Nuclear weapons in Belarus: “Putin wants to distract from military defeat”

President of Russia Vladimir Putin will Tactical nuclear weapons station in Belarus. This was reported by the Russian news agency TASS on Saturday. What does Putin want to achieve with this? And does it increase the risk of nuclear war? Experts classify.

Putin Threatens to Stop Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Belarus What is his purpose?

Alexander Dubovy: He’s trying to go west again In fear and dread to move But frankly, these nuclear threats are a little boring.

In which way?

Alexander Dubovy: Once again, it’s an empty threat. We don’t even know if the deployment will actually happen.

Marc Finaud: But if it really comes down to it, one question will be important. At this time, Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons are considered “decommissioned”. Missiles and warships Often stored at intervals of tens of thousands of kilometers to allow time to respond in the event of a false alarm. Deploying missiles that already have warheads in Belarus increases the risk of deployment, whether intentional, accidental, accidental, or unauthorized.

If so, would such a deployment increase the risk of nuclear proliferation?

Marc Finaud: Yes, of course. There is no situation where nuclear weapons can be contemplated Attack on Ukraine Or the NATO country will have no reaction. NATO has repeatedly warned Russia about this reaction, without saying exactly what it would look like. In this scenario, the risk of an all-out nuclear war would increase dramatically – as noted, due to misjudgments, misunderstandings, accidents or hacker attacks.

Dubovy: I agree. However, the deliberate nuclear escalation of this war cannot be in Russia’s interests.

For what reason?

Dubovy: Russia can only lose as a result. On the one hand, the support of some countries that are somewhat behind Russia, namely India, Turkey and China. On the other hand, all the Russian stories will collapse: then there will be no talk of a special action and the desire to end the war.

Finaud: In addition, using nuclear weapons near the Belarusian or Russian borders would be absolutely stupid, because there is a risk of radioactive contamination depending on the wind direction. The mission is therefore primarily a gesture to domestic politics and a warning to deter NATO countries from aiding Ukraine.

So what about Putin’s scaremongering?

Dubovy: That’s one of the goals. Domestically, he tries to distract from the defeat of his own army. Despite reports to the contrary, Bagmuth has not yet been captured and the Russian army is paying a heavy price in blood.

Jean-Marc Wrigley: Putin justified his decision by saying the UK would supply Ukraine with armor-piercing munitions with less uranium. These types of weapons are conventional weapons, unrelated to nuclear weapons. So this argument is wrong.

He supports the move, saying it does the same as the US. Is that right?

Finaud: In theory, Putin is right: the US has deployed a total of 100 “non-strategic” B-61 heavyweight nuclear bombs in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. These can be fired from planes manned by those countries’ own pilots. It’s called “nuclear sharing,” which Russia has always considered a violation of the NPT — even if the U.S. maintains control over the use of those weapons.

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack on Europe?

Finaud: Crossing that threshold would lead to a major nuclear conflict in which there would be only losers. Many experts and NGOs welcome the withdrawal of tactical US nuclear weapons from Europe and negotiations on Russian denuclearization. However, American weapons are retained by the United States as a political deterrent at the request of NATO countries that fear the Russian threat the most.