Talk:New START

New START and Operation Spider’s Web

I don’t think section should be included in the article under current circumstances.

Currently we say: “The bombers were still parked not in nuclear strike protective bunkers, but in open-air, according to obligations under the New START Treaty with the US.”

Our first source is CNN, which does not mention New START or any treaty obligations. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/02/europe/inside-ukraine-drone-attack-russian-air-bases-latam-intl

The second source is Pravda.ru. This one says “Political consultant Igor Dmitriev told Tsargradthat the aircraft had been stationed in the open due to the START III treaty signed with the US.” https://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/162641-ukraine-russia-nuclear-blow/

I don’t think this is a reliable source. Pravda.ru is known for absurd, false, and manipulative articles (for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20161125044905/http://www.pravdareport.com/science/mysteries/25-05-2007/92157-nazi_germany-0/).

A journal article at Lviv Polytechnic National University calls it “Russian propaganda web-media”. https://science.lpnu.ua/sjs/all-volumes-and-issues/volume-2-number-896-2018/provocative-content-about-crimean-anexia-russian Another article there says it engages in “manipulation” and “intentional conscious distribution of false information”. https://science.lpnu.ua/sjs/all-volumes-and-issues/volume-2-number-896-2018/main-processing-methods-russian-internet-media A journal article at the Journal of Intercultural Communication says they engage in “manipulation”. https://immi.se/index.php/intercultural/article/view/El-Astaletal-2024-2 An article in Problems of Post-Communism says that it engages in government orchestrated “slander campaigns“ and are part of the “government’s attempts to manipulate the digital environment”. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/PPC1075-8216590302 I think there is a strong consensus this is not a reliable website.

Additionally, the website says START III, not New START. That makes no sense, of course (since START III wasn’t ratified), and is further evidence that this place isn’t reliable for this topic. But if we are going to use them as a reliable source, that is their claim. I don’t think we can cherry pick what we like and decide that they are actually referring to a different treaty.

Our third source, the Kyiv Independent, doesn’t mention New START or any treaty obligations. https://kyivindependent.com/enemy-bombers-are-burning-en-masse-ukraines-sbu-drones-hit-more-than-40-russian-aircraft/

This is what existed when I previously removed the claim.

Since then, a new source has been added, Newsweek, which says: “Under the New START Treaty limiting nuclear weapons, strategic bombers have to be kept out in the open, Ledwidge added.” https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tu160-strategic-bombers-alaska-anadyr-ukraine-spiderweb-2081937

This is a reliable source.

However, there is also a reliable source saying otherwise. Meduza says “Podvig told Meduza that the agreement places no restrictions on hiding these aircraft under ‘environmental shelter,’ which includes hangars. The only circumstance under which an aircraft must be displayed in the open, he explained, is when either Moscow or Washington wishes to declare that it has eliminated that particular warplane from its fleet.” https://meduza.io/en/feature/2025/06/03/untangling-operation-spiderweb

One reliable source saying it was required and one reliable source saying it wasn’t required is not enough to include this section in my opinion. If we do include it, it needs to say that it is disputed. LordDiscord (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong, Newsweek is considered not generally reliable. Given that Meduza is considered generally reliable, I think we should default to the more reliable source and remove this entirely until we have more reliable sources saying otherwise. LordDiscord (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a second reliable source saying this isn’t true, France 24. https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20250605-no-the-new-start-nuclear-deal-did-not-enable-ukraine-to-carry-out-the-spider-s-web-attack

I will remove this until there is a consensus on reliable sources. LordDiscord (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Suspended in 2023, expires in 2026, talks between USA and Russia

It seems as if Russia has suspended the treaty in 2023, but adhered to the numerical limits of nuclear weapons. At least they said so.

As of January 2026, President Putin has offered to extend the treaty. If there is no agreement it will expire in 1 week, February 4th, 2026.

AP Article Fanta AG (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Railcar-launched ICBM

Maplestrip asks There's one part that is not entirely certain to me: should we assume the US and Russia will never (again) have rail-mobile ICBM launchers, or should we make that line past tense as well?.

We should not make this assumption because Russia has a new such system in development and there is now speculation about reviving it. China and India are using such systems so they are still state-of-the-art.

More generally, it's good to see someone taking on the daunting task of updating the article to address such issues now that the treaty has concluded. I have tagged the article to highlight further need for this but, so far, have avoided getting sucked in too.

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)