Current Events > Putin says Russia will station tactical nukes in Belarus

(+) Yeah! (+)

MOSCOW -- Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans on Saturday to station tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus, a warning to the West as it steps up military support for Ukraine. Putin said he was responding to Britains decision this past week to provide Ukraine with armor-piercing rounds containing depleted uranium. Russia falsely claimed these rounds have nuclear components. He said Russia would maintain control over the tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus. Construction of storage facilities for them would be completed by July 1, Putin said.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has long asked for the weapons, Putin said, speaking in an interview broadcast Saturday evening on Russian state television. Putin insisted that Russia would not be violating its international obligations on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, saying the United States has long deployed its nuclear weapons on the territory of its NATO allies. Belarus shares borders with three NATO members: Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Russia has used the territory of Belarus as a staging ground to send troops into Ukraine since the invasion began on Feb. 24, 2002, and Moscow and Minsk have maintained close military ties.

Putin noted that Russia helped modernize Belarusian military aircraft last year to make them capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He said 10 such planes were ready to go. He said nuclear weapons also could be launched by the Iskander short-range missiles that Russia provided to Belarus last year. Tactical nuclear weapons are intended for use on the battlefield, unlike more powerful, longer-range strategic nuclear weapons.

Is it time to finally give Ukraine nukes?

Is it time to finally give Ukraine nukes?

They had them. They gave them up in exchange for promises that we would protect their territorial sovereignty in the case of Russian agression. Clearly that was a poor choice

They had them. They gave them up in exchange for promises that we would protect their territorial sovereignty in the case of Russian agression. Clearly that was a poor choice

They had them. They gave them up in exchange for promises that we would protect their territorial sovereignty in the case of Russian agression. Clearly that was a poor choice

They gave them up in exchange for guarantees from Russia that they would respect their territorial sovereignty as well. As if it wasn't obvious enough, this whole war has made plain that a guarantee from Russia is worth less than nothing.

Same value as guarantees from the US as well.

BoTh SiDeS

I don't think you understand why that phrase gets made fun of if you think it applies to my post.

Please explain the relevance then of bringing up the US in discussing my post around Russia offering guarantees to Ukraine to respect their territorial sovereignty for giving up nukes in a topic about Russia's invasion.

The same agreement incorporated our promise to protect them?

Therefore... what? Russia isn't to blame for violating their agreement with Ukraine? We should go easier on Russia and have a bit more understanding of their position?

I was suggesting it was strange for you to deflect from the other poster's post about the US breaking its promise to exclusively discuss how Russia's promises cannot be trusted. Almost like you are touchy on the subject of the US's involvement in this conflict.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/6/6/AABJX0AAD9s-.jpg