September 22, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Putin offers to observe nuclear arms treaty for an extra year but demands new negotiations

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on September 22 that Russia will adhere to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) for one year following its expiration in February 2026 and used threats to urge the United States to do the same. Putin claimed that Russia is prepared to continue to adhere to New START’s nuclear arms limitations for one year after it expires on February 5, 2026.[1] New START limits the number of deployed US and Russian strategic nuclear warheads and bombs to 1,550; the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and heavy bombers for nuclear missions to 700; and the number of deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and bombers to 800.[2] New START went into effect in 2011, and Russia suspended its participation in the treaty in February 2023, claiming that the United States was developing new nuclear weapons.[3] Putin claimed that Russia will decide between continuing its “voluntary self-restraint” in February 2027. Putin called on Russian agencies to monitor US adherence to New START until then and threatened that Russia “will respond accordingly.” Putin claimed that completely abandoning New START would be a “mistake” and “short-sighted.” Putin claimed that Russia can respond to any threats “not with words but through military-technical measures.” Putin’s veiled threats are the latest in Russia’s nuclear saber rattling, a tool that the Kremlin often employs as part of its wider reflexive control campaign that aims to push the West to make decisions that benefit Russia.[4]

Putin blamed the West for undermining Russian-US arms cooperation and violating bilateral arms agreements—ignoring how Russia has violated numerous multilateral and bilateral treaties in the past decades. Russia has violated multiple treaties since Putin first became president in 2000.[5] Russia exploited provisions of the Open Skies Treaty (which provided for mutual surveillance flights over member states’ territory) to collect imagery for intelligence purposes and instituted illegal overflight restrictions and airfield designations to legitimize Russia’s occupation of Ukraine and Georgia.[6] Russia suspended its adherence to the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty (which placed limits on the deployment of heavy military equipment in Europe) in 2007 and continues to violate the treaty by stationing troops in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine without these states’ consent.[7] Multiple US State Department Compliance Reports published since 2015 have noted how Russia selectively implements provisions of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Vienna Document on the exchange of data about armed forces between OSCE states, including Russia.[8] A 2020 State Department report noted that Russia “no longer feels bound” by the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives that the United States and Russia agreed to in the early 1990s on the non-deployment and elimination of Russia’s arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons and that Russia maintained up to 2,000 such weapons in its stockpiles.[9] Russia has repeatedly violated the Chemical Weapons Convention (which prohibits the use of chemical weapons and the development, production, acquisition, and stockpiling of chemical weapons and their precursors) both on the battlefield in Ukraine and with its poisoning of political opponents in Europe; Russia has refused to fully declare its chemical weapons stockpiles and production and development facilities.[10] The State Department noted in response to Russia’s suspension of its participation in New START in 2023 that Russia refused to comply with the treaty’s requirements that the parties exchange data, including ICBM location and status updates and missile launch telemetry data; Russia denied US inspectors’ right to inspect ballistic missile sites in Russia.[11] The United States suspended its participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (which banned US and Russian ground-launched nuclear and conventional intermediate- and shorter-range missiles) in February 2019 due to Russian violations with its development, testing, and deployment of intermediate-range 9M729 (SSC-8) missiles.[12] Russia has also used Oreshnik ballistic missiles (which reportedly have a range banned under the INF Treaty) against Ukraine in November 2024 and announced that the missile entered into service in August 2025.[13]

Putin is attempting to pressure the Trump administration to engage in arms control talks to facilitate US-Russian rapprochement and extract concessions from the United States about the war in Ukraine, as ISW forecasted Russia would in August 2025.[14] Putin claimed that US implementation of his New START initiative, coupled with the “entire range of efforts to normalize bilateral relations,” could create an atmosphere “conducive to substantive strategic dialogue” with the United States.[15] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is dangling the prospect of bilateral arms control talks in front of the United States to secure Russia’s desired demands in Ukraine and deflect from Russia’s responsibility for the lack of progress in Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations.[16] Russia has been trying to manufacture an escalation in recent months, including by withdrawing from the INF Treaty in August 2025, to coerce the Trump administration to engage in arms control talks.[17] Putin has notably used New START to try to extract concessions about Ukraine from the United States in the past, linking Western aid to Ukraine and his decision to suspend Russia’s participation in New START in February 2023.[18] Putin’s September 22 statements aim to present himself as equal to US President Donald Trump and to present Russia as a global power comparable to the United States, and Putin has been trying to posture Russia as the heir of the Soviet Union’s “superpower” status since Trump assumed office in January 2025.[19] Putin’s posturing aims to reinforce the Kremlin’s false narrative that a Russian victory in Ukraine is inevitable, so Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia’s maximalist demands now out of fear that Russian aggression will only worsen in the future.[20]

The United Nations (UN) reported that the number of casualties from Russian drone strikes targeting Ukrainian civilians has increased by 40 percent so far in 2025 as compared to 2024. UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine Head Erik Møse reported on September 22 that the commission found that Russian forces conducted strikes against Ukrainian civilians walking or using transport, residences, and critical infrastructure in Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv oblasts since July 2024.[25] Møse also noted Russian forces are systemically conducting “double tap” strikes against Ukrainian rescue workers responding to Russian strikes. The commission concluded that Russia’s deliberate drone strikes against civilians violate international law, amount to the crimes against humanity of murder and forcible population displacement, and are in accordance with a concerted state policy that aims to sow terror among the Ukrainian population. ISW has observed numerous instances of Russian drone strikes and war crimes against civilians throughout 2025, and Ukrainian authorities have reported on numerous such instances in the past day alone. The Kharkiv Oblast Prosecutor’s Office reported on September 22 that Russian forces shot and wounded an elderly civilian riding a bike in Kupyansk and wounded a civilian during a first-person view (FPV) drone strike against a civilian car in Borova.[26] Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne published on September 21 footage that a resident filmed on September 19 of a Russian drone dropping an unknown explosive devicereportedly a PFM-1 Lepestok anti-personnel land mine, on a street in central Nizhyn, Chernihiv Oblast, as civilian vehicles travelled along the road.[27]

Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.