American historian Yuriy Fyalshynskyi, author of the book "The FSB Explodes Russia", believes that everything has been prepared for the use of nuclear weapons and their storage in Belarus for a long time, claims that Putin has been preparing for a nuclear strike on Europe since March of last year, and assumes that the intervention to Belarus by allied forces is the fastest and most bloodless way to end the started war and stop Russian aggression.

Briefly:

  • This is not a bluff or blackmail, but the final phase of preparations for a military operation to launch a nuclear attack on Poland and Lithuania.

  • I published a book called "Third World War: The Battle for Ukraine" in Kyiv in 2015.

    In it, I wrote that Russia's invasion of Ukraine will inevitably happen, and from Belarus.

  • In fact, there is no other solution to the nuclear problem, except the overthrow of Lukashenka's regime and the restoration of democracy in Belarus.

  • We are talking about a liberation mission for the de-occupation of Belarus, not about "military aggression against the Belarusian government."

  • We have already crossed the limits where bargaining and negotiations were possible.

    There can be no bargaining with either Putin or Lukashenka right now.

  • That is why Putin did not annex Belarus all these years so that it could be used as an independent buffer at the initial stage of the war with the West.

- You have long and consistently stated that Russia is going to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus in order to launch a nuclear attack on European countries from the territory of Belarus.

Why did you have such confidence?

Did you have specific sources of information or just an abstract analysis of the situation?

- We all have the same sources of information - the statements of the Russian and Belarusian leadership plus some statements of Russian and Belarusian propagandists who are dependent on their masters.

We don't have any other sources of information, and we don't need them.

Everything is happening before our eyes.

Lukashenko took Belarus out of nuclear-free status a year ago.

He has repeatedly said that he will ask Russia to "return" the nuclear weapons that Russia exported in 1995 based on the agreements reached with Ukraine and Belarus in 1994 ("Budapest Memorandum").

Lukashenko has repeatedly mentioned that Poland and Lithuania pose a threat to Belarus, including a nuclear threat (which is a pure lie, but he said it).

After Putin's last visit to Minsk, Lukashenka announced that Belarusian planes will be reequipped in Russia for "specific ammunition" (missiles with nuclear warheads), which will be installed on Belarusian planes.

These aircraft were sent to Russia and were accordingly upgraded there.

And now Putin has announced that, yes, Russia will redeploy missiles with nuclear warheads for Belarusian planes and "Iskander" to Belarus, where these nuclear weapons will be under the command and control of the Russian Ministry of Defense.

It all happened before our eyes during the last year, and the final chord has already been sounded.

The fact is that from the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus to the launch of a nuclear strike, the time distance is only a few hours.

So we have very little time for a preventive solution to the emerging threat.

- Some specialists say that all this is quite unrealistic - to prepare everything necessary for the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus by July 1.

And they conclude that this statement by Putin is more political than real.

What do you say to that?

- We heard about "July 1" from Putin's mouth, and I would ignore this date altogether.

There is absolutely no need to build "storage facilities" for nuclear weapons.

If something is going to be built in Belarus "before July 1", it will be bomb shelters for the country's leadership, since we will have to wait for a return strike on Belarus by NATO forces.

Putin has been preparing for an operation to launch a nuclear attack on Europe since March of last year.

In Belarus, a long time ago, everything was prepared for the use of nuclear weapons and their storage.

So that "July 1" from Putin's mouth may turn out to be open disinformation, so that "specialists" now consider what Russia will and will not have time to do by July 1, and whether this means that nothing will "really" happen by July 1.

I would not be so sure about it.

A lot can happen before July 1.

If Putin wanted to transfer nuclear weapons closer to the European borders as part of a "political statement", as you say, pressure, blackmail - he would not need to deploy nuclear weapons in another state, in Belarus, violating, by the way, the 1995 treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, of which Russia is a member (that is why Putin emphasized that this is not the transfer of nuclear weapons to Belarus, but the transfer of nuclear weapons controlled by Russia to Belarus).

As part of a "political statement", bluff and blackmail, Putin would transfer these weapons to the Kaliningrad region.

From there (look at the map) you can threaten Poland, and Lithuania, and Sweden with Finland, which, by the way, the Russian leadership has just threatened with "deadly consequences" if they join NATO, and the rest of Europe.

So, unfortunately, the transfer of nuclear weapons to Belarus has nothing to do with political maneuvers, bluff, or blackmail.

This is the final phase of preparations for a military operation to launch a nuclear attack on Poland and Lithuania, as Lukashenko had warned.

This is how to evaluate what is happening.

— So far, the USA is reacting to reports about the possible deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus rather discreetly.

Why?

Maybe there is some behind-the-scenes dialogue with the Kremlin?

- I'm sure there is a behind-the-scenes dialogue going on, and you can guess what it consists of: give us Ukraine, otherwise we will launch nuclear strikes on Poland and Lithuania from Belarus.

What?

Then you will destroy Belarus?

Well, it doesn't bother us at all (I think, by the way, that Putin used a different word here, with the letter "e").

We want Ukraine, and it is important for us to win there at any cost.

