The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) committed the United States and Russia to “reduce and limit [their intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)] and ICBM launchers, [submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM)] and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM warheads, SLBM warheads, and heavy bomber nuclear armaments” and established verification measures to ensure compliance with these commitments.Footnote 1 In a January 2023 report to Congress, the U.S. Department of State “conclude[d] that Russia is not in compliance with its obligation[s]” under the treaty.Footnote 2 Weeks later, President Vladimir V. Putin announced that Russia was suspending its participation in the treaty.Footnote 3 New START is the last nuclear arms control agreement in force between the two countries.Footnote 4 It will expire on February 5, 2026.Footnote 5 Negotiations for a replacement treaty, called for by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and President PutinFootnote 6 and to which both countries were prepared to commit at the NPT Review Conference in August 2022,Footnote 7 have not begun. Negotiations seem unlikely because of the disputes concerning New START that led to the non-compliance finding, the broader breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations, and China's development of its own nuclear arsenal.
In 2010, the United States and Russia agreed to New START, replacing START I,Footnote 8 which expired in 2009.Footnote 9 New START committed both countries to reductions of nuclear warheads and delivery systems beyond what had been required in prior agreements.Footnote 10 The treaty's extensive verification measures included: eighteen on-site inspections per year by each party;Footnote 11 the permitted use of national technical means (NTM) of verification (intelligence satellites) and a prohibition on the interference with or concealment from those NTMs;Footnote 12 biannual data exchanges declaring deployed strategic delivery vehicles, launchers, warheads, and bases;Footnote 13 the exchange of telemetric information;Footnote 14 rolling notifications concerning the movement of strategic offensive arms;Footnote 15 required declarations of new variants of missiles, launchers, and facilities;Footnote 16 pre-launch notifications of covered ballistic missiles;Footnote 17 and unique identifiers for each ICBM, SLBM, and heavy bomber.Footnote 18 The treaty also established a Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), a compliance and implementation body to meet at least twice a year.Footnote 19 As of February 1, 2023, there had been “328 on-site inspections, 25,449 notifications exchanged, 19 meetings of the [BCC], and 42 biannual data exchanges on strategic offensive arms subject to the treaty.”Footnote 20
In March 2020, the United States and Russia, by mutual agreement, halted inspections under New START due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Footnote 21 The United States decided not to renew this “mutual pause” in June 2022, and on August 8, 2022, it notified Russia of its intent to conduct an on-site inspection.Footnote 22 The next day, Russia “temporarily exempt[ed]” from inspection all of its facilities.Footnote 23 Russia stated that its decision was permittedFootnote 24 since U.S. travel and visa restrictions prevented Russian inspectors from flying to the United States and thus “de facto depriv[ed] the Russian Federation of the right to conduct inspections on American territory.”Footnote 25 Russia emphasized, however, that it was “fully committed to the observance of the provisions of the Treaty.”Footnote 26 In September 2022, Russia threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend its territory, which it defined as including the annexed regions of Ukraine.Footnote 27 That November, Russia unilaterally postponed that month's scheduled BCC session four days before it was to begin because of “the extremely negative situation in Russian-American relations, which was created by Washington.”Footnote 28 Russia subsequently refused to reschedule the BCC meetings despite U.S. requests.Footnote 29
In January 2023, the United States accused Russia of breaching two of its obligations under New START. First, Russia had failed to allow the United States to conduct inspections.Footnote 30 Russia's assertion that it actions were in accord with the treaty's “temporary exemption” provision was “invalid” because that clause “was intended to apply when specific conditions at a specific facility or facilities” made an inspection difficult and “Russia has not cited any specific conditions at any specific facilities.”Footnote 31 Second, Russia had “failed to comply with the obligation to convene a session of the [BCC] within the timeline set out by the Treaty.”Footnote 32 The State Department noted that “there is no provision in the New START Treaty to excuse a failure to convene a BCC session within 45 days of its proposed start date” for the reasons given by Russia.Footnote 33 On February 1, the State Department spokesperson said that “All Russia needs to do is to allow inspection activities on its territory, just as it did for years under the New START Treaty, and meet in a session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission. There is nothing preventing Russian inspectors from traveling the United States and conducting inspections.”Footnote 34 Russia rejected the U.S. claims of non-compliance, alleged U.S. violations of the treaty, accused the United States of “launch[ing] a total hybrid war against Russia,” and “reaffirm[ed] its unwavering commitment to New START as an important instrument for maintaining international security and stability.”Footnote 35
On February 21, President Putin announced “that Russia is suspending its membership in the New START Treaty.”Footnote 36 He emphasized that “we are not withdrawing from the Treaty, but rather suspending our participation.”Footnote 37 A Russian Foreign Ministry statement explained that “that the United States is in material breach of the New START Treaty.”Footnote 38 The statement said that
