This article says we are considering moving theater nuclear missiles to Europe to counter the Russians. I sincerely doubt that will happen in the Obama administration.
But this Russian claim is the most interesting to me:
Russia denies violating the treaty and has, in turn, claimed violations by the United States in erecting missile defenses.
I'm so old that I remember when the administration dismissed claims that the treaty hampered our missile defense initiatives:
I am not convinced when defenders of the treaty claim that the treaty doesn't hinder our "development" of missile defenses. Sure, Russia apparently has no problem with research. But "deployment" is another thing altogether, and is an issue that treaty proponents glide by without addressing. If "development" is equivalent to "deployment" why are the Russians still raising a stink about plans to break ground on building such a defense in Europe? ...
If this is what we think of as reducing constraints, I don't want to know what hindering us would look like. The Russians have not green-lighted building missile defenses capable of protecting America, and claims that START clears the path are outrageous.
So remember this minor difference of opinion when the glorious reset nuclear deal with Iran is presented to America.