"All nuclear powers must not deploy nuclear weapons outside their national territories," Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping signed this joint statement in Moscow. The document was supposed to confirm the comprehensive partnership of the two anti-Western states.

However, just four days after, it became clear that the agreement with Putin was worthless. Contrary to the deal with Beijing, Russia will deploy its nuclear weapons on the territory of the neighbouring state, Belarus.

Nuclear decisions attract particular attention, given numerous hints from Moscow about using its nuclear arsenal. But this particular decision does not increase the nuclear threat. Even if Russia launches nuclear war, little will be gained by launching the carrier from Belarusian, not Russian, space.

Therefore, the reaction of the USA and NATO to this statement has turned out to be quite restrained.

More importantly, Putin's nuclear announcement is a slap in the face to Xi and will affect trust between China and Russia.

It may also affect Belarusian dictator Lukashenka.

Military threats posed by Kremlin's "nuclear" decision

Vladimir Putin stated for the first time that Russia had decided to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus in an interview on March 25. Later, the Kremlin confirmed this.

Many details are still unknown. Neither the number nor the nomenclature of nuclear weapons has been announced. The location of the nuclear storage facility is not disclosed. Since Russia has suspended many nuclear treaties, it will not let international inspections inside.

Only the deadline for deployment has been announced - July 1.

The NATO summit will kick off in Vilnius 10 days later, 40 km from the border with Belarus. This coincidence is hardly accidental.

This time Putin refrained from hinting at the use of nuclear weapons and limited himself only to statements about moving warheads. But any reference to nuclear weapons in international relations has special weight, especially regarding Putin, who has crossed many red lines.

Despite this, the statements of world capitals are emphatically calm.

The main signal: nothing groundbreaking has happened so far.

"We have not seen any reason to adjust our strategic nuclear posture nor any indications Russia is preparing to use a nuclear weapon. We remain committed to the collective defense of the NATO alliance," the Pentagon stated. "We have not seen any indication that he's [Vladimir Putin – ed.] made good on this pledge or moved any nuclear weapons around," National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said. After Putin's statement, NATO has repeated verbatim the American position regarding the lack of need to adjust anything in the Alliance's policy.

Technically, Russia really has little to gain by moving nuclear weapons into Belarus - even if it decides to launch a nuclear strike later.

Currently, Russia uses missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, such as Kh-101, Kh-55, and Kh-47 ("Kinzhal"), launched from strategic aircraft, as well as sea-launched SS-N-27 Sizzler to attack the territory of Ukraine. All the listed types of missiles have a range of several thousand kilometers.

There is no difference in where to launch them - from Bryansk or Minsk.

It is impossible to determine which warhead is installed on a launched missile - conventional or nuclear. It will remain unknown until it hits or gets downed. Also, an observer does not know where the target is - in Ukraine or abroad.

Hypersonic ballistic missiles like the Kh-47 are equally difficult to shoot down, no matter where they are launched from.

The nuclear threat from the Putin regime does exist, but deploying nuclear charges in Belarus fundamentally does not change much.

Lithuanian Defence Minister Arvydas Anušauskas has reminded that Russia had already deployed its Iskander complexes capable of carrying nuclear weapons near the borders of Poland and Lithuania in the Kaliningrad enclave. "The protection of the NATO country against the threat of nuclear weapons is ensured regardless of whether these weapons are deployed to the west of our borders (Kaliningrad region), to the east (Belarus), or the north (Leningrad region)," said the head of Lithuania's military department where the NATO summit to take place in July. 

Nuclear threats without violations

Perhaps Putin's goal was not to intimidate the military, but to give reasons to those politicians who advocate "peace" on Russia's terms. Such statements have been heard - in particular, by the leadership of Bulgaria. "More weapons lead to unpredictable decisions that threaten a serious war," explained Iliana Iotova, Vice President of Bulgaria.

However, supporters of such ideas remain isolated. No key player has supported them. "Of course, we will not allow this to divert us from our course to back Ukraine in its self-defence," the spokeswoman of the German Foreign Ministry said.

Russia's decision on nuclear facilities in Belarus does not formally violate its obligations on nuclear non-proliferation.

In order not to stand up for "red lines," Russia copied the nuclear tactics of the United States.

"The United States has been doing this for decades. They placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territories of their allied countries... We (with Lukashenka. - Ed.) agreed that we would do the same without violating our obligations," the Russian president said.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty undertakes the Russian Federation "not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Therefore, Russia has announced that it will not transfer nuclear warheads to Belarus, but store nuclear charges, which will remain owned and controlled by the Russian Federation - but on the territory of Belarus.

This is exactly how the American programme works. The US controls the storage sites of nuclear warheads in five non-nuclear NATO states - Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Türkiye.

NATO responded that they consider it incorrect to compare the Russian proposal for Belarus and the American proposal for allied states, because Russia is too unpredictable a partner and cannot be trusted. But not a single word about the violation of international treaties by the Kremlin has been either in Brussels or Washington.

A threat to Belarus, a threat from China

Russia acts safely for itself when for Belarus, this nuclear deployment is threatening.

Putin is strengthening control in Belarus. A Russian contingent will now be permanently stationed there because of the nuclear warheads. In the event of mass riots or an attempt to oust Lukashenka, Russia will have even more reason to take Belarus under its control - "purely for nuclear safety."

Belarus has undertaken many international agreements not to deploy nuclear warheads on its territory. Therefore, Minsk may face more international sanctions, as already warned by EEAS spokesman Peter Stano.

The pressure on Belarus can be compared to the pressure on Russia. "Deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus proves that Belarus has become just another military district of the Russian armed forces," Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs said.

Although for Putin, the additional weakening of Lukashenka is a desirable scenario.

Will this outweigh the negative consequences due to disputes with China?

The supply of warheads to Belarus was a truly painful slap in the face for Xi Jinping.

The nuclear block of agreements in Moscow for China mattered in the Russian war case. The ability to influence Putin on this matter has been Xi's key international asset. He achieved what no Western politician is capable of - he received promises from the Russian Federation to withdraw from nuclear rhetoric.

In the Moscow agreement with China, Putin agreed in writing that "nuclear war should never be unleashed" and promised to "effectively reduce the risk of nuclear war and any armed conflict between nuclear-weapon states."

This victory has already begun to bring Xi political dividends. A few days after the signing of this document, several European leaders, including Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, announced their intention to go to Beijing, and Brussels spoke about the need to reduce tensions in relations with China.

But Putin has turned this authority into ashes.

At present, it remains unclear what caused such a betrayal of Chinese friends by the Kremlin. Putin, as he has repeatedly done so far, makes key decisions on his own, and the Belarusian decision came as a surprise to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation as it did to Beijing. But the main thing is that the chaos in the Kremlin is destroying the already weak international support base for the Putin regime.

Written by Sergiy Sydorenko, 

Editor "European Pravda"