Russian President Vladimir Putin said Saturday that Moscow will deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus at the request of Minsk.
Announcing the decision, Putin compared the move to NATO’s nuclear sharing program, under which there are US nuclear weapons deployed to the territory of five allied countries: Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Turkey.
“There is nothing unusual here either. Firstly, the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long deployed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries,” Putin said. The Russian leader insisted the deployment wouldn’t violate Moscow’s non-proliferation commitments.
Putin also said the decision was related to the UK supplying Ukraine with depleted uranium rounds for its British-made Challenger 2 tanks. Depleted uranium ammunition is radioactive and is linked to cancer and birth defects, especially in Iraq, where US forces used an enormous number of the controversial munitions.
In response to the announcement, the US said it hasn’t seen any indication that Russia is planning to use nuclear weapons. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby also said the US hasn’t seen Russia move any nuclear weapons around yet.
Putin said that the plan is for Russia to build a facility in Belarus to store the nuclear weapons, which will be completed by July 1. Russia has previously provided Belarus with nuclear-capable Iskander missiles and is helping upgrade the country’s warplanes so they can carry nuclear warheads.
“We have already helped our Belarusian colleagues to reequip their planes. Ten planes are ready to apply this type of weapons. We have handed over to Belarus our well-known and very effective Iskander system that can carry [nuclear weapons],” Putin said.
US and NATO officials have said they don’t see a reason to adjust their own nuclear posture at this point. But one way NATO could respond to the deployment is by placing nuclear weapons in countries that are closer to Russia.
The US has not deployed nuclear weapons to countries east of Germany that joined NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, but some eastern European countries are willing to host nukes, including Poland. Finnish officials have also not ruled out the idea of hosting nuclear weapons, and Finland is poised to join NATO soon.
I hope they stop this nonsense soon. Before the nukes fly.
This is disgusting… “I’m going to paint a target on my loyal dog to make English scared”
Anyone want to take a shot and try to convince me that this ‘east-west’ circus isn’t just a show? Because it sure looks like all these parasites are working together to destroy humanity.
Unfortunately, it is not a show. Putin is running out of options and he is feeling the strain. I hope Biden, NATO Poland and the Baltic States show restraint and that Russian patriots in the Kremlin and the military are erecting a firewall around Putin the way the White House and the Pentagon built a firewall around Nixon when he was stressed out around Watergate.
BS. Pure CNN DC propaganda.
Putin has offered negotiating an end to the war, but,golly gee, those Americans and English just get in the way. Rules based they are. So it goes.
Putin is really losing it. The man is talking irrationally. I just hope there is some kind of check and balance in the Kremlin to stop him if he decides to launch a first strike.
For all its evil intentions, US/NATO did not put nukes on Russia’s border. Now Putin has them across the border from Poland.
Since the Ukrainian September offensive Putin has been acting unbalanced. First he pretends to annex four oblasts that Russia does not even control. Then he declares martial law and forcibly evacuates Ukrainians in Kherson to Russia. then he surrenders territory that he claime to have annexed a week before, including Kherson and Lyman. then he has the Wagner group send human waves of prisoners to be slaughtered in Bakhmut . He has replaced his top generals at least twice. Now Yevgeny Prigozhin is complaining that the Wagner Group is unable to get ammunition at Bakhmut. Putin does not seem to have a coherent plan for ending the war in Ukraine. I hope the oligarchs in the Kremlin and the military leaders have erected a firewall to prevent Putin from launching a nuclear first strike the way the White House and Pentagon built a firewall around Nixon when he was similarly stressed out.
He’s not losing it. He’s quite rational, and this move is also quite rational.
He’s not losing the war either. Ukraine’s propaganda is vital to it getting a flow of money and weapons, so everyone in the West helps that. But it is still not even remotely true by any objective checking.
Yes, the US had and still has nukes on Russia’s border — Turkey for example, and Korea, and Germany before the NATO border was moved to the East. And ships, all over the place.
I wouldn’t be concerned about ‘Putin losing it’, while on the other hand I would be quite concerned about this current U.S. administration led by Biden and his merry band of armchair Neocon warriors and worry about what they next have planned.
the problem with current U.S. administrations is that they are inevitably replaced with new more-of-the-same-if not-worse administrations
Exactly. DC has a very deep bench of neo-cons and neo-liberals that think they should rule the entire planet.
