Belarus: Putin claims he’ll station nukes in Europe
Belarus is finally getting its nuclear deterrent back, said Yury Shevtsov in Alfaradio .by (Belarus). We had 81 nuclear missiles stationed here when we were part of the Soviet Union, but we returned them to Moscow after the USSR dissolved in 1991. Now Russian President Vladimir Putin says he has reached an agreement with President Alexander Lukashenko to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons here. That would put Russian warheads on the borders with Poland and the Baltics, as well as Ukraine—closer to major European capitals. But more important for us, it would be “a significant security guarantee,” reinforcing that Belarusans are covered by Russia’s nuclear umbrella. After all, the U.S. already stations its own nuclear weapons in various European countries near us, even ones that are not officially nuclear states and should not be allowed access to nuclear weapons. In the event of war, those Europeans would have quick access to American nukes. Russia and Belarus are now simply “copying the American model.”
That’s not quite true, said Anika Freier and Christina Hebel in Der Spiegel (Germany). The U.S. deployed nukes to its European allies before the 1970 ratification of the Nonproliferation Treaty, so their presence is technically not in violation of that pact. If Russia now transfers nukes to Belarus, though, that will be a violation. Still, it won’t make much difference strategically. Russia can already “reach almost any target on Earth” with its nuclear arsenal. Putin’s announcement is merely intended to remind the West that he is capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on Ukraine anytime he wants. We knew this was coming, said Defense Express (Ukraine) in an editorial. Belarus changed its constitution to allow the possession of nuclear weapons back in February 2022, just days after Russia invaded our land, and a few months later adapted its bombers to carry them. So while Putin, “the leader of the Rashists,” or Russian fascists, probably expected his announcement to cause us alarm, we’re not scared. Speak for yourself, said Agne Cerniauskaite in Lrytas (Lithuania). Lithuanians, who have given sanctuary to Belarusan opposition leaders, understand that “this is a malicious move aimed at increasing tension and causing anxiety.” State media in Belarus have already directly threatened us, saying that once Minsk controls nukes, “Warsaw will melt, and Vilnius will sink.”
“Like a lot of what Vladimir Putin says about nuclear weapons,” the suggestion that Russia will give nukes to Belarus “may add up to less than it appears,” said Julian Borger in The Guardian (U.K.). He doesn’t want to actually move weapons—he gets no military benefit from doing so—but merely hopes to highlight American hypocrisy. Why should the U.S. get to station nukes with its allies while Russia can’t? Even to Western arms-control experts, the U.S.’s claim that its nuclear weapons in Europe are still under its control, and therefore don’t amount to a nonproliferation violation, does seem like “a cynical dodge.” Ironically, the U.S. was actually considering removing its missiles from Europe before Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. So if Europe is now bristling with nukes, “Putin has in large part himself to blame.”