I dont see this as much of an update. Mutual inspections under the treaty haven‘t taken place for a year, it’s basically already been suspended since the invasion. I would be more concerned if he formally withdrew, but he didn’t even do that. 

Love dropping a new report on nuclear war, and saying that advocacy for nuclear arsenal limitation is be highly cost-effective (link), only to be hit by the news that Vlad is throwing a tantrum.

But in all seriousness, my understanding from what the experts in the field are saying is that it *probably* doesn't materially increase the risk of nuclear war relative to the status quo. Russia will still limit themselves to New START levels (and can't afford a costly arms race anyway); the lack of transparent reporting on deployments is an issue, but probably  doesn't move the needle more than marginally.

The real worry is that going forward, this makes further nuclear reductions more unlikely. Abolishment is a pipe dream, but arms limitation is far from nothing - it really does make a difference whether each side has 1000 nuclear weapons or 300 or 100, since the soot produced and famine caused scales with weapons used, and it can be the difference between 5.5 billion people dying (current worst case scenarios for NATO-Russia & US-China nuclear exchanges) and like sub 1-2 billion (India-Pakistan).