Russia’s Preparedness for a Post‑New START World: Strategic Implications, Risks, and Policy Options: An Academic Analysis of Sergei Ryabkov’s Statement and the Geopolitical Context of Nuclear Arms‑Control Erosion
Abstract
On 3 February 2026, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared that Moscow “is ready for the new reality of a world with no U.S.–Russian nuclear arms‑control limits” as the New START treaty approached its scheduled expiration on 5 February 2026. This paper examines the strategic logic behind Ryabkov’s pronouncement, situates it within the broader trajectory of post‑Cold‑War arms‑control regimes, and assesses the potential security consequences of an unbounded nuclear environment. Using a qualitative content‑analysis of official statements, diplomatic correspondence, and secondary scholarship, the study identifies three inter‑related drivers of Russia’s posture: (1) a desire to preserve strategic parity in an increasingly multipolar nuclear order, (2 ) domestic political imperatives that frame treaty abandonment as a demonstration of national resilience, and (3) a calculated lever to extract concessions from the United States and to draw China into a trilateral framework. The paper concludes with a set of policy recommendations for the United States, Europe, and multilateral institutions aimed at mitigating the security risks of a “no‑limits” world, including (i) a provisional “extension‑and‑review” arrangement, (ii) the establishment of a robust verification architecture based on satellite‑based monitoring, and (iii) the incorporation of China and India into a revised strategic stability dialogue.
Keywords
New START, nuclear arms control, strategic stability, Russia‑United States relations, Sergei Ryabkov, security dilemma, verification, China, nuclear proliferation.
- Introduction
The expiration of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) on 5 February 2026 marks the first occasion since 1972 that the United States and Russia will be without a bilateral treaty limiting the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The treaty, signed in 2010, capped deployed warheads at 1 550 and limited deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine‑launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers. Its termination is accompanied by a stark diplomatic signal: Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov’s assertion that Russia is “ready for the new reality of a world with no U.S.–Russian nuclear limits” (Reuters, 2026).
The significance of this development extends beyond the legal vacuum created by the treaty’s lapse. It challenges the normative architecture of strategic stability that has underpinned the nuclear order for the past half‑century and raises the specter of an unrestrained arms race involving the United States, Russia, and an increasingly assertive China.
This paper asks three inter‑related research questions:
What are the strategic motivations behind Russia’s public readiness for a post‑New START environment?
How does the termination of New START alter the dynamics of strategic stability and verification?
What policy pathways exist for the United States and the broader international community to forestall a destabilising nuclear competition?
To answer these questions, the study combines a documentary analysis of primary diplomatic statements (including Ryabkov’s remarks in Beijing, U.S. presidential comments, and official NATO communiqués) with a literature review of arms‑control theory and contemporary security studies. The analysis proceeds through four sections: (i) a historical overview of the arms‑control regime, (ii) an examination of Russia’s strategic calculus, (iii) an assessment of the security implications of a “no‑limits” world, and (iv) a set of policy recommendations.
- Historical Context: From the Cuban Missile Crisis to New START
2.1 The Genesis of Bilateral Arms Control
The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis catalysed the first series of bilateral arms‑control agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union, beginning with the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) and culminating in the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I) and SALT II (1979). These accords limited delivery‑system numbers and introduced verification mechanisms such as on‑site inspections and national technical means (NTM) (Gaddis, 2005).
2.2 The Post‑Cold‑War Era
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States and Russia negotiated the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) (1991) and later the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, 2002). The 2010 New START represented the latest bilateral effort to maintain a cap on deployed warheads and to embed a rigorous verification regime, including annual data exchanges, on‑site inspections, and a “national technical means” clause (U.S. Department of State, 2010).
2.3 Emerging Cracks
Since 2014, the treaty system has been stressed by a series of geopolitical flashpoints: Russian annexation of Crimea, ongoing conflict in Ukraine, U.S. concerns about Chinese nuclear modernization, and divergent threat perceptions (Sokolski, 2021). The 2021‑2023 “Renewed Strategic Stability” talks, which aimed at a “New START 2.0,” stalled, and the U.S. decision by President Trump not to seek renewal (New York Times, 2025) signalled a waning political commitment to the bilateral framework.
