Russia’s latest diplomatic maneuvers have placed the United States in a precarious position, as the Kremlin mixes nuclear threats with economic enticements in a bid to restore bilateral ties—while simultaneously rejecting any prospect of peace talks with Ukraine. According to a recent analysis by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), these moves are part of a calculated strategy to pressure Washington and strengthen Moscow’s hand in ongoing international conflicts.
On October 1, 2025, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announced that Moscow expects a third round of discussions with the US “to address irritants” before the end of autumn 2025. As reported by ISW, Ryabkov emphasized that the Kremlin is still waiting for US President Donald Trump’s response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal. The proposal in question would extend Russia’s commitment to the New START Treaty by one year, beyond its scheduled expiration date of February 5, 2026.
The New START Treaty, a cornerstone of post-Cold War arms control, originally entered into force in 2011 and sets strict limits on the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems each country can possess. The treaty’s expiration has been looming large over US-Russian relations, and the Kremlin now appears to be leveraging its extension as a bargaining chip.
Ryabkov did not mince words about the stakes involved. He warned that the US must choose between “pursuing stabilization” with Russia or facing “a new arms race.” He added that while Moscow opposes such a race, it would nonetheless guarantee its own security if forced into one. ISW described this as a classic example of nuclear brinkmanship, noting that the Kremlin is blending threats with the promise of economic cooperation to entice Washington back to the negotiating table.
Yet, while Russia extends an olive branch in the form of the New START Treaty, it is simultaneously slamming the door on any meaningful engagement with Ukraine. On the same day as Ryabkov’s statement, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov declared that Russia could not plan high-level meetings with Ukraine because, according to him, Kyiv had halted the negotiation process. ISW swiftly dismissed this claim, characterizing it as a deliberate attempt to discredit Ukraine while the Kremlin continues to escalate demands that amount to little more than calls for Ukrainian capitulation.
ISW’s report makes clear that Russia’s approach is anything but conciliatory. In their words, Moscow is “using nuclear threats alongside economic incentives to pressure the United States into restoring ties while deliberately rejecting peace talks with Ukraine.” The analysts argue that the Kremlin’s dual-track strategy is designed to secure political and economic benefits from the US, while prolonging the conflict in Ukraine to bolster Russia’s own position in the region.
Adding another layer of complexity, ISW reports that Russia is planning sabotage operations against NATO countries, with the intention of shifting blame onto Ukraine. This tactic, according to the analysts, is part of a broader effort to undermine Western unity and sow discord among NATO allies. The Kremlin’s refusal to engage with Ukraine, coupled with its efforts to destabilize NATO, underscores the extent to which Moscow is willing to go to achieve its geopolitical objectives.
Despite President Trump’s public threats to impose tough sanctions on Russia for its refusal to negotiate, ISW notes that, as of October 2, 2025, no significant new restrictions have actually been implemented. This gap between rhetoric and action has not gone unnoticed by observers in both Washington and Europe, some of whom worry that the lack of concrete measures may embolden the Kremlin to continue its current course.
Ryabkov’s statements, as reported by ISW and other outlets, have been unequivocal. “The US must choose to either pursue stabilization with Russia or enter a new arms race,” he said, reiterating Moscow’s opposition to a renewed arms competition but stressing that Russia would “guarantee its own security” if necessary. This messaging is consistent with the Kremlin’s broader playbook, which often combines dire warnings with offers of cooperation, all while maintaining a hardline stance on core issues such as Ukraine.
The ISW report also highlights how the Kremlin’s narrative seeks to shift blame for stalled peace efforts onto Kyiv. Peskov’s assertion that Ukraine has “stopped the negotiation process” is, according to ISW, a misrepresentation designed to erode international support for Ukraine and paint Russia as the aggrieved party. In reality, the analysts argue, Moscow’s demands in any potential talks have remained so uncompromising that they amount to a call for Ukraine’s surrender—a non-starter for Kyiv and its Western backers.
Meanwhile, ISW analysts believe that Moscow’s ultimate goal is to extract political and economic concessions from the United States, using the threat of nuclear escalation as leverage. The Kremlin, they argue, is deliberately prolonging the conflict in Ukraine not only to strengthen its own bargaining position but also to weaken Western resolve and unity.
The specter of a new arms race is particularly troubling for policymakers in Washington and European capitals, many of whom remember the costly and dangerous standoffs of the Cold War era. The New START Treaty has long been seen as a vital safeguard against uncontrolled nuclear competition, and its potential lapse—combined with Moscow’s inflammatory rhetoric—has raised fresh concerns about global security.
At the same time, ISW’s findings suggest that Russia’s strategy is not limited to military threats. The promise of economic incentives is intended to appeal to segments of the US political establishment that favor engagement over confrontation. By dangling the prospect of mutually beneficial cooperation, the Kremlin hopes to drive a wedge between American policymakers and their European allies, some of whom remain deeply skeptical of Moscow’s intentions.
Despite these efforts, the ISW report makes it clear that Russia’s refusal to negotiate with Ukraine remains a central obstacle to any broader thaw in relations. The Kremlin’s insistence on blaming Kyiv for the breakdown in talks is unlikely to convince many in the West, especially given the ongoing reports of Russian military activity and sabotage plans targeting NATO states.
As autumn 2025 unfolds, the world watches closely to see whether Washington will respond to Moscow’s overtures—or whether the threat of a new arms race will push both sides further apart. The stakes could hardly be higher, with the future of nuclear arms control, European security, and the fate of Ukraine all hanging in the balance.
For now, the Kremlin’s strategy of mixing nuclear threats with economic promises continues to test the resolve of the United States and its allies, leaving the prospect of genuine peace in Ukraine as distant as ever.