Close. What they actually need is the credible *appearance* of a nuclear deterrent. While that sounds like the same thing, it's actually very different. Russia has a long history of leveraging deception in lieu of genuine capability, and it works surprisingly well. They show off a bit of technology that looks incredible, and performs well in a demonstration.. and we lose our minds and build something to counter that threat. It's only after we have spent billions that we come to find out that the Russian threat was not at all what it seemed. The classic example of this is how we got the F-15. The F-15, arguably the finest fighter jet ever produced in relation to its' contemporary peers, was designed and created in response to the Soviet Mig-25 which was *fast* and had all sorts of reported capabilities. Well, we could definitely confirm the speed and so we took the other claims seriously too. We built a super-plane that could actually do all the things that the Soviet claimed the Mig-25 could do, and then in 1976 a Soviet pilot defected and flew one to Japan where we got our first good close look at one. We had been had.. it *was* fast, but essentially destroyed its engine requiring a complete overhaul in order to achieve that speed. It still used vacuum tubes.

So, it's not that Russia doesn't have ICBMs.. or nuclear warheads.. it's capable of having them and maintaining them, it's whether they thought they could get away with the *appearance* of having a credible nuclear force and pocket the cash instead of spending it on the real deal.