During a speech on state television on March 25, putin announced that he plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus. He tried to justify his decision by lukashenko’s request, as well as by the fact that Great Britain is transferring ammunition with depleted uranium to Ukraine.
How real are putin’s verbal threats?
There are certain signs that the intention to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in a neighboring country is a continuation of the information campaign to intimidate Ukraine and EU countries. Its general narrative is “in case of further support for Ukraine, the russian federation will use nuclear weapons against NATO, in particular from the territory of Belarus.” Also, the propaganda “horror story” is a continuation of the previous disinformation campaign to intimidate Ukrainians with supplies of british shells with depleted uranium. Arguments that shells with depleted uranium have nothing to do with nuclear weapons and, in addition, are in service with russia itself, are not accepted by the kremlin.
However, the practical implementation of putin’s plans to turn Belarus into a bridgehead for the russian nuclear forces is currently assessed by experts as unlikely.
Firstly, according to US National Security Council spokesman J.Kirby, the United States has seen no signs of russia moving nuclear weapons to neighboring Belarus or anywhere else. According to him, the USA also does not see any signs that putin has any intention to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.
Against the background of threatening rhetoric, putin assesses the possible devastating consequences for russia due to the redeployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus, because it undermines the architecture of nuclear disarmament and the international security system in general. Previously, Washington made it clear that any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would have consequences, even if they were low-power tactical means. It is not for nothing that putin emphasized in his speech that these weapons will be deployed without violating the obligations under the Treaty on Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, although russia suspended its participation in this Treaty a month ago. That is, putin’s apprehensions about a too harsh reaction from the West are palpable. And although the Alliance has not seen any threatening changes in russia’s nuclear policy yet, they are closely monitoring the situation and are ready to adjust their own policy of nuclear deterrence if necessary.
Secondly, the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine is, from a practical point of view, pointless. To gain an advantage on the battlefield, it is necessary to use many such bombs or missiles along the entire front line, and this is impossible due to the absence of such a large number of tactical nuclear ammunition in the russian federation and the threat of radioactive contamination. The kremlin’s unwillingness to use Belarus as a “nuclear club” in the near future is also evidenced by the significant reduction in the number of russian military personnel on its territory (to 4,000), due to their transfer to Eastern Ukraine to deter the Ukrainian counteroffensive.
Thirdly, the threat of NATO’s nuclear response on Belarusian territory and the real prospect of strengthening Western sanctions maximally increases the level of negative perception and public rejection of such a decision by Belarusian and russian society. And although the main Belarusian propagandist g.azaryonok spreads calls to use nuclear weapons and “melt” Warsaw and “drown” Vilnius”, such slogans do not have the support of the population, but only cause irritation. Against the background of general weariness from the war of russian and Belarusian society, this creates real prerequisites for a violent change of regimes.
At the same time, against the background of hypothetical intentions to place tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus, the real threat is the transfer of Iskander-M missile systems to Minsk and the conversion of 10 Belarusian military aircraft to carry tactical nuclear charges, which were carried out long before the British statement. “Iskanders” can carry tactical nuclear charges to a distance of about 500 kilometers, that is, Ukraine and neighboring European states fall into the zone of potential damage. This forces Ukraine to divert its forces to strengthen control over the border with Belarus.
Therefore, it is quite appropriate that Ukraine demands to immediately convene an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council to repel russia for its dangerous and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric.
❗️The intention to place tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus is a continuation of the information and psychological operation to intimidate EU and NATO countries in order to prevent Ukrainian resistance and deprive Ukraine of Western support. However, all these tricks of the kremlin dictator no longer work.
