Putin’s Nuclear Warning: Russia Dumps Key Treaties – Are We Heading for War?

In a geopolitical landscape marked by escalating tensions, Russia’s decision to cancel or suspend several military agreements with Western nations has sent shockwaves through international security circles. As of December 2025, Moscow’s moves—ranging from terminating post-Cold War pacts with NATO allies to abandoning outdated missile treaties—signal a deepening rift with the West. These actions aren’t isolated; they’re part of a broader pattern amid the ongoing Ukraine conflict, frozen assets disputes, and stalled arms control talks. But why now? And what does it mean for global stability?

Recent Developments:

Russia’s latest salvo came on December 5, 2025, when Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin signed a decree ending three historic military cooperation agreements with Portugal, France, and Canada. These pacts, forged between 1989 and 2000 during the thaw in East-West relations, covered joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and logistical support. Moscow cited their “lack of strategic relevance” in the current climate, particularly amid Western efforts to use Russia’s frozen assets to fund Ukraine’s defense.

Earlier in 2025, Russia escalated further:

• August 2025: Exit from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty Self-Restrictions. Russia announced it would no longer adhere to voluntary limits under the defunct 1987 INF Treaty, which banned ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 km. This follows U.S. withdrawal in 2019 over alleged Russian violations, but Moscow now points to U.S. deployments in Europe and Asia as justification.
• October 2025: New START Extension Offer with Strings Attached. Despite suspending participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2023, President Vladimir Putin proposed a one-year extension beyond its February 2026 expiration—provided the U.S. reciprocates. New START caps deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550 per side, but Russia’s suspension halted inspections and data exchanges, citing Ukraine-related sanctions.

These aren’t the first. Russia suspended the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty in 2007 and has repeatedly invoked the Ukraine war to justify pulling back from transparency measures.

Russia’s actions in 2025 echo a decade-long erosion of arms control frameworks. The Soviet-era INF Treaty collapsed in 2019 amid mutual accusations of cheating—Russia for deploying the prohibited 9M729 missile, the U.S. for Aegis Ashore systems in Romania and Poland. New START, the last U.S.-Russia nuclear pact, was extended to 2026 just before Biden’s 2021 inauguration, but Russia’s 2023 suspension tied it explicitly to Western Ukraine aid.

Post-2022 Ukraine invasion, Moscow has framed these moves as defensive. Sanctions blocking Russian inspectors’ visas, plus alleged U.S. non-compliance (e.g., unverified conversions of bombers to conventional roles), provide cover. Yet experts note Russia’s history of using treaties as leverage, from CFE non-ratification in 1999 to Open Skies withdrawal in 2021.

Why Is Russia Canceling These Agreements?

At its core, Russia’s cancellations stem from retaliation and realpolitik:

• Response to Western Sanctions and Ukraine Support. Frozen Russian assets—estimated at $300 billion—fuel Ukraine’s war machine, prompting Moscow to view old pacts as obsolete relics aiding adversaries. The December 2025 terminations with NATO states directly tie to this “assets row.”
• Geopolitical Irrelevance. Putin has argued these agreements, born in a unipolar world, no longer serve Russia’s multipolar vision. With NATO expansion and U.S. missile deployments, Moscow sees them as one-sided.
• Blame-Shifting and Domestic Messaging. By accusing the West of violations (e.g., U.S. Trident conversions under New START), Russia portrays itself as the aggrieved party, rallying domestic support and dividing NATO allies.
• Escalation Ladder in Hybrid Warfare. Suspensions allow flexibility—Russia claims adherence to numerical limits while denying verification, creating ambiguity that pressures the West without full rupture.

In short, these aren’t impulsive; they’re calculated amid a frozen Ukraine conflict, where peace talks under U.S. President Donald Trump demand Ukrainian concessions like territorial cessions in Donbas and military downsizing.

What Could Be Russia’s Possible Strategy?

Russia’s approach to arms control isn’t haphazard—it’s a multifaceted playbook blending coercion, deterrence, and opportunism. Here’s a deeper analysis:

• Bargaining Chip for Ukraine Leverage. Suspensions serve as “nuclear poker,” pressuring NATO to curb Ukraine aid. By linking New START to “de-escalation” demands (e.g., no NATO in Ukraine), Moscow exploits Western fatigue. The 2025 INF abandonment similarly warns against U.S. missile placements, aiming to extract concessions in Trump-brokered talks.
• Nuclear Saber-Rattling for Alarm and Division. Putin’s offers—like the conditional New START extension—generate headlines of “progress” while sowing doubt. This divides the West: Europeans fear a “poisoned chalice,” while U.S. hawks push for reciprocity. Long-term, it bolsters Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a shield for regional goals, like Belarus integration or Arctic dominance.
• Hybrid Escalation Without Full Break. “Suspending” rather than withdrawing preserves reversibility, avoiding blame for an arms race. Russia adheres to limits (e.g., 1,550 warheads) but skips inspections, eroding trust while claiming moral high ground.
• Multipolar Pivot. By torching Western ties, Russia accelerates BRICS+ alliances, courting China and India for arms tech. Yet, as seen in a brief India-Russia cooperation dip in December 2025, even partners tread carefully.

Overall, the strategy buys time: Sustain Ukraine stalemate, deter intervention, and position Russia as indispensable in future talks. Risks? Miscalculation could spiral into unintended escalation.

Is Russia Paving the Way for War?

The specter of broader conflict looms large. Ending agreements like INF removes barriers to an intermediate-range arms race, echoing Cold War brinkmanship. New START’s fragility—without inspections—heightens accident risks, as unseen deployments fuel paranoia.

Yet, is this deliberate war-paving? Not overtly. Russia’s focus remains Ukraine, where 2025 peace drafts demand Kyiv’s “capitulation”—ceding Donbas, halving forces, and barring NATO. Moscow rules out ceasefires without these, viewing suspensions as tools to force Western buy-in, not ignite new fronts.

A “forever war” in Ukraine ties down NATO, while nuclear posturing deters aid. If Trump eases sanctions for a flawed deal, it could embolden Putin elsewhere—Baltic states, Moldova. Europeans, per EU warnings, see it as dividing the alliance.

Russia’s economy strains under sanctions; full war risks overstretch. Suspensions may bluff strength, but mutual U.S.-Russia adherence to limits averts immediate doom.

Verdict? Not yet paving a new warpath, but eroding guardrails that prevent one. Without renewed dialogue, 2026 could see unchecked arsenals—and flashpoints.

Russia’s 2025 cancellations underscore a world where arms control is casualty to hybrid rivalry. Motivated by Ukraine fallout and strategic irrelevance, they fit a pattern of leverage-seeking that risks nuclear instability. As Trump-era talks falter over maximalist demands, the West must prioritize verification and unity to avoid escalation.