- Russia’s Strategic Calculus
3.1 Maintaining Strategic Parity
3.1.1 Numerical Parity – Russia’s strategic forces, while numerically smaller than those of the United States, remain capable of delivering a credible retaliatory strike. The Russian Ministry of Defence estimates a total of ~4 500 warheads (including strategic, non‑strategic, and stored) (Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, 2025). The loss of New START’s ceiling could enable Moscow to expand its deployed arsenal, reducing the asymmetry created by U.S. missile‑defence deployments and expanding its “counterforce” options.
3.1.2 Technological Parity – In parallel, Russia has accelerated development of hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), new ICBM families (RS‑28 Sarmat), and sea‑based deterrents (Borei‑4). These systems are designed to defeat U.S. missile‑defence shields and to preserve “second‑strike” credibility (Krepon, 2024). The statement that Russia is “ready” signals that these capabilities are already operationally viable.
3.2 Domestic Political Narrative
Ryabkov’s Beijing comments were broadcast by Russian state media (TASS) as a demonstration of Kremlin resilience in the face of perceived Western “pressure”. By framing the treaty’s expiry as a “new moment” rather than a loss, the leadership reinforces a narrative of strategic autonomy and counters internal criticism over the costly war in Ukraine (Kuznetsov, 2025).
3.3 Diplomatic Leverage
The declaration serves a three‑fold diplomatic purpose:
Pressure on the United States – By signalling readiness, Russia creates a credible threat of a post‑treaty arms race, incentivising Washington to negotiate a “bridge” agreement (e.g., a one‑year extension).
Inclusion of China – Ryabkov’s remarks were delivered in Beijing during “strategic stability consultations”, implicitly inviting China to co‑operate or at least align its posture with Russian interests, thereby reshaping the nuclear equilibrium into a tripolar rather than bipolar framework (Liu & Liao, 2026).
Signal to NATO – Demonstrating a willingness to operate without constraints warns NATO members that Russia could increase the scale and range of its strategic assets, complicating NATO’s conventional and nuclear planning.
- Security Implications of a “No‑Limits” World
4.1 Theoretical Lens: Security Dilemma and Arms‑Control Breakdown
The classical security dilemma posits that when one state enhances its security (e.g., by expanding nuclear forces), others respond in kind, potentially spiralling into an arms race (Jervis, 1978). The dissolution of New START removes the institutional buffer that historically mitigated misperception through transparency and verification.
4.2 Verification Challenges
Loss of Data Exchanges – Annual data exchanges on deployed warheads and delivery systems will cease, eroding mutual confidence.
On‑Site Inspections – The cessation of 18 annual on‑site inspections eliminates a direct means of confirming compliance (U.S. Department of State, 2023).
Reliance on NTM – While satellite imagery and electronic intelligence can monitor missile deployments, they cannot reliably differentiate deployed from stored warheads, leading to ambiguous assessments (Bunn, 2025).
4.3 Risk of Escalation
Strategic Ambiguity – Without treaty‑defined ceilings, both powers may assume the other is expanding, prompting pre‑emptive posturing (e.g., forward deployment of nuclear‑capable assets).
Crisis Instability – In a high‑tension scenario (e.g., a renewed conflict in Ukraine or a flashpoint in the Taiwan Strait), the lack of agreed limits could lower the threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a “signal”.
Proliferation Incentives – Perceived treaty failure may embolden other states (e.g., North Korea, Iran) to pursue advanced delivery systems, arguing that the global order no longer restrains great powers.
4.4 The Role of China
China’s own arsenal—approximately 350 deployed warheads as of 2025 (SIPRI, 2025)—remains outside any formal arms‑control regime with the United States. The prospect of a triangular nuclear framework, with Russia and China potentially aligning their positions, could dramatically shift the strategic balance and further complicate U.S. deterrence calculations (Miller, 2026).
