong, director of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Arms Control Department, said in a 2020 interview with Kommersant (at the time, China had approximately 350 warheads). "But at the same time, we continue to say that, of course, if the United States commits to reducing its nuclear arsenal to a level comparable to China's, we will be happy to join [the negotiations]."

In his second term, Trump continued to push for China's participation in the negotiations, as Washington believes its arsenal will overtake the United States in the coming years. "We would like to see denuclearization," he said on January 23 at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "<...> President Putin really liked the idea of ​​dramatically reducing nuclear arsenals. And I think we could get the rest of the world to follow suit. And China would join in, too. China liked that, too."

Meanwhile, Moscow accepts Beijing's position and does not insist on its participation in disarmament. However, it does require the involvement of two other official nuclear powers— the United Kingdom and France (their combined arsenals amount to just over 500 warheads). "It is important for us that, when discussing the future system of strategic stability, we cannot ignore the nuclear capabilities of the United States' allies in Europe, namely the United Kingdom and France," Peskov said on February 3 (quoted by TASS).

Putin stated that European arsenals also need to be taken into account when he announced the suspension of the New START Treaty in 2023. "We must understand for ourselves what NATO countries like France and the United Kingdom are actually laying claim to , and how we will account for their strategic arsenals, that is, the combined strike potential of the alliance," he said then. London and Paris reject their participation in the disarmament process with the same argument as Beijing: their arsenals are incomparable to those of Moscow and Washington.

How Russia and the US tried to negotiate a replacement for the New START Treaty

Russia and the United States began discussions on a new agreement to replace the New START Treaty in the summer of 2021. They held two rounds of consultations in Geneva on July 28 and September 30. The Russian and US delegations were led by Sergei Ryabkov and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman. Following the second round, they agreed to establish two working groups: one on the principles and objectives of a future arms control system and one on capabilities and actions that could have a strategic effect.

Ryabkov and Sherman met for the third time in Geneva on January 10, 2022. But then, the discussion focused on the security guarantees Moscow had demanded from Washington at the end of 2021 (non-expansion of NATO eastward , its return to the positions it held before 1997, when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed, and legal guarantees that the alliance would not deploy its strike forces near Russia's borders). Following the outbreak of full-scale hostilities in Ukraine, the US suspended the strategic stability dialogue, but soon offered to resume it, which Russia refused.

Back in 2020, Russia stated that the new document needed to establish a "security equation" that would take into account weapons types other than strategic ones. Moscow's priorities were to align strategic offensive and defensive weapons (it assessed that the development of offensive systems was triggered by the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002); to account for new non-nuclear weapons; to resolve the situation with intermediate-range missiles (INF; this segment ceased to be subject to verification after the US withdrew from the treaty in 2019); and to agree on the non-deployment of weapons in outer space. The State Duma outlined some of these conditions in its statement upon ratification of the New START Treaty in 2011.

The main focuses for Washington were new types of intercontinental nuclear delivery vehicles, limitations on tactical nuclear weapons alongside strategic ones, and maintaining the arms restrictions under the New START Treaty.

Read RBC on Telegram .