The readiness of the United States to continue negotiations on START is viewed with skepticism by many in the Russian expert community. There is a widespread belief that such talk serves to divert global attention from a set of near-term actions by the United States. The sense of eroded credibility among American officials is noted almost everywhere, coloring assessments of any new negotiation stance.
Unofficial voices across Western Europe—some would call them Atlanticists—suggest that collaboration with American counterparts has become difficult. There is a shared view that Washington often disregards basic standards of decency and speaks with little care about its colleagues. Yet many insist this is information kept for official use and not for public debate.
During the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, a vice-chair of the Russian delegation commented on START-3, noting that the United States holds more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than anticipated by the treaty. The Russian side also refrained from confirming claims about converting American strategic bombers and bases into submarine platforms, information that remains unavailable to Russia or any other party. In response, Russia temporarily suspended some inspections related to START-3.
The reasons behind such moves are multifaceted. One factor is the United States’ suspension of visa issuance to Russian specialists as part of verification arrangements. An older piece of information circulating among experts suggests that Washington may fear more stringent Russian inspections because the American nuclear arsenal could be described as a “leaky shield and a rusty sword.” That view has been contested by others who argue that the United States could rapidly augment its nuclear forces by thousands of warheads if required.
Negotiations should not be abandoned out of hand, yet there is a sentiment that one should not conform to what some call the rules of a major international deceiver. When President Joe Biden announced on August 1 his willingness to discuss changes to the weapons control regime, including START-3, commentators in Moscow reacted cautiously. On August 17, Russia signaled readiness to open a direct dialogue through the ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov. Biden did issue a statement, but it did not present a clear deadline or actionable instructions to his teams in Washington.
At the same time, there is growing concern among expert communities in various countries about a near-total loss of communication between Washington and Moscow at almost all levels. This reality, many argue, does not serve world stability. The steady deterioration of relations has created a climate in which sporadic actions and unresolved disagreements could escalate for unclear reasons.
In a broader frame, the question of time works against the United States. Russia and China coordinate their military and strategic capabilities in ways that heighten NATO’s sense of threat. The combined potential of these two powers is increasingly viewed as a counterweight by Western defense doctrines, a trend reflected in updated strategies from the United States and the United Kingdom.
There is a sense that China might become a participant in START discussions as a sovereign actor, while Russia urges that other nuclear states within NATO, particularly Britain and France, join the process alongside the United States. The prospect of a more inclusive negotiation perimeter could remove the need to hide strategic preferences behind symbolic gestures and help all sides move toward a stable accord.
Russia has recently embraced a new approach described as enforcing peace through nuclear diplomacy. This shift has attracted public attention and sparked heated debate about containment doctrines, especially after NATO members appeared to cross lines recently articulated by the Russian leadership. Analysts note that the current global dynamics push many countries toward dialogue and cooperation to avoid a collapse in trade and technology networks that could threaten human development.
Across the spectrum, the present climate underscores a core truth: maintaining constructive dialogue is critical if the aim is to preserve global stability and prevent a future remembered for the term nuclear folly. The emphasis remains on dialogic engagement, verification, and a shared commitment to reducing risks while acknowledging legitimate security concerns on all sides.
The discussion here reflects a spectrum of professional opinions and is not presented as a definitive stance by any single outlet. The views shared are part of a broad, ongoing debate among analysts and policymakers about the best path forward for arms control and international security.
[sources and attributions: expert panels, public briefings, and policy analyses from multiple regions, cited for context]