“For all its evil intentions, US/NATO did not put nukes on Russia’s border. Now Putin has them across the border from Poland.”
Let’s say that is true. So, they only put NATO on Russia’s borders. Would this be happening if that didn’t happen?
This would not be happening if Putin could accept the fact that Ukraine has opted not to be part of Russia’s sphere of influence. Like Cuba opted not to be part of Washington’s sphere of influence 64 years ago.
Only if a legitimate government of Ukraine opted to not be part of Russia’s sphere of influence. An installed dictatorship is not a legitimate government
That didn’t answer my question, it sidestepped it.
The world would be a better place if NATO had not expanded after the USSR collapsed. But NATO expanded and Putin has to live with that along with the rest of us. He also has a right to object to further expansion. But he does not have the right to start a preemptive war, which is where he went wrong.
Aside from being wrong, Putin’s war has expanded NATO and undermined the countries in NATO and EU that wanted detente with Russia. Putin’s war made Russia’s security situation worse. This war is the best proof I could imagine of how preemptive wars usually achieve the exact reverse results of what the aggressors intend.
Your first sentence was enough. But you had to expound on the sidestep. I only asked what would be happening had NATO not encroached Russia’s borders.
“Putin is really losing it. The man is talking irrationally.”
Really? Could you provide me with the full text of an interview or speech he has given that indicates this? I am sure you pour over Putin’s comments religiously. Full text please, nothing taken out of context.
Well OK how stable is Belarus?
russia is not going to simply park a bunch of nukes in belarus and hand over the keys
Word of the day: VAPORIZE.
Not very stable.
The more important question is how stable is Putin?
What does he hope to accomplish?
This is not a rational deployment.
It looks like an infantile “in your face” diss at NATO.
Not a good sign from the leader of a nuclear superpower.
Belarus and other countries might be a heck of a lot more stable if the Washington DC stopped trying to color revolution/regime change their governments. Including the attempted regime change in Turkey.
Yes. Putin is sticking his thumb in NATO’s eye.
I see these comments noting how bad and crazy and irrational the Russians are. YES. Which makes this a terrible time and place for a proxy war, not a good one.
Putin is as steady as a rock. No need to worry about him doing something crazy. The ones you need to worry about are Biden, Blinken, Nuland, and Sullivan.
I worry about them too. But Putin is the one dropping obvious hints about nuclear first strikes.
Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy states that Russia will not use nuclear first strike. However, given the nuclear saber rattling of the U.S., Putin has stated that the Kremlin is rethinking their “no nuclear first strike” dogma, as they should.
Mary, you can defend Putin, but you shouldn’t say things that are untrue. Russian nuclear doctrine explicitly allows for a nuclear first strike if Russia believes it faces an existential threat to the regime from conventional weapons or if Russia is attacked with biological or chemical weapons. China is the only nuclear state with an absolute no first strike policy. India also has a no first strike policy with an exception for attack by biological or chemical weapons.
And what does U.S. nuclear dogma say about an existential threat to the U.S. whether by conventional, biological, or chemical weapons? Russia would use nuclear only if they are attacked and can not defend Russian territory by any other means. Like Trump said, “What’s the point of having nuclear weapons if you can’t ever use them.” If Russia is under an existential threat, then Katy bar the door!
Mary, I was replying to your false assertion that “Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy states that Russia will not use nuclear first strike.” I demonstrated that your statement was untrue. I will not defend US first strike policy.
I read the book, “Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy” by Dmitry Adamsky, and I sure understood it to say that Russia had a no first strike with nuclear weapons dogma. Don’t you think that before you remove the splinter from Putin’s eye, that you should first remove the plank from Biden’s eye?
Ellsberg has said, China and India are the only countries with no first strike doctrines.
https://archive.is/Ka0VG
Since WWII US has threatened first strike more than any other country. Since Russia has been losing the war in Uaine, Putin and Medvedev has been the ones dropping hints of preemptive nuclear strikes more than Biden. I haven’t read Adamsky’s book, but if he says Ruyssia has a no first strike doctrine, he is wrong. Itis well documented that Russia reserves the right to a first strike if the regime believes it is under existential threat or if attacked by WMD’s. And Ellsberg knows what he is talking about. I trust him.
