The Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation reiterated that Moscow plans to keep exchanging formal notices with Washington regarding the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The ministry suggested that this ongoing notification practice would continue through channels associated with Russia’s online diplomatic mission, underscoring the importance Russia places on transparency and predictable communications even amid broader strategic tensions.
In its statement, the ministry clarified that Moscow intends to uphold the notification exchanges with the United States on ICBMs and SLBMs in line with the long-standing framework that traces back to an agreement originally signed between the USSR and the United States in 1988. This reference highlights the enduring elements of early postwar nuclear-era diplomacy, and it emphasizes Russia’s commitment to maintaining procedural steps that inform both capitals about missile launches as a way to reduce misunderstanding and manage risk in the strategic balance.
Earlier, on February 21, President Vladimir Putin delivered a message to the Federal Assembly in which he announced Russia’s suspension of participation in the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Forces. The president’s remarks framed the action as a strategic recalibration, signaling Moscow’s stance in response to shifting security dynamics and perceived gaps in Western compliance with the treaty framework. The move was presented as part of a broader assessment of how arms-control regimes function when participants question the reliability of the other side and the sustainability of existing limits.
Putin’s announcement drew immediate reactions from Washington and Brussels. The United States urged Moscow to reconsider the suspension and to remain within the treaty framework, arguing that abandoning START damages the architecture of international security that has helped avert destabilizing arms racing for decades. European partners, including those within NATO, echoed concerns about the potential consequences for regional and global security, stressing the need to maintain open lines of communication and verification mechanisms as a means to preserve strategic stability in an unpredictable environment.
Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the Russian president, indicated that steps would be taken in parallel within Russia’s parliamentary process to formalize the suspension of START participation. The move signaled an administrative and legal track toward redefining Russia’s role in the treaty regime, alongside the political and diplomatic signals already issued by the Kremlin. Observers note that the interplay between executive announcements and parliamentary procedures can influence the timing and scope of any practical changes in how Russia engages with arms-control accords and allied partners as the security landscape evolves.
For more context on how these developments fit into ongoing discussions about strategic weapons, analysts emphasize the need to monitor how each side articulates its red lines, checks on compliance, and efforts to maintain channels for risk reduction. The situation continues to unfold against a backdrop of broader tensions, including debates over NATO members’ nuclear postures and how these arsenals are accounted for in any future arms-control framework. In Canada and the United States, scholars and policymakers are watching closely to understand the potential implications for regional security, alliance dynamics, and the global nonproliferation environment. Overall, the dialogue remains essential, even as substantive policy shifts occur, because clear communication and robust verification are widely regarded as cornerstones of strategic stability in a volatile geopolitical era.