Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has criticized the United States for what he describes as manipulation of data related to strategic offensive weapons under the START framework. Speaking publicly through the press service of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Ryabkov asserted that Western efforts to score political points by scrutinizing the size and capacity of other nations’ nuclear arsenals are marked by what he calls blatant hypocrisy. He argued that the figures presented by Western authorities are frequently fictitious or contingent, and therefore not reliable indicators of true strategic balance.
Ryabkov contended that the data on U.S. strategic forces released recently by the U.S. Department of State are misleading once again. He accused Washington of failing to adhere to the established START counting rules and of attempting to evade those rules through what he described as unscrupulous manipulations. In his view, this approach creates a distorted view of the global nuclear landscape and undermines trust between major powers.
The deputy minister emphasized that a substantial portion of nuclear and other strategic capabilities remain outside of the formal accounting framework. He referenced a figure exceeding 100 strategic offensive weapons that, in his estimation, should be encompassed by the provisions of the START treaty, including any contemplated extensions such as START III. According to Ryabkov, the United States is outwardly presented as taking responsible steps while effectively keeping a portion of its arsenal beyond scrutiny, a posture he characterized as aiming to appease domestic audiences rather than reflecting a transparent, verifiable balance.
During the discussion of these concerns, Ryabkov pointed to the broader context of arms control negotiations and the ongoing dynamics that shape how treaties are interpreted and implemented by major powers. He noted that the Russian Federation remains committed to a principled approach to strategic stability and to the idea that verifiable limits and mutual accountability are essential to reducing the risk of miscalculation in a volatile security environment. The deputy minister underscored that Russia does not intend to back away from its position on arms control, even as it watches how others choose to participate in or withdraw from agreements designed to curb strategic arms buildup.
In late May, statements from the U.S. side continued to indicate an emphasis on compliance with New START, as Washington reiterated its intent to uphold the treaty with Russia. Observers have noted that the path to renewed confidence in bilateral arms control will depend heavily on transparent reporting, consistent counting methodologies, and a shared understanding of what counts as strategic offensive capability. The evolving dialogue suggests that both sides may seek to reinforce restraint while navigating competing domestic and international pressures related to security, modernization, and deterrence strategies.
As these discussions unfold, analysts stress the importance of a rigorous, open approach to data that can withstand scrutiny from multiple international audiences. They argue that credible arms control hinges not only on legal text but also on the credibility and clarity of the data that informs treaty compliance, verification mechanisms, and the perception of fairness in measuring any shifts in strategic capabilities. The interplay between public diplomacy, technical accounting, and strategic signaling will likely continue to shape the rhythm of negotiations and the prospects for future arms control agreements amid ongoing geopolitical developments.