U.S. officials do not view the ongoing war in Ukraine as a barrier to working with Russia on strategic stability. A senior official from the U.S. National Security Council, Pranay Vaddi, who leads arms-control policy, emphasized that dialogue remains worthwhile. He noted that direct interaction between Washington and Moscow on nuclear risk management and nuclear control can contribute to reducing miscalculations and building transparency, even amid active military operations. The statement reflects a broader assessment within U.S. policymaking circles that risk reduction measures and verified communication channels can preserve stability prospects, even when both sides have intense strategic and political disagreements on other issues.
During discussions about the potential for dialogue on strategic stability and arms control, the perspective of a sitting NSC official underscored a practical approach: keep lines of communication open, share technical information when appropriate, and pursue small-step agreements that could lower the probability of misinterpreting another side’s moves. This view aligns with a belief that sustained engagement, conducted with clear boundaries and defined objectives, can help manage nuclear risks at a time of heightened tension and ongoing conflict zones in Europe.
In December, a senior U.S. official highlighted the administration’s objective to shape terms of engagement that would advance Ukraine’s security and sovereignty while stressing that Russia would face choices about its posture and strategy. The official suggested that any outcome would need to recognize Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and that the path forward could involve a rebalancing of support from the United States, its European partners, and Ukraine’s own industrial and defense capabilities. The emphasis was on creating a framework in which strategic advantages for one side do not come at the expense of regional stability, and where continued efforts are made to deter escalation in key theaters of operation.
Earlier statements from Washington stressed that sustaining support for Kyiv can be more advantageous than allowing a competitive edge to consolidate, with implications for broader European security and the international order. The underlying message was that a robust, united approach—combining political backing, military aid, and diplomatic channels—offers a stronger counterweight to aggression while keeping open the possibility of future talks aimed at reducing risks and preventing uncontrolled escalation. In this view, stability is pursued not through domination, but through verifiable commitments, strategic restraint, and a shared understanding of peaceful coexistence in a volatile regional landscape. (attribution: senior U.S. policy official)