As stated by the unrecognized president of Belarus, o.lukashenko, during the 2nd Eurasian Economic Forum held in moscow on May 24-25, he agreed with putin on the transfer of russian tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus. He said that such actions are a response to Great Britain’s decision to transfer tank shells containing depleted uranium to Ukraine.
❗️Earlier, putin said that on July 1, russia will complete the construction of a special storage facility for TYAZ in Belarus and has already handed over the Iskander-M missile complex capable of carrying such weapons to the Belarusian army.
The reaction of the world community was predictable.
Ukraine stated that in connection with such intentions of russia, it demands to convene the UN Security Council.
The representatives of the USA and Great Britain emphasized that the publicized reasons for the placement of TYAZ in Belarus are an example of how russia misleads the world, because “the kremlin knows very well that the armor-piercing shells that Britain handed over to the Armed Forces of Ukraine are not nuclear weapons.”
The German federal government said that putin is resorting to nuclear intimidation.
And the representative of the European Union J. Borrell noted that this will aggravate the security situation and may lead to the introduction of new sanctions by the EU.
What does such a decision mean for russia, Belarus and the West?
russia is trying to prove to the leadership of the “collective West” that the further increase in the amount of military and financial support to Ukraine, the refusal of territorial concessions as a condition for ending the war, threaten the further escalation of the conflict, the spread of the zone of potential threat to the territory of Ukraine and the launch sites of drones and missiles, in particular with nuclear warheads. “Nuclear threat” in this case is an alternative to using the territory of Belarus as one of the springboards of the future offensive. After all, russia’s lack of reserves to significantly increase its military presence in Belarus due to significant losses during the winter campaign makes the probability of Belarus entering the war or using its territory for a russian attack minimal. However, putin’s decision to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus does not change anything in this sense. So the practical implementation of the plan can be carried out by the kremlin only after agreement with the leadership of China. Given the role in the global nuclear balance that China is counting on, reaching such an agreement will be extremely difficult. Deputy Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations Geng Shuang made public his position regarding China’s ban on the transfer of nuclear weapons to other countries by any nuclear power during his speech at the Security Council. China calls on all nuclear-armed countries to abide by their commitments, reduce the risk of nuclear war, and avoid any conflicts between nuclear-armed states. Therefore, the practical placement of russian nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus is considered problematic. The fact that the kremlin decided to put the “nuclear argument” on the table only shows that putin currently has no other ways to increase pressure on Ukraine and its allies.
For the Belarusian authorities, plans to deploy the russian nuclear power plant are an opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to the kremlin against the background of unwillingness to “draw” the Belarusian military into armed aggression. The kremlin is not entirely satisfied with such actions. In order to encourage lukashenko to fully enter the war, there is a possibility that in the near future moscow will organize large-scale provocations on the Belarus-Ukraine border. According to the russian human rights project Gulagu.net, the FSS has already sent a group of mercenaries to Belarus to carry out sabotage and terrorist attacks on behalf of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Such a provocation gives lukashenko an additional reason to carry out a “cleansing” in the country of opposition forces and Belarusian volunteers who are fighting on the side of Ukraine as part of the regiment named after K. Kalinovsky.
On the other hand, lukashenko’s agreement to deploy nuclear weapons in the country will lead to internal destabilization of the country and ultimately spoil russia’s reputation in the eyes of Belarusian society. The Belarusian population understands that the placement of nuclear weapons in the country makes its territory a potential target for NATO, which will maximally increase the level of negative perception and public rejection of the kremlin leadership and putin personally in Belarusian society.
The West assesses lukashenko’s and putin’s statements as another attempt to use nuclear blackmail to force the US, Ukraine and their allies to stop the war on russia’s terms. But the plans to place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus are unlikely to fundamentally change the role of Belarus in the russia-Ukraine war. However, the very fact of russia’s possession of nuclear weapons and means of their delivery continues to be a global problem and a factor of dangerous escalation and threat to Western countries. Therefore, the deployment of russian nuclear warheads without transferring control over them to minsk leaves the kremlin with the possibility of their practical use.
