Consequences of Placing Russian Nuclear Weapons in Belarus

Strategic Council Online - Opinion: The placement of nuclear weapons of NATO and Russia near each other’s borders will increase the risk of tensions and entry of the US and Russia into a hot war and face the non-proliferation and progress in the field of nuclear disarmament with serious risks. Meantime, Non-nuclear countries are forced to take countermeasures to ensure their security. Pouria Nabipour - Ph.D. in political science and international relations

 Meanwhile, Russia and Belarus are effectively coordinating efforts in the international arena. Recently, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, a move that was met with an adverse reaction from NATO. Russia has transferred many guns and other military equipment to Belarus, among which reference can be made to air defense systems, Iskander and S-400 missiles, fighter jets, and other aircraft equipped with Kinzhal missiles which can reach targets at a distance of 2000 km. Therefore, Vladimir Putin’s March 25 announcement can get a higher level of conflict.

Nuclear sharing arrangements

Nuclear sharing arrangements existed before the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The compatibility issue between such agreements and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was initially resolved by the understanding that placing US nuclear weapons in host countries does not involve the transfer of ownership or control of such weapons to the host countries. Compared to the initial acceptance of this interpretation, the favor of this argument now has less strength and has been brought under question or criticized. Also, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons clearly states that member states must not allow the placing of nuclear weapons. Nuclear-sharing arrangements are inconsistent with this prohibition.

Realism theory point of view, risk of NATO-Russia confrontation

According to the logic of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, based on the realistic approach to international relations, the West should be blamed for the war between Russia and Ukraine. Their main argument is that NATO and the EU have recklessly expanded into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, first to the East and then, by cooperating with Ukraine, caused Moscow to react to protect itself. But this note argues that even if we assume that the balance of power is essential in Russia’s attack on Ukraine, this does not mean that either NATO or Russia is necessarily a rational player whose goal is to create security. The fact that Russia feels threatened by Western power, or vice versa, does not mean that the West or Russia should back down.

Placing Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus does not necessarily change the strategic balance in Europe, and such action does not violate non-proliferation agreements. But Putin may continue to appeal to nonaligned countries that, as members of the Treaty, have criticized NATO’s nuclear-sharing practices, under which the United States places nuclear weapons in Europe. But China’s position so far has been that it does not welcome the deployment of atomic weapons abroad. Although Lukashenko has expressed his desire to have nuclear weapons, the part of the people of that country towards this policy is not shared. In a way, it indicates the internal division in Belarus regarding placing Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus. Placing Russian tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian soil could have the same risks as directly sending Belarusian troops to fight in Ukraine. Belarusian military installations could also become a target for a conventional NATO attack if Russia used the tactical weapons placed there against Ukraine. Ukraine has now become a typical “backyard” of NATO and, to the same extent, of Russia. Therefore, the result of the war in Ukraine will be that Russia and the reckless West will finally threaten each other’s strata typical-rests and suffer the consequences in the long run.

Threatening international security

Creating tension by resorting to nuclear sharing policies and competition in the distribution and deployment of atomic weapons is just another indicator of the irresponsible policies of world powers. The war in Ukraine highlights and intensifies the polarization in the international system, which becomes a significant obstacle in multilateral diplomacy and shows the fragility of the global legal system. Reaching any agreement in a security environment similar to the current situation will be much more challenging. Therefore, what is essential from the perspective of international security is the need for the parties to return to the negotiating table to control nuclear weapons, prevent proliferation and create strategic stability. Bringing comprehensive nuclear disarmament closer requires both, first, further strategic arms reductions and, second, international confidence to compel further reductions, verification, and assurance. Russia and NATO must commit seriously and return to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (New START) that show a phase of continuous reduction of nuclear weapons stockpiles. Also, if they play a neutral role, the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency can provide a constructive platform that includes new rules and genuine cooperation to approve reductions.