Russia relocated some of its short-range nuclear weapons to Belarus, closer to Ukraine and NATO which signals a new step in the Kremlin”s nuclear bluster over its invasion of Ukraine, as well as another attempt to prevent the West from strengthening military backing for Kyiv.
Russia relocated some of its short-range nuclear weapons to Belarus, closer to Ukraine and NATO. The stated deployment of Russian weaponry on the territory of its neighbor and partner signals a new step in the Kremlin’s nuclear bluster over its invasion of Ukraine, as well as another attempt to prevent the West from strengthening military backing for Kyiv.
Neither Putin nor his Belarusian counterpart, Alexander Lukashenko, stated how many were relocated, just that Soviet-era facilities in the nation had been prepared to house them and that Belarusian pilots and missile crews had been trained to deploy them.
The United States and NATO have not verified the move. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has condemned Moscow’s rhetoric as “dangerous and reckless,” but the alliance has witnessed no shift in Russia’s nuclear posture since earlier this month.
While some analysts question Putin and Lukashenko’s statements, others point out that Western intelligence may be unable to monitor such activity.
Earlier this month, CNN reported that US intelligence sources said they had no reason to deny Putin’s allegation that the first batch of the weapons had been sent to Belarus, but that tracking them may be difficult.
In contrast to nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, which may destroy whole cities, tactical nuclear weapons for use against troops on the battlefield can have yields as low as 1 kiloton. In World War II, the United States dropped a 15-kiloton bomb on Hiroshima.
The devices are small enough to be carried quietly on a truck or plane when used on bombs, missiles, and artillery rounds. According to Aliaksandr Alesin, an independent Minsk-based military specialist, the weapons employ canisters that release no radiation and could have been transported into Belarus without being detected by Western intelligence.
“They fit easily in a regular Il-76 transport plane,” Alesin explained.”There are dozens of flights per day, and it’s extremely difficult to locate that special flight.” It is possible that the Americans will fail to supervise it.”
According to Alesin, Belarus possesses 25 subterranean installations created during the Cold War for nuclear-tipped intermediate-range missiles that can resist missile assaults. He noted that only five or six of these sites could genuinely store tactical nuclear weapons, but the military operates at all of them to deceive Western intelligence.
Early in the battle, Putin made frequent references to his nuclear weapons, pledging to employ “all means” required to preserve Russia. He has subsequently toned down his rhetoric, but a top lieutenant continues to dangle the idea with frightening ease.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council who served as the country’s interim president from 2008 to 2012 since Putin’s term was up, issues near-daily threats that Moscow will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.
Medvedev recently stated that “the apocalypse isn’t just possible, but quite likely,” and that the only way to avert it is to comply with Russian demands.
The world is facing a conflict “far worse than the Cuban missile crisis because our adversaries have decided to truly defeat Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power,” he said.
Many Western observers consider such statements as bluster.
Putin appears to have toned down his nuclear bluster after receiving signals from China, according to Keir Giles, a Russia analyst at Chatham House.
“The obvious Chinese displeasure had an effect, and it could have been accompanied by private messaging to Russia,” Giles told The Associated Press.
Moscow’s defense policy calls for a nuclear retaliation to an atomic assault, as well as a conventional attack that would “threaten the very existence of the Russian state.” Because of the ambiguity of the language, some Russian analysts have urged the Kremlin to set out the criteria in greater detail in order to push the West to take the warnings more seriously.
“The possibility of using nuclear weapons in the current conflict must not be hidden,” said Dmitry Trenin, former director of the Moscow Carnegie Center before joining Moscow’s state-funded Institute for World Economy and International Relations.
The practical, not theoretical, perspective of it should produce impulses for halting the expansion of the conflict and finally setting the foundation for an acceptable strategic balance in Europe.
Western ideas that Putin is faking his intentions to use nuclear weapons are “extremely dangerous delusions,” according to Trenin.
Sergei Karaganov, a top Russian foreign affairs expert who advises Putin’s Security Council, said Moscow should make its nuclear threats more specific in order to “break the will of the West” and force it to stop supporting Ukraine in its grinding counteroffensive to reclaim Russian-held areas.
“It is necessary to restore the fear of nuclear escalation; otherwise, humanity is doomed,” he warned, recommending that Russia set up a “ladder” of escalating acts.
Deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus was the initial move, according to Karaganov, with a possible follow-up of telling ethnic Russians in nations backing Ukraine to leave regions near potential nuclear targets.
If that fails, Karaganov advised a Russian nuclear assault on Poland, claiming that Washington would be afraid to reply in like to protect a NATO member for fear of sparking a worldwide war.
“If we build the right strategy of intimidation and even use it, the risk of a retaliatory nuclear or any other strike on our territory could be reduced to a bare minimum,” he warned. “Only if a lunatic who despises his own country is in the White House would America risk launching a strike ‘in defense’ of the Europeans and drawing a retaliatory strike, sacrificing Boston for Poznan.”
While pro-Kremlin analysts have suggested such possibilities, Belarusian President Lukashenko has stated that having Russian nuclear weapons in his nation is intended to discourage Polish attack.
He stated that a handful of nuclear warheads were transported to Belarus undetected by Western intelligence, with the remainder arriving later this year. The warheads may be carried by Belarusian Su-25 ground attack planes or adapted to short-range Iskander missiles, according to officials in Moscow and Minsk.
According to Giles of Chatham House, the deployment is about “cementing Putin’s control over Belarus” and does not provide Moscow with any strategic advantage to basing them in Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania.
The West should see this as a ruse “that has far more to do with Russia’s ambitions for Belarus than any genuine impact on European security beyond that,” according to Giles.
Some commentators dispute if the deployment to Belarus took place at all.
Miles Pomper, a senior fellow at the Middlebury Institute’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, disputed Lukashenko’s allegation that nuclear weapons were secretly flown to Belarus. He claims that they are generally transported by train and that there are no traces of “the support elements that you would see that would go with shipments of weapons.”
According to Belarusian military researcher Valery Karbalevich, keeping such facts hidden might be part of the Kremlin’s plan of “applying constant pressure and blackmailing Ukraine and the West.” “The unknown is more terrifying than certainty.”
According to Alesin, a Minsk-based expert, the United States and NATO may downplay the deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus since they constitute a challenging threat to the West.
“The Belarusian nuclear balcony will loom over much of Europe.” But they would rather believe that there is no threat and that the Kremlin is simply scaring the West,” he continued.
If Putin decides to deploy nuclear weapons, he may do so from Belarus in the belief that a Western reaction will target Belarus rather than Russia, according to Alesin.
While Lukashenko regards such weapons as a “nuclear umbrella” safeguarding the nation, “they turn Belarus into a target,” according to exiled opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who attempted to overthrow the dictatorial leader in a generally seen as fraudulent 2020 election.
“We are telling the world that preventative measures, political pressure, and sanctions are required to prevent nuclear weapons from being deployed in Belarus,” she stated. “Regrettably, we haven’t seen a strong Western reaction yet.”
