Putin’s Professed Nuclear Deployment to Belarus Heightens Tensions, Whether True or Not

During the summer, President Vladimir Putin purportedly relocated some of Russia’s short-range nuclear weapons into Belarus, edging them closer to Ukraine and NATO’s periphery.

This pronounced shift of Russian armaments into its neighboring and faithful ally signifies a new phase in Kremlin’s nuclear intimidation tactics surrounding its invasion of Ukraine and represents another effort to deter Western nations from escalating military aid to Kyiv.

Preparations were made within the country’s Soviet-era facilities to house these weapons, and Belarusian pilots and missile operators were reportedly trained to utilize them.

U.S. and NATO have yet to confirm this action. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg labeled Moscow’s rhetoric as “hazardous and careless,” mentioning earlier this month that they have not observed any change in Russia’s nuclear stance.

While some specialists question the authenticity of claims made by Putin and Lukashenko, others suggest that Western intelligence might not be capable of detecting such movements.

Earlier this month, U.S. intelligence officials cited by CNN stated they had no reason to question Putin’s assertion about the delivery of the first batch of weapons to Belarus, noting the potential difficulty for the U.S. to monitor these weapons.

Unlike nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of annihilating entire cities, tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield usage can have yields as low as about 1 kiloton. For context, the U.S. bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II was 15 kilotons.

These devices are compact and can be subtly transported on a truck or plane. Aliaksandr Alesin, an independent military analyst based in Minsk, said the weapons are contained in non-radiating cases and could have been secretly flown into Belarus without detection from Western intelligence.

According to Alesin, Belarus has 25 Cold War-era underground facilities built for nuclear-tipped intermediate-range missiles that can withstand missile attacks. Only a handful of these storage depots could house tactical nuclear weapons, but military operations continue in all of them to mislead Western intelligence.

At the onset of the war, Putin referenced his nuclear arsenal, pledging to utilize “all means” necessary to defend Russia. His rhetoric has since softened, but his top lieutenant continues to ominously hint at the prospect of nuclear warfare.

Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s Security Council’s deputy head, frequently threatens that Moscow won’t hesitate to use nuclear weapons. In a recent article, he stated that “the apocalypse isn’t just possible but quite likely,” and that the only way to prevent it is to succumb to Russian demands.

Many Western observers perceive this as mere bluster.

However, Putin appears to have moderated his nuclear rhetoric in response to indications from China, according to Keir Giles, a Russia expert at Chatham House.

Giles noted that the deployment was primarily about “consolidating Putin’s control over Belarus,” offering Moscow no military advantage over placing them in Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, bordering Poland and Lithuania.

Some question whether the deployment to Belarus has occurred at all. Others suggest that Russia could have deviated from the protocols used in the 1990s when the aim was to reassure the West of the security of its nuclear arsenal amid economic and political instability.

Valery Karbalevich, a Belarusian military analyst, theorized that the Kremlin may be employing a strategy of perpetual pressure and intimidation against Ukraine and the West. He asserted that uncertainty generates more fear than certainty.

Alesin argued that U.S. and NATO might be downplaying the threat of nuclear weapons in Belarus because they pose a challenge that the West struggles to counteract. He said, “The Belarusian nuclear balcony will overshadow a significant portion of Europe. However, they prefer to deny the existence of any threat, and believe the Kremlin is merely attempting to frighten the West.”

If Putin were to employ nuclear weapons, Alesin stated that he might do so from Belarus, anticipating a Western response directed at that country rather than Russia.

The opposition to Lukashenko warns that this deployment places Belarus under the thumb of the Kremlin. The exiled opposition leader, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who attempted to depose the authoritarian leader in a 2020 election widely regarded as fraudulent, has called for preventative measures, political pressure, and sanctions to resist the deployment of nuclear weapons to Belarus. She expressed regret that a strong Western reaction has not yet been observed.

Contributions by Yuras Karmanau in Tallinn, Estonia, Jill Lawless in London, and Ellen Knickmeyer in Washington.

Support for nuclear security coverage for The Big Big News is provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP holds sole responsibility for all content.

For AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine, visit https://bigbignews.net/russia-ukraine.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Nuclear Weapons Deployment to Belarus

More about Nuclear Weapons Deployment to Belarus

• Russia’s Nuclear Strategy
• Tensions Rise as Russia Deploys Nuclear Weapons to Belarus
• Belarus Opposition Leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
• NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Russia’s Rhetoric
• Understanding Tactical Nuclear Weapons
• Russian Foreign Affairs Expert Sergei Karaganov