[…] Putin revealed that Moscow’s tactical nuclear weapons might arrive in Belarus as early as this summer amid Minsk’s repeated calls to deploy such weapons on its territory.
He noted that Russia would not hand over control of any of those tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus.
Explaining the need for the move, the Russian head of state cited the UK’s decision to provide Kiev with depleted uranium munitions earlier in March.
Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov pointed out last week that the US had long stationed its own tactical nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear weapon states – Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye. The diplomat therefore concluded that any criticisms of Russia’s decision by the US were hypocritical.
the idea of having nuclear weapons in one’s country certainly isn’t pleasant, although I’d assume the people there are already plenty worried about the existing threats against them
Saw a post a while back, referenced a report or interview, something. Basically during the Obama admin they had simulation and the “principle committee” had to respond to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon against a NATO military installation. They didn’t want to nuke Russia itself because they figured that invited retaliation in kind so instead they chose to nuke Belarus despite it not being involved to “send a message”.
So yeah, Belarus having nukes is probably a net positive to the safety of people there.
Won’t this mean that the US is less likely to fuck with them? Since Washington’s main reason for opposing nuclear proliferation has always been “nuclear weapons are an obstacle to us going in and doing what we want, whenever we want to”
having nukes is pretty much the only way to protect yourself from US invasion nowadays
It definitely will; it’s why Amerika has avoided the DPRK, and giving up their nuclear weapons was fatal for Libya. I can still understand being anxious about having them in your country, though