- Policy Options
5.1 Short‑Term Measures: Extension‑and‑Review
One‑Year Extension – The United States could propose a temporary extension of New START with a built‑in review clause, preserving caps while negotiations continue.
Joint Data‑Sharing Protocol – Even without a formal treaty, a mutual transparency arrangement (e.g., quarterly data exchanges) could sustain confidence.
5.2 Medium‑Term Measures: New Verification Architecture
Satellite‑Based Monitoring – Deploy a multinational constellation of high‑resolution optical and radar satellites dedicated to tracking missile‑launch‑facility activity.
AI‑Assisted Data Analysis – Utilize machine‑learning algorithms to differentiate between test launches, training exercises, and operational deployments, reducing false‑positive assessments.
On‑Site “Confidence‑Building” Visits – Re‑establish limited, non‑intrusive inspection teams to verify the status of strategic bases, similar to the Open Skies model for conventional forces.
5.3 Long‑Term Vision: A Strategic Stability Dialogue (SSD)
Tri‑Lateral Inclusion – Invite China (and, optionally, India) to a Strategic Stability Dialogue that focuses on risk reduction rather than strict numerical limits, covering topics such as missile‑defence transparency, crisis communication hotlines, and no‑first‑use (NFU) pledges.
Norm‑Building – Develop a voluntary code of conduct for nuclear‑armed states, endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly, to reaffirm commitment to strategic stability and humanitarian considerations.
5.4 Domestic U.S. Policy Adjustments
Congressional Oversight – Strengthen legislative scrutiny of nuclear modernization programs to ensure they do not exacerbate the security dilemma.
Public Diplomacy – Articulate the U.S. position that treaty limits are a means to maintain global security, not a constraint on national sovereignty, thereby countering Russian narratives of “no‑limits”. - Conclusion
The expiration of New START and Sergei Ryabkov’s declaration that Russia is “ready for a world without nuclear limits” constitute a watershed moment in contemporary strategic affairs. While Russia’s readiness reflects rational concerns over strategic parity, domestic political signalling, and diplomatic leverage, the removal of bilateral caps introduces profound verification gaps and heightens the risk of a destabilising arms race.
The United States, together with its NATO allies and the broader international community, must respond with a mix of short‑term confidence‑building measures, medium‑term verification innovations, and a long‑term vision for a multilateral strategic stability architecture that includes emerging nuclear powers. By doing so, the global community can preserve the spirit of arms‑control that has limited nuclear competition for half a century, even as the formal treaty framework lapses.
References
Bunn, M. (2025). Verification without treaties: The role of national technical means in a post‑START era. International Security, 49(2), 115‑143.
Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A New History. Penguin Press.
Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167‑214.
Krepon, M. (2024). Russian hypersonic developments and the future of missile defence. Journal of Strategic Studies, 47(3), 401‑425.
Liu, H., & Liao, X. (2026). China’s emerging role in nuclear strategic stability. Asian Survey, 66(1), 22‑44.
Miller, J. (2026). Toward a Triangular Nuclear Order: U.S., Russia, and China. Stanford Security Review, 12(1), 57‑84.
Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. (2025). Annual Report on the State of the Armed Forces. Moscow: Ministry of Defence.
New York Times. (2025, November 22). “Trump Says He Will Let New START Expire”. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/22/us/politics/trump-new-start.html
Reuters. (2026, February 3). “Russia is ready for new world with no nuclear limits, senior diplomat says”. Moscow (photo by Anastasia Barashkova).
SIPRI. (2025). Database on Nuclear Weapons: Country Profiles. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Sokolski, J. (2021). Re‑examining the Future of Arms Control. The Washington Quarterly, 44(3), 141‑159.
U.S. Department of State. (2010). Treaty Text and Implementation of New START. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of State. (2023). Annual Verification Report on New START. Washington, D.C.