You really think that Russia has been losing the war? You need to listen to Scott Ritter and Col. Doug Macgregor on that.
You need to look at the map and the calendar. Russia lost the war. As is typical in asymmetric wars of national resistance, it may take Russia years to get a leadership to recognize that Putin’s folly is a lost cause. Scott Ritter has no credibility. Colonel MacGregor does. But he is wrong. The map and the calendar don’t lie.
That’s because Russia is facing an existential threat by the encroachment of NATO forces.
Putin has been very patient with the West. It is the U.S. and NATO that have been menacing Russia for a very long time. Putin is trying to get the West to realize that their end game of eliminating Russia will have severe consequences. Isn’t that what the U.S. has been threatening too?
Do you think the survival of the Russian regime is worth a nuclear war?
Do you think preserving the power of the U.S. and its Neocon leaders is worth risking nuclear war?
Nuclear weapons should not be used. Period.
No regime is worth jeopardizing the survival of the human race.
Until now I thought that North Korea, Israel and Pakistan were the three regimes most likely to launch a first strike.
Given Russia’s losses on the battlefield and the increasingly unhinged veiled threats from Putin and his cronies, now Russia is the country most likely to use nukes first. Certainly a Russian use of tactical nukes in Ukraine is more likely than any first strike by the US/NATO or any of the other nuclear powers.
The US regime is evil. But at the present time it is very unlikely that the US would consider a first strike.
“Given Russia’s losses on the battlefield….” Pardon me but hasn’t Russia taken roughly 20% of Ukraine? What gains has Ukraine made?
Just think, if Ukraine had agreed to be a neutral country with no NATO membership, this war would not have happened. It was the evil leaders in the U.S. that pushed for this war against Russia making Ukraine the battlefield and the Ukrainians the cannon fodder. It was the U.S. that squelched the peace deal last March/April that could have brought the war to an end. What country refused to honor the Minsk Accords? What country really wants peace and who wants war?
Mary, the Russian army is stalled, losing territory, unable to secure the territory they claim to have annexed, fighting a resistance as well as rthe Ukrainian military, unable to decisively defeat the Ukrainian army, unable to control the air space, unable to stop the supply of NATO sweapons freely moving overland across the Ukrainian border. Russian diplomats and generals repeatedlyclaim that when NATO gives Ukraine longer range weapons, Russia will expand its occupation zone. Well NATO gave Ukraine longer range missiles and Russia is unable to expand its zone of control and insttead is losing territory. Russia can’t secure irs own airspace and Ukraine drone strikes have hoit north of Moscow. Ukraine sunk Russia’s flagship. Bombed the Kerch bridge and the Ukrainian resistance attacked Russian bases in Crimea.
The fact that the Ukrainian Army is still fighting effectively is irrefutable proof that Russia lost the war. Putin is a Great Russian chauvinist who just doesn’t get it. US lost the war in Vietnam in 1968 but Nixon, like Putin, didn’t get it and escalated and continued the war for five more years. Samething happoened to the US and USSR in Afghanistan. Watching Putin is like watching the same slow motion train wreck I have watched for almost 60 years.
Blah, blah, blah. Believe what you want. Considering that Russia is up against 30 plus NATO nations and all the lethal war materiel they can pump into Ukraine, Zelinski’s troops should be marching on Moscow any day now.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/racing-to-multipolarity/
Good article. US is declining and China is rising. The world wants trade,not sanctions. But the article doesn’t deal with the empirical reality that Russia has decisively failed in its war. I am sure Xi understands this which is why it is good that China is getting taking the lead in negotiating a settlement.
Russia has failed in its war? How long did it take America to subdue Afghanistan and Iraq? I think Russia, via The Wagner Group, just captured Bahkmut. But now Bahkmut is of no strategic importance according to the Western media. Then why did the Ukrainians sacrifice so many of their soldires’ lives trying to hold onto Bahkmut?
