Popular articles

Four principles of strategic stability

It is possible, at least conceptually, to sketch out a set of broad principles for U.S-Russian strategic stability – those principles are rooted in Cold War legacies but need to be adapted, revisited, and broadened in light of changing strategic capabilities a...

On October 20, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that the United States is going to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). Many experts assumed that that Trump’s decision was caused not by the accusations that Russia violated the treaty but by concerns about Ch...

Origins of the notion

It should be underlined that the concept of “strategic stability” was born in the late 1980s in the context of START-I negotiations to serve as a foundation of deep strategic arms reductions. In this role, it was designed to replace an amorphous and subjective notion of “equal...

All articles


Did you enjoy the article?


  • Position : Chairman of the Executive Board
  • Affiliation : PIR Center
  • Position : Founder & Director
  • Affiliation : PIR Center
  • Position : Coordinator, Nonproliferation & Russia Program – Junior Research Fellow, Yaderny Kontrol edtor
  • Affiliation : PIR Center
complete list

The Future of U.S.-Russian Arms Control: Principles of Engagement and New Approaches

Heather A. Conley, Vladimir Orlov, Gen. Evgeny Buzhinsky, Cyrus Newlin, Sergey Semenov and Roksana Gabidullina
The Future of U.S.-Russian Arms Control: Principles of Engagement and New Approaches image

As one of its first security policy decisions, the Biden administration agreed to extend the New START Treaty for five years with no conditions.  The New START Treaty represents one of the last remaining vestiges of international arms control architecture and one of the few areas of potentially productive U.S.-Russian dialogue in an otherwise toxic bilateral relationship where trust does not exist.  Yet the security environment has drastically changed since 2010, when New START was negotiated. The Treaty covers only a part of the “security equation”, whereas missile defense, new weapon systems, space-based assets and advanced technologies are not subject to formal arms control agreement. Both Moscow and Washington – though to different extents – have grounds to be concerned about the nuclear capabilities of 3rd countries that are not parties to existing arms control arrangements.

Against this backdrop, how does one begin to reframe the U.S.-Russian arms control dialogue for the future?  Where does one start the negotiation or discussion?  New capabilities?  Rebuilding some semblance of trust reinforced by greater transparency measures?  Reaffirming and developing principles in multilateral fora rather than seeking formal treaties?  What can be realistically accomplished during the five-year extension period?  These questions provided the backdrop to a U.S.-Russian Track II Strategic Stability Dialogue held over four, in-depth conversations in November and December of 2020 hosted by Center for the Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the Moscow-based PIR Center. This bilateral and bipartisan dialogue was unique in that it featured a wide range of views on arms control on both the American and Russian side. In doing so, the organizers sought to build the groundwork for an approach arms control talks that would withstand political fluctuations in both countries.

Read the report


Security Index №7(22), March 2021