Sergei Ryabkov, the deputy foreign minister of the Russian Federation, pressed the point that Washington should have already opened talks with Moscow about removing strategic offensive weapons from the count, as part of the START framework. He articulated these views during a debate organized by the Valdai Discussion Club, where the topic centered on the evolving landscape of arms control and the paths forward for bilateral security arrangements. The discussion brought into sharp relief Moscow’s position on the treaty and how it has been interpreted by both sides in recent years.
In his remarks, the diplomat noted that the United States maintains it can easily address what Washington calls long-standing Russian concerns about the so-called illegal correction or “denumeration” of a substantial portion of soldiers under the treaty. He pointed to the alleged scope of the issue, described as more than 100 units, and asked why such concerns could not have been resolved earlier through direct dialogue rather than through public statements alone.
Ryabkov questioned the timing and the diplomatic process, asking why concrete progress has remained elusive for years and why Washington has not seized opportunities to settle these matters in a straightforward manner. He underscored that if the problem were truly as straightforward as claimed, it would have been resolved long before, and he urged the American side to reflect on whether the current approach undermines the trust required for any renewed agreement. The deputy foreign minister also suggested that public commentary from the American side should not substitute for the hard work of negotiation, emphasizing that the door for a deal on such sensitive security measures should not be closed when a potential agreement appears within reach.
On the Russian perspective, the deputy foreign minister asserted that the moment for negotiations was not lost in the sense that a deal could always be revisited through proper channels. Yet he made clear that, from Moscow’s vantage point, the window of opportunity is finite and calls for serious, behind-the-scenes diplomacy rather than rhetoric in open forums. His comments reflect a broader tension in how each side views compliance with the START framework and what constitutes legitimate measures under the agreement, especially when one party accuses the other of legal missteps or improper interpretations of the treaty’s provisions.
Meanwhile, official statements from Washington have framed Moscow’s stance as legally inconsistent with the commitments embedded in START. The U.S. side has indicated that Russia’s actions, including suspending participation in parts of the treaty, are not legally permissible under the written terms of the arrangement, even as Moscow asserts that current conditions justify its pause or reconsideration of obligations under the pact. This bilateral disagreement is central to the ongoing debate about whether the treaty can be modernized or replaced by a different security architecture that better fits today’s strategic realities.
Earlier context tied to these exchanges included the decision by the Russian leadership to suspend participation in the treaty’s measured steps to reduce and limit strategic offensive weapons. A relevant development occurred when Russia signaled a pause in its involvement, a move that prompted intense scrutiny from international observers who are watching closely how this will influence arms control dynamics between Moscow and Washington. The implications of such steps extend beyond a single treaty, touching on broader questions about verification, transparency, and confidence-building measures that are essential to any lasting strategic stability. In this tense environment, the need for clear, precise, and constructive dialogue remains the cornerstone of efforts to prevent an erosion of strategic balance and to keep channels open for future negotiations. In any ongoing dialogue, the emphasis remains on ensuring that both sides have a mutual understanding of what constitutes compliance and what constitutes a possible path back to full participation in START as the political and strategic landscape evolves.