Concerned about an impending Ukrainian counteroffensive benefiting from NATO’s backing of Kyiv, Moscow has recently doubled down on its nuclear threats by formalizing a deal with Minsk on the stationing of Russian tactical nuclear weapons.
Signed on Thursday, the agreement to redeploy part of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal to Belarus doesn’t only mark a paradigm shift in Moscow’s military posture — it’s the first nuclear arms transfer beyond Russia’s borders since the fall of the Soviet Union — it is also a sharp escalation of the 16-month-old conflict in Ukraine.
While essentially a military move, experts view Moscow’s decision to place nuclear arms closer to not only Ukraine but also NATO members Poland, Latvia and Lithuania — all of which border Belarus — as mainly an act of political posturing designed to intimidate the West and incite widespread fear of Russian nuclear weapons use in Europe.
“Russia’s main goal is to discourage Western support for Ukraine,” said James D.J. Brown, a professor of political science at Temple University Japan.
“The Kremlin’s calculation is that, if they can convince the West that backing Ukraine could lead to a nuclear conflict, the United States and European countries will become hesitant about providing further arms and financial support to Kyiv,” he added.
Experts argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin may also be trying to signal that Moscow is not alone in this fight.
“This is consistent with how Russia conveyed its recent meetings with China, showing there are other states that support its resistance to what it describes as ‘Western aggression,’” said Andres Gannon, a Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
But with the West unlikely to change tack, the implications of Moscow’s decision — framed as driven by hostilities from the West — may well go beyond political signaling.
The recent deal, which follows a 2021 nuclear transfer request from Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko, increases not only the risk of a renewed nuclear arms rivalry with NATO but also of nuclear proliferation.
At the same time, there may be profound consequences for Belarus. Not only would hosting Russian nukes make the country a potential target for the West, but some also fear that Belarus itself could become Russia's next annexation target as Moscow boosts its political influence and military presence in its neighbor.
Neither country has revealed when or how many Russian tactical nukes would be kept in Belarus, but construction of storage facilities in the country is expected to be completed by July 1, shortly before a NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania.
Unlike strategic nuclear weapons, which are capable of leveling entire cities, tactical varieties are lower-yield weapons designed for battlefield use. Russia is believed to have around 2,000 such warheads capable of being deployed from aircraft, missiles and artillery rounds.
Russia already fields strategic nuclear weapons that can already reach all of Europe. And on top of that, experts point out that the stationing of those higher-yield, strategic weapons in Belarus would be seen as far more provocative by NATO, which might choose to respond in kind, setting the stage for a nuclear standoff.
In this sense, Moscow's decision to only deploy short-range tactical systems is what experts view as a "controlled escalation." In other words, the Kremlin wanted to do enough to rattle Ukraine's European partners, but not so much to inadvertently fuel more support for Kyiv.
It's possible that Russia will aim to mount the nuclear warheads on its 500 kilometer-range Iskander-M ballistic missiles that have not only been transferred to Belarus but also used in the Ukraine conflict carrying conventional warheads, Gannon said.
Another advantage for Russia is that the Belarus-launched missiles would shorten the response time for Ukrainian air-defense units. It would also increase the number of strike options available to Moscow, which can also fire nuclear-armed cruise missiles from either Russian territory or warships in the Black Sea, said William Alberque, director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
As such, Belarus' stationing of nuclear-armed missiles would force Ukraine to significantly reconfigure both its air defense and logistics supply points.
“This means that potential targets can now be threatened from multiple directions using short-range missiles,” Gannon said.
“Ukraine has had a lot of success in shooting down missiles aimed towards Kyiv, but if it now has to spread those systems out to cover the country’s north, this will potentially weaken their air defenses,” Gannon noted, adding that the same is true of logistics supply points, which may now have to be moved out of range.
That said, experts are of the view that neither NATO nor Kyiv are likely to be deterred by the nuclear weapons transfer, especially given that Putin has been playing the nuclear card since shortly after Moscow invaded Ukraine in February last year.
“NATO is likely to re-emphasize that the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons will not be tolerated, but the exact consequences of Russia doing so will remain vague, at least publicly,” Gannon said.
The alliance is also expected to continue providing military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine, including in the form of modern artillery systems, F-16 fighter aircraft and additional air-defense systems.
But despite the Kremlin’s nuclear saber-rattling and heavy Russian casualties incurred in the war, analysts believe Putin does not intend to use the weapons anytime soon, as the risks outweigh the benefits, at least for now.
Besides risking Western nuclear retaliation, Russia would face a major reputational loss, experts say, particularly among the “Global South” developing countries that have refused to condemn the invasion, including India and China.
But does this also increase the risk of nuclear proliferation?
Alberque argues that, technically speaking, the nuke redeployment does not violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as Russia retains control of the warheads.
Concerns remain, however, especially should there be a popular uprising to overthrow Lukashenko, with many in Belarus growing increasingly disgruntled with his rule and wary of the growing Russian influence and military presence in the country.
Moscow used Belarusian territory as a staging ground for invading Ukraine and has maintained troops and weapons there, both of which are expected to increase in number with the upcoming nuclear redeployment.
“Belarus has nothing to gain from this, as the deal binds the country ever more closely to Moscow and its invasion of Ukraine,” Brown said, adding that the agreement is a sign of how weak and Moscow-dependent Lukashenko has become.
“This move will be unpopular with many people in Belarus, especially among the hundreds of thousands who protested against Lukashenko’s authoritarian rule,” he noted.
Against this backdrop, Alberque said he believes Moscow's real purpose for deploying nuclear weapons to Belarus is likely to be less about Ukraine, or NATO, and more about annexation.
“If you read Putin’s July 2021 manifesto, he declared his intention to absorb Belarus and Ukraine into Russia,” Alberque said, arguing that Russia has sought to undermine Belarusian autonomy under the 1999 Treaty on the Creation of a Union State of Russia and Belarus.
“Russia has tried to use the treaty and the related joint military doctrine to demand permanent Russian troops on Belarusian territory. These demands have grown more and more pointed,” he said.
So why would Minsk sign the nuclear deal?
Lukashenko has been facing two main issues: his inability to meet Russia's expectations for support and his slipping control over the country. Agreeing to host Russian nuclear weapons addresses both of these, as he can meet the Kremlin's request, while Moscow can reinforce his position as leader.
This is critical for him, as Belarus has a shadow government-in-exile waiting for an opportunity to depose Lukashenko and move closer to the European Union.
With Lukashenko's questionable health and fissures in his control of the government, experts say Russia cannot afford to lose another satellite country to a democratic movement.
Indeed, some fear that the fate of Belarus as a state is becoming increasingly tied to the outcome of a future peace settlement in Ukraine.
“It will be hard for any subsequent government in Minsk to distance itself from Russia economically and politically of its own accord," Artyom Shraibman, a political analyst and Belarus expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in an article for the institution.
“But once Belarus starts hosting Russian nuclear weapons, it will be downright impossible.”
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.