Here you are, NATO, three months. Think

In order not to miss the main materials of "Cold", subscribe to our instagram and telegram .

Why is Putin talking about this right now?

On the evening of March 25, in an interview on the Russia 24 TV channel, Putin announced plans to deploy tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) on the territory of Belarus. Such a decision, according to Putin, was made in response to the UK's statement about the transfer of shells with depleted uranium to Ukraine.

On March 20, British Defense Secretary Annabelle Goldie indeed announced London's plans to send armor-piercing shells containing depleted uranium to Ukraine, among other military supplies. “Such projectiles are highly effective against modern tanks and armored vehicles,” said . Goldie

What is depleted uranium?

Depleted uranium (DU) is a metal that is formed as a by-product during the enrichment of natural uranium. The advantage of an op-amp is its high density and relative cheapness. Armor-piercing shells and DU bombs are much more powerful than conventional ones.

The DU projectile does not explode on its own, but purposefully pierces the tank's armor. When the projectile hits the target, an extremely high temperature rises, it melts and partially evaporates, and the resulting uranium dust ignites. DU is neither a nuclear nor a chemical weapon; its use is not prohibited by international acts.

In service in Russia, for example, there are also several types of projectiles with DU. Nuclear policy expert Maxim Starchak notes that so far there is no data on the use of DU shells by the Russian side in the current war with Ukraine.

Putin said that he perceives the decision to transfer depleted uranium warheads to Ukraine as the West's decision to "fight Russia to the last Ukrainian." But Putin spoke about the transfer of Iskander complexes to Lukashenka back in the summer of 2022 and emphasized that “they can use both ballistic and cruise missiles, both in conventional and nuclear versions.” Transferring shells with depleted uranium to Ukraine was out of the question then.

Another reason for deploying nuclear weapons in Belarus, Putin called the actions of the United States, which have been placing nuclear weapons in European countries for decades (the United States stores its nuclear weapons in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy and Greece). According to the logic of the Russian president, if the United States does it, then Russia can do it too.

Despite the fact that the United States deploys its munitions with nuclear weapons in Europe, their partners cannot use such munitions without the participation of the United States purely technically. Putin announced similar plans: Belarus will store nuclear warheads and separate carriers (converted aircraft and the Iskander complex: this is the most powerful operational-tactical missile system in the Russian army capable of carrying nuclear charges). But control of the nuclear weapons depot will remain with the Russian Ministry of Defense. That is, existing weapons will be moved to the territory of Belarus; the total number of nuclear weapons in Russia will not change, and Belarus will not be able to control them itself.

According to Putin, 10 Belarusian aircraft have already been converted for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and the Iskander complex has already been transferred to Belarus. “From April 3, we start training crews,” Putin said. “On July 1, we are finishing the construction of a special storage facility on the territory of Belarus.”

How did the world react to Putin's statement?

Pavel Aksyonov, BBC defense correspondent, believes that the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus is a step towards the escalation of the military conflict in Ukraine.

“Unlike Russia, the United States, although it stores tactical nuclear weapons in warehouses [in European countries], does not participate in a big and bloody war on the European continent and does not use these weapons as an argument in a political confrontation with the Russians,” writes Aksyonov. “Keeping weapons at home and pointing them at people are different things even from the point of view of the Criminal Code.”

So does EU Foreign Minister Josep Borrell, who called the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons "an irresponsible escalation and a threat to European security." And the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, in response to Putin's statement, demanded to immediately convene an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council and called on all members of the world community to give Russia a signal about the unacceptability of nuclear provocations.

At the same time, the US authorities responded to Putin's statements rather restrainedly: they said that they did not plan to adjust the deployment of their nuclear forces in allied countries and did not see signs that Russia was ready to use nuclear weapons.

Nuclear policy expert Maxim Starchak called this US reaction an unwillingness to "play Putin's games." “I think this is the right policy,” Starczak says. “It means that the nuclear factor in this conflict has not yet been formed.”

What does Putin really want to achieve?

Maxim Starchak believes that the announcement of the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus was another attempt when Putin wanted to attract the attention of the United States, increase tension and force the Americans to sit down at the negotiating table. But this attempt seems to have failed so far. According to Starchak, the Russian president was trying to achieve the same goals with his statement about the suspension of START-3 (but even then he failed).

Belarusian political analyst Artem Shraibman says that Russia has exhausted the possibilities of a non-nuclear escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Therefore, only nuclear threats remain for Putin. “It is no coincidence that Putin clearly stated the deadline: the storage facility for tactical nuclear missiles in Belarus will be ready by July 1,” emphasizes Shraibman . “The Iskanders are already on the ground, we will train the pilots, and nuclear weapons will appear, potentially 200-300 kilometers from Kyiv. Here you are, NATO, three months, think.”