On a recent Saturday, the Russian president stated that Moscow had reached an agreement with Belarus to position nuclear weapons on Belarusian soil. The move comes as Minsk and Moscow coordinate military readiness near Ukraine, highlighting a long-standing pattern of post-Soviet security arrangements being adjusted in response to regional tensions.
Putin drew a direct comparison to Western practices, noting that the United States has stationed tactical nuclear arms in several European NATO members since the late Cold War era. He enumerated six countries in Europe where such deployments have occurred, arguing that this precedent shows that Moscow’s plan does not breach Russia’s non-proliferation commitments.
The president indicated that Belarus would begin army training on April 3, with plans to complete the construction of a storage facility housing the missiles by July 1. He asserted that Russia was not surrendering weapons to Belarus and accused the United States of maintaining a similar posture with its allies.
Putin linked the timing of the Belarus announcement to Britain’s decision to supply depleted uranium ammunition to Ukrainian forces. While London insists that this material is not a nuclear weapon, the Russian leader characterized the move as connected to nuclear technology and warned of potential consequences.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who has long pressed for the deployment of such capabilities on Belarusian territory, was recalled by the Russian president. Moscow has also supplied Iskander missiles to Minsk, weapons capable of carrying conventional or nuclear payloads, according to Moscow’s account.
Ukraine has repeatedly voiced accusations of Minsk’s complicity in the evolving military dynamics, while Lukashenko has argued that Western powers are militarizing the region’s borders through NATO activities.
On the broader nuclear question, Putin acknowledged that British ammunition is not categorized as mass-destruction weapons, but he described it as a form of weapon that could produce a highly polluting radioactive cloud upon detonation. He asserted that Russia possessed substantial stockpiles and hinted at retaliation possibilities if circumstances demanded it, noting that Russian forces had not yet used these arms.
Western arms, according to the Russian leader, pose a threat to Russia but would only extend the conflict and risk a major catastrophe. He claimed that Russia’s defense industry has boosted ammunition output threefold and contrasted that with United States figures of tens of thousands of rounds produced annually, suggesting a supply edge over other Western powers. He cited Ukrainian battlefield consumption as a benchmark for demand, noting high daily usage by Ukrainian troops.
In discussions about potential escalations, Moscow signaled readiness to respond if Ukraine employed weapons with a nuclear component, portraying a safety line for Russia while rejecting any use of such devices by Kyiv as a policy outcome.
In related parliamentary exchanges, a UK defense official addressed the possibility of sending depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine, saying that alongside renewing armored capabilities, London would supply shells that could aid in defeating armored targets. The British Ministry of Defense subsequently countered Russia’s portrayal, characterizing the uranium ammunition claim as misinformation and stressing that depleted uranium shells have long been a standard part of Western armor-piercing weaponry and do not introduce nuclear capabilities.
As the debate over weapons types and deployments continues, analysts note that these moves illustrate a broader shift in regional military planning and deterrence strategies. They emphasize the importance of verification, military training timelines, and the potential implications for regional stability, arms control commitments, and international responses. The discussion remains highly charged, reflecting deep mistrust among involved parties and the persistent complexity of security guarantees in Europe today [Citation: multiple regional security briefings].