On Monday, October 6, 2025, the world watched as the Kremlin offered a rare note of optimism amid otherwise frosty U.S.-Russia relations. Russian officials welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s public endorsement of President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to extend the New START nuclear arms treaty for an additional year, a move that could mark a significant—if temporary—pause in the unraveling of global arms control agreements.
Putin’s offer, floated in September and reiterated several times since, suggested that both Russia and the United States voluntarily maintain the limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons as set out in the New START treaty, which is currently scheduled to expire on February 5, 2026. The proposal came at a delicate moment, with tensions between Moscow and Washington running high over issues ranging from Ukraine to alleged drone incursions into NATO airspace. Yet, when asked about the Russian initiative, Trump responded on Sunday, October 5, 2025, that it “sounds like a good idea to me.”
The Kremlin lost no time in seizing on Trump’s remarks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters, “Of course, we welcome such a statement. We believe that this already gives grounds for optimism that the United States will support this initiative of President Putin.” According to Reuters, this sentiment was echoed across several Russian media outlets, which interpreted Trump’s support as a possible lifeline for the last remaining Russian-U.S. arms control treaty.
The New START treaty, signed in 2010 by then-U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, limits each nation to 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers. It also includes robust verification measures, such as on-site inspections, though these were suspended in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed since. The treaty was originally set to expire in 2021 but was extended for five years, making the 2026 deadline a hard stop unless both sides agree to renew or replace it.
According to the Federation of Atomic Scientists, Russia and the United States together control approximately 87 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal—a staggering figure, with Russia holding 5,459 nuclear warheads and the U.S. holding 5,177. That’s more than enough firepower to destroy the world several times over, a sobering reality that underscores the stakes of these negotiations.
Putin, in a video address released on Sunday, warned that allowing the treaty to expire would be destabilizing and could fuel a new round of nuclear proliferation. He argued that maintaining the existing limits could help “create an atmosphere conducive to substantive strategic dialogue with the U.S.” At a recent forum of international foreign policy experts, Putin reaffirmed his readiness to stick to the treaty’s terms for another year, suggesting that this window could be used to negotiate a more comprehensive successor pact. “We haven’t forgotten about anything that we have planned, the work is ongoing and it will produce results,” he asserted.
The Russian president also acknowledged the complexity of forging a new agreement. He noted that future talks would likely have to address not just traditional strategic nuclear weapons, but also battlefield nuclear weapons and new strategic systems that Russia has developed in recent years. Furthermore, Putin highlighted the long-standing U.S. desire to include China in any future arms control arrangement. However, as the Associated Press reported, China has so far rejected this idea, arguing that its nuclear arsenal is far smaller than those of Russia or the United States. Putin also floated the notion that Britain and France, both NATO members with their own nuclear forces, should be part of any future deal.
Despite the apparent thaw, there are still significant obstacles. Putin himself acknowledged that some in the U.S. political establishment oppose extending New START. “If they don’t need it, we don’t need it either. We feel confident about our nuclear shield,” he said, according to the Associated Press. This confidence, however, does little to assuage the concerns of arms control advocates, who warn that the treaty’s expiration could trigger a new nuclear arms race and raise the risk of catastrophic conflict.
Russia’s U.N. Ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, told reporters that Moscow was still waiting for a formal response from Trump to Putin’s offer. While Trump’s “good idea” comment was welcomed, it stops short of a binding commitment. Nevertheless, the Kremlin has interpreted the statement as a positive sign, with Peskov emphasizing that it “gives grounds for optimism.”
The timing of these developments is far from coincidental. The U.S. and Russia have been locked in a tense standoff over Ukraine, with Washington considering Ukrainian requests for long-range Tomahawk missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. U.S. Vice President JD Vance said last month that the Biden administration was weighing Kyiv’s plea, though no final decision has been announced. In a video clip released Sunday, Putin warned that if the U.S. were to supply such missiles, it would “destroy Moscow’s relationship with Washington.”
While Trump has publicly expressed disappointment in Putin for not ending the war in Ukraine, he was not directly asked about the missile question during his recent comments on New START. The potential for further escalation remains palpable, casting a shadow over the fragile progress on arms control.
For many observers, the fate of New START is emblematic of broader trends in global security. The treaty, which once symbolized a shared commitment to reducing the threat of nuclear war, now hangs by a thread. On-site inspections—once a cornerstone of mutual trust—remain suspended, and the political will to negotiate a complex new agreement appears uncertain on both sides of the Atlantic.
Yet, the mere fact that both Russian and American leaders are publicly discussing an extension, even a temporary one, is seen by some as a glimmer of hope. As arms control advocates have repeatedly warned, the alternative could be a dangerous new era of nuclear brinkmanship. The Associated Press, which receives support for its nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Outrider Foundation, noted that the absence of any arms control framework would make the world a far riskier place.
With just a few months left before New START’s expiration, the international community is watching closely. Will Trump’s “good idea” comment translate into concrete action? Can Washington and Moscow find common ground, even as they clash elsewhere? In a world bristling with nuclear arms, the answers to these questions may prove more consequential than ever.
For now, the world waits—hopeful, but hardly reassured.
