New START Treaty Expires Amid Ongoing Disinformation Campaign

As the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between major powers expires, Russia continues to deflect responsibility while escalating nuclear rhetoric.

The New START Treaty, the final pillar of nuclear arms limitation between the United States and Russia, expired on February 6, 2026, marking a concerning milestone in global security relations. In the aftermath, the Kremlin has launched sophisticated information campaigns minimizing its role in the treaty’s collapse while simultaneously promoting narratives that position Russia as a nuclear superpower in a new multipolar world.

Russian state media and pro-Kremlin commentators have carefully cultivated a narrative portraying Moscow as the responsible party whose reasonable proposal for a one-year extension “wasn’t heard in Washington.” This framing conveniently overlooks Russia’s systematic undermining of the treaty’s foundations over several years preceding its expiration.

The New START agreement, which entered into force in 2011, established crucial limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons and implemented verification protocols, including on-site inspections of nuclear facilities. These mechanisms provided essential transparency between the nuclear arsenals of both nations.

The treaty’s erosion began during the COVID-19 pandemic when inspections were temporarily suspended. However, in August 2022, Moscow refused to resume these inspections, blaming Western sanctions imposed following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. By February 2023, the Kremlin had suspended its participation in the treaty altogether, though without formally withdrawing.

While the Biden administration had expressed reservations about extending the treaty in its original form, advocating instead for a new framework that would include China, experts note that Russia’s actions systematically undermined the agreement’s effectiveness long before formal discussions about its renewal began.

Concurrent with its diplomatic maneuvers, Moscow has orchestrated extensive disinformation campaigns portraying Western nations as provocateurs seeking nuclear confrontation. These narratives have accused Ukraine and its allies of plotting various nuclear threats against Russia, including allegations about dirty bombs, attacks on nuclear facilities, and even the weaponization of radioactive materials.

“These campaigns serve multiple strategic objectives,” explains one European security analyst. “They deflect attention from Russia’s own nuclear posturing while simultaneously normalizing nuclear threats as an acceptable aspect of geopolitical discourse.”

The information warfare extends beyond nuclear weapons. Since at least 2014, when Russia first annexed parts of Ukraine, pro-Kremlin outlets have promoted conspiracy theories about Western biological and chemical weapons development near Russian borders. These narratives intensified following the 2022 invasion, with claims about U.S. biolaboratories allegedly conducting experiments aimed at harming Russia’s population.

Perhaps most concerning is Russia’s increasingly open celebration of its nuclear capabilities. State media regularly showcases weapons like the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile, emphasizing its destructive potential and ability to intimidate neighboring countries. The recent deployment of these systems in Belarus was accompanied by video footage clearly intended to send a message to Poland and other European nations within striking range.

Similarly, Russia has promoted its RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile through propaganda videos glorifying its destructive capacity, while conspicuously omitting coverage of potential test failures.

Security experts view these coordinated information campaigns as part of a broader strategic shift. “What we’re witnessing is a transition from arms control transparency to deliberate opacity,” notes one defense analyst. “The Kremlin is attempting to reshape global perceptions of nuclear risk according to its own narrative, making its gradual undermining of the New START Treaty appear inevitable and justified.”

This approach represents a dangerous new chapter in international security relations, as verification mechanisms and mutual transparency give way to posturing, threats, and unrestrained nuclear development. Without the constraints and verification procedures established by New START, the world enters a more uncertain era in nuclear deterrence, exactly as tensions between major powers reach their highest point in decades.