Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announced that there are no longer any contact points with the United States regarding the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. He framed the moment as a new era, describing it during a discussion titled A World with a Beginning: What’s Next? The remarks were streamed on the Valdai International Discussion Club’s platform, and the open forum took place on VKontakte, a major social network in Russia.
Ryabkov stressed that there is no current basis to pursue START talks with Washington. From his official view, the treaty has been suspended, and Russia would not entertain formal notifications from the American side at this juncture.
He warned that such actions would amount to a violation of Russian federal law. The deputy minister underscored the seriousness of the moment and the legal boundaries that frame Moscow’s response to the suspension.
In addressing the START framework, Ryabkov pointed to what he called openly provocative moves by the United States. He claimed Washington aided the Kiev regime in attacks on Russian strategic facilities that would be covered by an agreement, even as Washington demanded access to Russian START facilities. He described those demands as deficient and misaligned with the underlying principles of mutual inspection and parity that had previously governed the treaty.
The discussion followed a formal move in late February when President Vladimir Putin signed legislation to suspend Russia’s participation in START. Putin stated that Moscow must first gauge the positions and expectations of other nuclear powers, especially those within NATO, before considering a resumption of negotiations or continuing obligations under New START. This decision marks a deliberate pause in the path toward renewed cooperation and signals a broader reassessment of strategic arms controls in the current geopolitical landscape.
Experts note that the suspension reshapes how Russia views verification, transparency, and the broader stability framework that has underpinned arms control for decades. Analysts emphasize that the pause compels a closer look at how global security architecture adapts when major powers reassess trust, compliance, and enforcement mechanisms amid evolving regional conflicts and shifting alliance dynamics. The dialogue around START continues to influence diplomatic planning, military postures, and the strategic calculus of Russia, the United States, and allied partners in North America and Europe.
Observers highlight that the upcoming period will test both sides’ willingness to return to a structured framework for limiting strategic weapons. The suspension raises questions about how future agreements might balance verification rights with national security concerns and how allied NATO members will interpret Russia’s legal and political stance. As the global community watches, there is a clear interest in whether new approaches could preserve strategic stability even in the absence of a fully functioning START regime. This situation underscores the enduring connection between arms control, regional security, and the broader quest for predictable and verifiable international relations.
The public messages from Moscow stress the need to reexamine what the major powers expect from each other before any return to formal negotiations on strategic arms. The emphasis remains on ensuring that any future agreement aligns with national security priorities while maintaining a credible mechanism for verification. In this context, the international community is urged to consider how cooperative security can adapt to a landscape where trust and compliance are tested by competing strategic interests across multiple theaters.
With START on pause, analysts anticipate a renewed debate about the role of verification regimes, the scope of inspections, and the potential for new formats that could accommodate evolving technological and strategic realities. The coming months are expected to feature high-level diplomacy, strategic assessments, and public discussions that explore how the world might stabilize strategic forces without a presently active treaty framework. The situation remains a focal point for policymakers, researchers, and security-minded audiences across North America and beyond, as they weigh the implications for arms control, deterrence, and the broader architecture of international security.