the United States is now openly seeking to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, while tensions encouraged by Washington go far beyond the Ukraine crisis with the United States and the US-led West trying to harm our country at every possible level, in every sphere and region of the world. There is every reason to conclude that the United States policy aims to undermine Russia's national security, which directly contradicts the fundamental principles and understandings set forth in the New START's preamble and forming its foundation. It would not have been signed without stating these principles. This de facto amounts to a fundamental change of circumstances compared to those prevailing at the time of signing the New START Treaty.Footnote 39
The Foreign Ministry also accused the United States of “substantially violating the fundamental provisions of the Treaty on the quantitative restrictions of the parties’ relevant armaments.”Footnote 40 It repeated its claims that “Washington's anti-Russia restrictions have impaired the efficiency of the verification procedures stipulated in the Treaty.”Footnote 41 Nevertheless, the Foreign Ministry asserted that Russia “will continue to strictly comply with the quantitative restrictions stipulated in the Treaty for strategic offensive arms within the life cycle of the Treaty. Russia will also continue to exchange notifications of ICBM and SLBM launches.”Footnote 42
The response was swift. Within a day, President Biden called the suspension a “big mistake.”Footnote 43 U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken remarked that Russia's decision to suspend its participation was “deeply unfortunate and irresponsible” but “we remain ready to talk about strategic arms limitations at any time with Russia irrespective of anything else going on in the world or in our relationship.”Footnote 44 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg lamented that “the whole arms control architecture has been dismantled,” adding that he “strongly encourage[d] Russia to reconsider its decision and respect existing agreements.”Footnote 45
The State Department asserted that “Russia's claimed suspension of the New START Treaty [was] legally invalid . . . [and] [a]s a result, Russia remains bound by its obligations under the treaty.”Footnote 46 The Department disclaimed that there was any cause for not adhering to the treaty as “the United States has made it crystal clear to Russia that [it is] prepared to host Russian inspectors”Footnote 47 and the United States has provided all visas and transportation to Russian inspectors.Footnote 48 Because Russia's suspension of the treaty was unjustified, its failure to abide by the treaty's obligations since the declared suspension, such as not providing required notifications, was an additional breach.Footnote 49 In March, the United States announced that it would not exchange certain treaty data with Russia in response to Russia's refusal to do so, though it would continue to provide notifications, even while Russia was not.Footnote 50 “Under international law,” a National Security Council spokesperson said, “the United States has the right to respond to Russia's breaches of the New START Treaty by taking proportionate and reversible countermeasures in order to induce Russia to return to compliance with its obligations.”Footnote 51 “That means,” the spokesperson continued, “that because Russia's claimed suspension of the New START Treaty is legally invalid, the U.S. is legally permitted to withhold our biannual data update in response to Russia's breaches.”Footnote 52 “We're entitled under international law to take certain actions as a countermeasure without actually suspending the treaty ourselves,” a senior Biden administration official said.Footnote 53 “We're taking these actions because it's our goal to encourage Russia to return to compliance with the treaty.”Footnote 54 In May, the United States, “[i]n the interest of transparency and the U.S. commitment to responsible nuclear conduct, . . . voluntarily release[ed] [the biannual] aggregate data for its nuclear forces” that it had been withholding as a “lawful countermeasure” even though Russia had “not fulfill[ed] its obligation to provide updated data in March 2023 and is not implementing other key provisions of the treaty.”Footnote 55 At the same time, the United States “call[ed] on the Russian Federation to return to full compliance with the New START Treaty and all the stabilizing transparency and verification measures contained within it.”Footnote 56 In June, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan announced that the United States had just adopted new “lawful, proportionate, and reversible countermeasures … including suspending our day-to-day notifications to Russia that are required under the Treaty.”Footnote 57 He continued: “These steps will help guarantee that Russia does not receive benefits from a treaty they refuse to abide by, and that the principle of reciprocity—a key tenet of strategic arms control—is upheld.”Footnote 58
As the nuclear arms control framework between the United States and Russia unravels, China, Iran, and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear capabilities.Footnote 59 China's efforts are of particular concern to the United States. According to the Department of Defense's Nuclear Posture Review, released in October 2022, China “has embarked on an ambitious expansion, modernization, and diversification of its nuclear forces . . . [and] the trajectory of these efforts points to a large, diverse nuclear arsenal with a high degree of survivability, reliability, and effectiveness.”Footnote 60 “By the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries,” the Defense Department concluded.Footnote 61 It warned that “[t]his will create new stresses on stability and new challenges for deterrence, assurance, arms control, and risk reduction.”Footnote 62 In June 2023, Sullivan said that “we have stated our willingness [of the United States] to engage in bilateral arms control discussions with Russia and with China without preconditions,” though he noted that “the type of limits the United States can agree to [with Russia] will of course be impacted by the size and scale of China's nuclear buildup.”Footnote 63 Both China and Russia reportedly rejected Sullivan's offer.Footnote 64