On Monday, September 22, 2025, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin made waves on the world stage by offering to extend the limits on deployed long-range nuclear weapons—set out in the last remaining arms control treaty between Russia and the United States—for another year. The catch? The United States would need to reciprocate. This dramatic announcement, delivered at a meeting of Putin’s security council at the Kremlin, comes as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) teeters on the edge of expiration and as global anxieties about nuclear proliferation reach a fever pitch.
New START, signed in 2010 during a brief thaw in U.S.-Russia relations, is the last major nuclear arms control pact restraining the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. It limits each country to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads and 700 launchers, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, and bombers. The treaty was already extended once, for five years, by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2021—a move that bought some time but left the underlying issues unresolved. Now, with the accord set to expire on February 5, 2026, the future of nuclear arms control hangs in the balance.
Putin’s offer is simple on its face: Russia will voluntarily stick to the treaty’s numerical limits for one year beyond its expiration—if the United States does the same. “Russia is prepared to continue adhering to the central numerical limits under the New START Treaty for one year after February 5, 2026,” Putin declared, according to Reuters. “Subsequently, based on an analysis of the situation, we will make a decision on whether to maintain these voluntary, self-imposed restrictions.”
But the motives behind this move are anything but straightforward. According to The New York Times, Putin’s decision is likely influenced by Russia’s economic pressures, especially as the war in Ukraine drains state coffers and Western sanctions bite harder. Avoiding a costly arms race is a pragmatic choice, and the offer could also be a gambit to draw Washington into negotiations on an issue distinct from the Ukraine conflict.
Putin emphasized that Russia’s willingness to uphold the limits is strictly conditional. “This measure will only be viable if the United States acts in a similar manner, and does not take steps that undermine or violate the existing balance of deterrence capabilities,” he said in remarks carried by multiple outlets. The Russian leader’s words were pointed, hinting at concerns over U.S. plans to expand missile defense systems—including the so-called “Golden Dome,” which could involve deploying interceptors in space. “The practical implementation of such destabilizing actions could nullify our efforts to maintain the status quo in the field of START,” Putin warned, as reported by Reuters. “We will respond accordingly.”
At the White House, the initial response was measured but not dismissive. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, “I think it sounds pretty good,” while noting that President Donald Trump, who has expressed both skepticism and interest in arms control, would address the offer himself. Trump had previously indicated in July that he would like to maintain the treaty’s limits after its expiration, but the details of any U.S. response remain undecided.
The backdrop to these developments is a world in flux. With China rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal—and refusing to join any new arms control efforts—the global balance of power is shifting. China’s foreign ministry, for its part, praised Russia’s “positive attitude” in offering to extend New START. Guo Jiakun, a spokesperson for the ministry, urged the U.S. and Russia to continue reducing their nuclear arsenals “in a verifiable, irreversible and legally binding manner.”
Yet, formal negotiations to renew or overhaul New START have not begun. The war in Ukraine remains a major stumbling block, with sharp differences between Moscow and Washington preventing meaningful dialogue. As The Washington Post observed, Putin’s proposal appears as a rare unilateral shift in policy from a leader usually insistent on tying arms control progress to improvements in broader U.S.-Russia relations.
Meanwhile, the machinery of the old treaty is already grinding to a halt. Russia suspended its participation in most aspects of New START in 2023, maintaining only the numerical limits. Both countries stopped conducting the annual missile-site inspections required by the treaty during the Covid-19 pandemic, citing safety concerns, and those inspections have never resumed. Data exchanges and notifications about nuclear forces, another core element of the pact, have also ceased. Meghan O’Sullivan, a former U.S. national security official and co-author of a recent Belfer Center report, put it bluntly: “Without such action the world would soon face—for the first time in decades—the absence of any limits on the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia.”
The stakes are enormous. If New START lapses without replacement, both countries could embark on a major nuclear buildup, reigniting a race reminiscent of the Cold War. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, called Putin’s offer “a positive and welcome move,” urging Washington to reciprocate. He argued that Trump and Putin “could help reduce the most immediate existential security threat facing the world.”
Yet, skepticism abounds. O’Sullivan cautioned that “the Trump administration must make clear that President Putin cannot play the ‘good guy’ with Washington while acting as the ‘bad guy’ in Europe. The United States should signal both its willingness to pursue talks to reduce nuclear risks and its determination not to sacrifice a just peace in Ukraine.”
Beyond the nuclear chessboard, tensions between Russia and the West are flaring in other arenas. On the same day as Putin’s announcement, the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency meeting to address recent Russian fighter jet incursions into Estonian airspace—a charge Moscow denies, insisting its planes were flying over international waters. These incidents, along with previous violations over Romania and Poland, have only heightened anxieties in Europe.
The history of arms control between Washington and Moscow is littered with abandoned treaties. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Treaty on Open Skies, and the Antiballistic Missile Treaty have all been scrapped in recent years, often amid accusations of violations and changing strategic priorities. New START stands as the last vestige of a decades-long effort to put a lid on the world’s deadliest weapons.
With the clock ticking toward February 2026, the fate of nuclear arms control—and perhaps the broader global security order—may hinge on whether leaders in Washington and Moscow can find common ground, even as they spar in other arenas. For now, Putin’s offer has injected a note of cautious hope into a tense and uncertain landscape, but the hard work of negotiation and verification lies ahead.
As the world watches, the next moves from both sides will determine whether the era of nuclear restraint endures or fades into history.
