Medvedev Slams US ‘Golden Dome’ Defense System as ‘Extremely Provocative’ Threat to Global Stability

Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, has delivered a scathing critique of the United States' newly unveiled "Golden Dome" missile defense project. In an interview with the Russian newspaper Kommersant on Monday, Medvedev labeled the multi-billion dollar initiative as "highly provocative" and a direct violation of international arms control agreements.

A Violation of Strategic Balance According to Medvedev, the Golden Dome project fundamentally contradicts the "New START" (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), specifically START-3. He argued that the American initiative ignores the essential link between offensive and defensive capabilities, which is the cornerstone of maintaining global strategic balance.

"The lack of transparency in this project raises significant strategic concerns," Medvedev stated. He warned that if Washington fails to provide a concrete response to Russia’s proposal to extend the New START treaty—which is set to expire on February 5th—Moscow will be forced to take retaliatory measures based on American actions.

The $175 Billion Shield The "Golden Dome" project, announced by President Donald Trump in May 2025, is an ambitious three-year, $175 billion plan to build a multi-layered missile defense system designed to intercept incoming projectiles aimed at the United States. While Washington frames the project as a necessary defensive shield, Moscow views it as an attempt to neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent.

A Tense Countdown to New START Expiry Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously expressed readiness in September to extend the New START treaty for one year, provided the U.S. reciprocated. However, with the February 5th deadline looming, Medvedev's comments signal a darkening mood in Moscow.

The Russian leadership fears that the Golden Dome will create an imbalance that could trigger a new arms race. Medvedev emphasized that Russia's future steps would depend entirely on whether the U.S. chooses transparency and treaty compliance or continues with what he describes as unilateral military escalation.