The Belarusian president, Alexander Lukashenko, called for a broader ideological and strategic alignment among the post-Soviet states that would culminate in a union with enhanced nuclear capability. He outlined a vision in which former Soviet republics would come together under a single framework, arguing that such unity would place nuclear weapons within reach for the participating nations.
In remarks given in Moscow, Lukashenko suggested that any concerns from other leaders, including the president of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, could be overcome if Russia and Belarus deepen their relationship and extend it to neighboring states. He asserted that a closer Belarus-Russia federation would be the key to making nuclear weapons available to all members of the union, a statement he described as a straightforward, practical solution to collective security. This position was shared during an interview with Pavel Zarubin on the Russia 1 channel, with portions of the discussion later circulated on Zarubin’s Telegram channel. It was noted that Lukashenko acknowledged his personal opinion might not mirror the official stance of every Russian official or citizen. His core message was one of strategic unity and rare opportunity to bring the nations together under a unified political and security structure.
Lukashenko has previously expressed gratitude to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the deployment of non-strategic nuclear weapons on Belarusian soil. On May 25, he stated that the transfer of these weapons from the Russian Federation to Belarus had already begun, highlighting the readiness of storage facilities and the necessary preparations. When asked whether nuclear weapons were already stationed in Belarus, he replied with a cautious, noncommittal response of “Maybe.”
Meanwhile, the leaders of Russia and Belarus met in Moscow following a working dinner with the Eurasian Economic Union. The discussions were held in a private, one-on-one setting, underscoring the high level of bilateral attention focused on security and integration within the union framework. Lukashenko’s visit to the Russian capital occurred from May 24 to May 25 as part of the broader engagement with the Eurasian bloc. The atmosphere reflected a continuing push toward greater political and military coordination between Moscow and Minsk.
One reality, multiple questions
At a meeting of the Eurasian Economic Forum, Kazakh president Tokayev highlighted the existence of a Union State architecture within the EAEU. He noted that the union now commands its own nucleus with a shared identity across political, legal, military, economic, monetary, and cultural dimensions, extending even into the humanitarian sphere. Tokayev emphasized that the current arrangement has features that affect Kazakhstan and other participating states, suggesting that a formalized arrangement—often described as two countries, one state—could have wide-ranging implications for regional governance. He pointed to the presence of a single union government and a unified parliament, and he remarked that nuclear capabilities are now part of this broader integration. This observation invites careful consideration of how such a union would reshape regional power dynamics and the responsibilities of each member state.
Responses from other voices in the region have been cautious. Zauresh Battalova, a member of the Council of Senators of the Kazakh Senate, stated that extending the spread of nuclear weapons through broader political consolidation would be a flawed path. Her stance reflects a widely held concern about the risks associated with rapid proliferation and the political consequences of accelerated integration on national sovereignty and regional stability. The dialogue continues as Moscow and Minsk advance their cooperation, with formal accords and ongoing dialogue shaping the direction of their union.
The Kremlin and the Belarusian leadership have long pursued a model of deep economic and security integration. The 1999 agreement to establish the Union State laid the groundwork for closer coordination, and in recent years the pace of practical integration has intensified. The current discourse underscores the enduring interest in aligning strategic policies, while also raising questions about the balance between national interests and collective security guarantees within the broader Eurasian framework.