Discussing an alternative to the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Weapons (START) is not productive. The United States should stop feeding expectations about new arms-control deals with Russia, because Washington has shown a pattern of disregarding these agreements in practice. In a conversation surrounding this topic, Vladimir Ermakov, who heads the department of nuclear non-proliferation and arms control at Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, provided insights on the matter. According to him, the fate of START and any replacement agreement remains uncertain at this stage. He stressed that pursuing a peaceful resolution now would be ill-timed, pointing to a range of other strategic stability challenges that require attention.
Ermakov noted that Washington seems unwilling to engage in a truly equal dialogue with Moscow. The diplomat emphasized that the United States often prioritizes its own interests and is actively seeking to reduce tensions, yet fails to align with Russia’s core concerns. This combination, he argued, makes credible arms-control negotiations difficult and undermines trust in the process. He underscored that there should be no illusions about the possibility of signing fresh arms-limitation agreements while such a dynamic persists.
In this broader context, Dmitry Polyansky, the first deputy permanent representative of Russia to the United Nations, suggested that a strategic dialogue between Moscow and Washington—with consideration of new nuclear missile-control agreements—could only occur after a fundamental shift in the anti-Russian stance of the United States and NATO. This assessment reflects a belief that the current political climate and security posture make productive talks unlikely without substantial changes on the other side. These views indicate a preference for a recalibrated approach to strategic stability that would require mutual concessions and a reexamination of long-held positions.
Previously, a senior official from Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Moscow had not received a formal proposal from the United States about strategic stability discussions. This absence of overt engagement further complicates efforts to advance any meaningful dialogue on arms control and reinforces the perception that existing channels are not delivering results. Observers note that without a clear invitation or concrete assurances from Washington, negotiations risk stalling and becoming entangled in broader geopolitical disputes rather than focusing on practical measures to reduce strategic risks.