The Russian Satellite News Agency reported that recently senior officials of the US State Department claimed that the US State Department is currently evaluating the possibility of Belarus deploying Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. The senior U.S. State Department official said belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko had made remarks about the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus as early as last November, and when such leaders talk about nuclear weapons, we not only need to pay attention, but we must also assess the situation.
Objectively speaking, when Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko talked about nuclear weapons last year, NATO, including the United States, and European countries did not respond to this, but now that senior officials of the US State Department have suddenly made the above remarks, are they really concerned about whether Belarus will deploy Russian nuclear weapons in its territory, or do they have other plans?
In fact, when Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and his foreign ministry officials repeatedly mentioned the nuclear weapons issue last year, Western countries may only understand this behavior as being unabashed or open-minded, because whether Belarus can return nuclear weapons depends not only on Russia's attitude, but also on its domestic constitutional restrictions.
In other words, it was okay to say whatever it wanted, but as things stood at the time, it was not easy for Belarus to deploy nuclear weapons on its borders. This was also the main reason why western countries did not respond to the above remarks made by the President of Belarus and his officials at that time, just like children are making trouble, but adults feel that the other party can't make trouble, so they choose to ignore the meaning. But that changed when Russia negotiated with the United States, NATO and the OSCE earlier this year.
First, since the beginning of January this year, Russia has held three rounds of negotiations on the security situation between russia and the United States, NATO and the OSCE. There are probably three topics involved in the negotiations, the first is the situation in Ukraine; the second is the eastward expansion of NATO; and the third is the crisis on the Border of Belarus and Russia. For now, the Russian side is clear, that is, it needs to commit to the NATO group, including the United States, that it will not integrate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO.
In layman's terms, NATO not only can no longer expand eastward, but also better not to find trouble at Russia's doorstep. Logically, if NATO had agreed to the above conditions, the negotiations would have ended long ago. But from another point of view, it is both a negotiation, that is, all parties must show their chips, otherwise no matter whether it is reasonable or unreasonable, one party cannot agree to the conditions of the other party.
That being the case, what chips does Russia have in its hands to get NATO to commit to no longer expand eastward? In fact, as far as the previous rounds of negotiations are concerned, Russia does not have many chips in its hands, such as holding military exercises on the Russian-Ukrainian border, strategic bombers flapping wings near Europe or North America, and unveiling several weapons of mass destruction, etc. These acts not only cannot touch the sensitive nerves of the United States at all, but even the other side hopes that Russia can continue.
Because only in this way can its behavior cause "public indignation", allow NATO or the European bloc, including the United States, to find excuses and impose more severe sanctions and blockades on them, which is actually the result that the United States most hopes to appear. That is to say, the Russian military threat that it has hyped for so long has finally been verified, and those Western countries that were originally swaying left and right are likely to board the "anti-Russian chariot" because of this.
It must also be mentioned here that the United States, NATO and the OSCE, which are currently negotiating the security situation with Russia, appear to be one and the same, but in fact represent different interests. For example, in addition to a number of European countries, there are also countries in North America, and this geographical difference has led to differences in the way some member countries view and deal with the Russian threat.
Some NATO members in Europe want to contain Russia on the one hand, but they don't want to annoy Russia on the other. Because in the event of a military conflict between the two sides, europe is the first to get into trouble, which is the main issue that the OSCE needs to solve in negotiations with Russia. In contrast, other NATO members, such as the United States, do not think so, and they actually need the Russian-European conflict to trigger tensions in the region.
In layman's terms, tensions in Europe will not only make some European countries more dependent on the United States, but also help the United States to control Europe and contain Russia's weight. What can Russia do in this case? Confrontation is certain, but conflict must be avoided, otherwise it will just fall into the trap set by the United States.
Speaking of nuclear threats, even if Russia does not deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus, this threat will always exist, so in theory the United States does not care whether Belarus deploys Russian nuclear weapons in its territory. What's more, even if it is deployed, it will probably be some tactical nuclear weapons, and it is almost impossible to threaten the security of the United States. This is also the main reason why the Belarusian side has been talking about nuclear weapons as early as last year, while the United States has not responded to this.
Of course, the fact that the United States does not care does not mean that NATO and the OSCE do not care. Because once Belarus has Russian tactical nuclear weapons, if Poland and other countries want to pressure or carry out military provocations again through the border refugee crisis, the result will be very different, and a little carelessness may lead to a greater disaster.
Russia has seized this mentality and found a relatively effective bargaining weight in Belarus, that is, when Russia and the West are negotiating, the Belarusian side suddenly introduced a draft constitutional amendment, which has three main goals, the first is to cancel the time limit for the belarusian presidency; the second is to cancel neutrality; and the third is to cancel the denuclearization restrictions. That is, the current President of Belarus, Lukashenko, will have the opportunity to retain the country's leadership indefinitely.
Second, in the future, Russia can station troops and even establish military bases in Belarus; finally, Belarus has basically removed internal (legal) obstacles to the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. To put it bluntly, as long as Russia nods now, then Belarus will immediately become the first "nail" inserted by Russia into Europe after the end of the Cold War in the last century, and at the same time, the nail will definitely make the other side sit still!
In this case, it is obvious that the United States will not respond, because the weight will make many NATO members and the OSCE more inclined to calm down. In other words, if the United States insists on putting pressure on Russia and triggering regional conflicts regardless of European security, then the latter is likely to part ways with the United States. This is the main reason why the United States is pretending to carry out the "assessment" at the moment, which is nothing more than to calm the nervousness of European allies.