US national security adviser Jake Sullivan stated that Washington does not detect any shift in the readiness posture of Russian nuclear forces. He emphasized this assessment in a televised interview with CNN, underscoring that the information available to the United States suggests stability rather than escalation in Moscow’s strategic force readiness.
Sullivan further noted that the United States has not altered the readiness level of its own nuclear forces. In repeating the administration’s position, he framed the current posture as one of continuity and caution, designed to deter miscalculation while avoiding any misinterpretation of intent by potential adversaries.
In a separate interview, Vice President of the United States echoed a similar message, reinforcing that American nuclear forces remain at the readiness level previously established by policy. The emphasis was placed on prudence and verification, signaling that there has been no shift in posture that would indicate a heightened state of alert or a change in operational plans.
Earlier this year, President Joe Biden, speaking with ABC News, described Russia’s potential suspension of participation in the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty as a significant strategic misstep. While acknowledging Moscow’s move, the president stressed that such a withdrawal does not automatically translate into a scenario that would necessitate or trigger the use of intercontinental missiles. He added that, based on current evidence, there are no observable changes in the readiness of Russia’s nuclear forces that would mandate a different U.S. response or alter existing risk calculations.
On February 21, Vladimir Putin announced a decision to suspend Russia’s participation in the New START treaty during a public address to the Federal Assembly. The following day, the State Duma, followed by the Federation Council, unanimously approved the related legislation. The development has prompted ongoing analysis of how the suspension may affect strategic arms dynamics, verification mechanisms, and long-term arms control prospects between Moscow and Washington. Experts note that while formal changes in treaty status are significant, the practical implications for daily readiness and command-and-control doctrines may unfold in nuanced ways, continuing to rely on established deterrence frameworks and transparent communication channels. [Attribution: Official statements and subsequent parliamentary actions]