” How long did it take America to subdue Afghanistan and Iraq?”
About as long as it will take Russia to subdue Ukraine. Forever.
The US left Afghanistan in defeat after 20 years. The US ended the military mission in Iraq after 18 years with a regime that is cloaer to Iran than to the USA.
I hope it doesn’t take Russia as long to realize they can’t defeat the indigenous Ukrainian resistance.
Asymmetric wars of national resistance are determined by hearts and minds, not force of arms. Like the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia lost the war in Ukraine. But it often takes a long time for the imperial invader to recognize defeat.
“Like the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia lost the war in Ukraine.”
We shall see.
We have seen.
Not yet Skywalker! Not yet!
Have you seen the story on Anti War that the Russian flag has been raised in Bakhmut?
The failure of the Russians to complete the encirclement of the Ukrainian garrison is more significant than whose flag flies over Bakhmut City Hall.
LOL!
The Russians can fly their flag. The Ukrainians are happy that the Russians can’t cut their supply route.
Again, LOL!
Oh but it will be the U.S./NATO that launches a first nuclear strike. Then they will blame it on Russia.
No regime’s survival is worth a nuclear war. Period.
Biden is evil. But Putin is the one who is threatening first strike because he is losing a war.
No big deal. The US has such weapons all over Europe and Asia, in many countries. These include Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey, really wherever there are major USAF bases. So what if the Russians do it once too? No harm when we do it, no harm either when they do it. Unless of course NATO means to attack, as Russia fears and NATO denies.
Agreed. With B-52s simulating nuclear attacks and Ukraine attacking strategic nuclear bases deep in Russia, now we’re worried Belarus is hosting Russian nuclear weapons? What are we worried about? Belarus turns out to be more insane than the UK, Poland, or …us? (Sarcasm alert)
Excellent comment. Makes me feel so much better knowing we have the administration we have and NATO. Oh yeah.
Run by people who will never see the future because they are on their last decade, who fervently believe nothing bad can actually happen because we just lived through decades of peace wrought by much better people.
What could go wrong??
Oh no!
Putin is taunting us by moving stuff around!
Will Joe mumble a few words off a script excoriating him?
that is exactly what will happen
From Daniel Ellsberg NYT March 24, 2023:
“For 70 years, the U.S. has frequently made the kind of wrongful first-use threats of nuclear weapons that Putin is making now in Ukraine. We should never have done that, nor should Putin be doing it now. I’m worried that his monstrous threat of nuclear war to retain Russian control of Crimea is not a bluff. President Biden campaigned in 2020 on a promise to declare a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. He should keep that promise, and the world should demand the same commitment from Putin.”
https://archive.is/Ka0VG
“No first use”, like the ban on nuke testing, is just a US gambit.
No nation can withstand a conventional US attack with a conventional defense, however with a single “defensive” nuke, the US’s advantage is completely thwarted.
In the same way, US doesn’t need to actually test nukes, but (unsophisticated) “beginners” do.
US is just trying to define the rules of the game so it always wins.
Vietnam and Afghanistan withstood US attacks. If the US/NATO attacked Belarus conventionally they would be defeated in the same quagmire that is engulfing Putin’s invasion force in Ukraine even if Russia did not send troops. It is always about hearts and minds, not force of arms or dollars and cents in asymmetric wars of national resistance. That is why Mao called the US a “paper tiger.”
Russia’s (not Putin’s) invasion force is not in a quagmire in Ukraine. Vietnam did withstand LBJ’s attacks and Afghanistan withstood Junior Bush’s attacks, however.
This is a sober, measured response by Russia. It is an escalation, but it does not increase the level of violence. Unlike the UK action to send depleted uranium munitions, which will directly increase the violence.
Also, the Russian move does not require the US to escalate in response, in order to keep up on the battlefield. So, a very intelligent move.
Russia continues to play chess, or perhaps Go, while the US continues to play tit-for-tat checkers.
You forgot the Biden administration giving the OK to send cluster bombs to Kiev.
The Pentagon has parked a few hundred strategic A-Bombs in Getmany and many more tactical Nukes. Plus more elsewhere in Europe.
Moscow is simply following the Pentagon‘s example.
Maybe the Pentagon should start withdrawing its Nukes and WMDs from Europe
“you do as i say, not as i do!”
…… uncle sam
that’s the “rules based order” they speak of.
Oh yes. “Rules” for you, not for us.
If nukes are placed in Poland, Russia will place nukes in Cuba, Central America and Brazil.
If you have followed the development in nukes then you would know that placing nukes in Cuba or Central America and Brazil will not change the threat level for the US – the threat of nukes from a sub much closer to Washington and other large US cities is far larger than that of nukes in any of those other places.
Oh good. So we would have absolutely no problem with that then. Wonder why land, air, and sea based nukes are still the in thing for us?
The triad is to a great extent a source of profit for the MIC that is not necessary for US or Russian security. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists most of the 1770 US nukes actively deployed are submarine based (970) with 300 nukes on bombers , 400 land based ICBMS and 100 of Obama’s “tactical” nukes based in European countries.
Submarines are the key to US and Russian nuclear power.
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2023-01/nuclear-notebook-united-states-nuclear-weapons-2023/
The whole Complex is a source of profit for them.
That would be because they project conventional power – there are no US bases anywhere abroad which are needed for nuclear retaliation strikes.
Edit – that was when I understood it to be land sea and air bases.
The answer to the question as it is actually formulated should be:
Land sea and air based nukes are the thing for the US because they use all three types to guarantee a retaliation capacity.
Conventional or Tactical power? Nukes aren’t considered conventional.
You are right, I misread your comment,
The answer should have been:
The US have these different types of nukes, to guarantee retaliatory capacity.
Why did the fact that the US retains these three types of nukes at all make you wonder and what is the connection to basing such nukes in foreign places?
Then moving nukes to Belarus should be pointless? It’s probably a move to help secure Belarus from a CIA sponsored color revolution.
It is pointless – the US response to it was exactly that – i.e. this changes nothing.
In which case, the US will have no problem whatsoever with Russia if they base nukes in those locations. Rather than being against it, the US will communicate with Russia with a “Welcome to the Hemisphere.”
No because in general the US and Russia have been working towards reducing foreign stationed nukes – in case you think this is a made up argument for this special occasion remember the very significant problems Russia and the US had negotiating the ‘removal’ of nukes left outside Russia after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Good deterrent move…!
Lets see: NATO announces it is deploying 300,000 troops on the Russian border. The goal is to take the pressure off the Kiev regime by getting Russia to deploy Russian troops to counter the NATO troops thus reducing the Russian troops available to use in Ukraine.
Putin’s response: … Russia isn’t going to play this game. Russia will not redeploy troops from the Ukraine war. Should NATO troops cross the Russian border, Russia will nuke those troops.
Belarus nukes is a message: no more color revolutions on the Russian border. Existential threats to the Russian state will have dire consequences. The Russians are good at chess. The NATO move results in “check”.
Take the Chinese offer. It likely will not be repeated.
No NATO announced that they would work to agree to a plan for this, but it is not in position to deploy anything like 300,000 troops not this year at the very least.
As it stands the proposed plan is not even to actually put 300,000 troops on the border:
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/natos-proposal-of-300000-force-along-russias-borders-may-prove-challenging-to-fulfill-articleshow.html
Working to agree to a plan means it is in the overall game plan. Where the troops will be stationed is the plan to be worked out. It is happening. I do believe Russia has the intel on this.
The plan is to have 100,000 troops on high alert the rest on alert – i.e. none of them actually deployed – these are people who are not actually even necessarily in uniform – with 10 to 30 days warning before having to be able to deploy. This is very different from actually deployed troops.
There simply is no way that NATO could deploy 300,000 troops without everyone knowing about it – these troops would be in near constant communication with friends and family – so if your Russian sources are talking about actually deployed troops then no they do not know anything.
Maybe it can be interpreted so. Anyway Belarus should be properly protected.
“Putin also said the decision was related to
for its British-made Challenger 2 tanks.”
I have google news on my phone and none of the articles I read had this quote from Putin. The US MSM are such liars and the sheeple in America actually still believe their whoppers and lies of omission.