(And then we will go to Moldova - but this is already being said in a whisper so that the Americans don't hear.) Agreed?

This is approximately the dialogue that is currently being conducted between Moscow and Washington.

I am not inclined to believe that the USA will yield to Russia in this matter.

They will look for some other solution to the problem.

- You have already stated in some media that in order to prevent nuclear strikes, the West's reaction to the possible deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus should be actions aimed at overthrowing Lukashenka, that is, military aggression against the current Belarusian government, primarily from Poland or Ukraine .

But today such an option sounds quite unrealistic.

Do you think this can change?

For what reasons?

- And in our country lately, everything that concerns Russia, at first it sounds "quite unrealistic", and then it turns out to be the most reality.

Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 did not seem realistic a year earlier.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 did not seem realistic in 2013 either.

And even more so, no one seemed realistic about a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine in February 2022.

Now, in retrospect, all this seems a very realistic and even expected development of events, agree.

I published my first article entitled "Third World" two days after Russia's invasion of Crimea in March 2014.

And he published a book called "Third World War: The Battle for Ukraine" in Kyiv in 2015, and wrote there that Russia's invasion of Ukraine will inevitably take place, and from Belarus.

In 2015, this did not seem like a realistic scenario to almost anyone.

And even in February 2022, before the invasion, many (let's not list the names) famous experts claimed that there would be no invasion and that it was impossible because it was "unrealistic".

Military aggression against Belarus was carried out by Russia in 2020-2021, when it occupied this small Eastern European country, which conveniently borders several other Eastern European states.

Now we are talking about a liberation mission for the de-occupation of Belarus, and not about "military aggression against the Belarusian government."

The legitimate Belarusian government is now abroad, and the opposition is abroad or in Belarusian prisons.

We are talking about joint efforts to help Belarusians overthrow the dictator and his regime and restore the democratic system of governance in Belarus, simultaneously freeing Belarus from Russian occupation and eliminating a new threat - a Russian nuclear attack on Eastern Europe from the territory of Belarus.

But there is no other solution to the nuclear problem, except the overthrow of Lukashenka's regime and the restoration of democracy in Belarus.

All other decisions will have catastrophic consequences for Europe.

Intervention in Belarus by allied forces is the fastest and most bloodless way to end the started war and stop Russian aggression.

- Do you think that any trade option with Lukashenka is no longer possible?

There is no offer that he "can't refuse"?

Why?

Because it's still the same Lukashenka, or because he's just too dependent on Russia and can't decide anything - at least, in such serious issues?

- We have already crossed the limits where bargaining and negotiations were possible.

There can be no bargaining with either Putin or Lukashenka right now.

There can be no negotiations with Putin, because he is a war criminal who is under an international arrest warrant.

With Lukashenka - because there is no such statesman or even dictator Lukashenka anymore.

There is a state criminal - a traitor to the Belarusian people, a provocateur and a traitor, ready to destroy Belarus in the interests of Putin (not even Russia, because everything Putin does is done to the detriment of the interests of Russia, namely in the interests of Putin).

After all, with a retaliatory strike, Belarus will be swept off the ground, with all the consequences.

But, as we can see, Lukashenka is not worried about it.

Please note: the nuclear strike on Poland and Lithuania is being discussed, and the reaction of NATO countries is not being discussed - by anyone at all.

How can you imagine such planning of a military operation, if Lukashenka has something to do with all of this as the head of Belarus?

- An attempt to oust Lukashenka by military means may cause rather drastic actions on the part of Russia.

The fact that they can send their troops to protect Lukashenka is something few people fear, given the experience of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

But isn't Moscow able to launch a nuclear attack on those states that will start a military operation against Lukashenka?

Perhaps this will deter them from drastic actions against Lukashenka?

— If Russia was ready to launch a nuclear attack on Europe and the USA (and get hit back), it would have done it already.

If Russia was ready to invade Eastern Europe with troops, it would have done it already.

Russia does not need to send troops to protect Lukashenka - these troops are already there, at least from 2020-2021.

Is Russia ready to fight with NATO troops in Belarus?

From the way Russian troops are fighting in Ukraine, we know that it is not ready.

Will the Belarusian army fight on Putin's side against NATO troops in Belarus?

It won't happen, because the vanguard of these troops will be Belarusian units, which are already fighting in Ukraine on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces against the Russian invaders.

Is it enough to bring down the Lukashenka regime and restore democracy in Belarus to involve only the Belarusian connections of the "Kalinowski stick"?

Not enough.

We also need the support of the Ukrainian army, and more reliably, the support of the troops of Lithuania and Poland, which are part of the NATO forces.

And I would prefer that the military operation to liberate Belarus be completed by July 1, 2023.

After all, no later than September 2023, Putin plans to launch a nuclear attack on Eastern Europe from Belarus.

Although, of course, for many, this scenario, as you mentioned, "sounds quite unrealistic."

But if it all "sounds realistic" it will be too late.

As for Russia's nuclear attack on Europe in the event of an invasion of Belarus by allied troops, it is impossible for the same formal reasons that NATO's response on the territory of the Russian Federation is impossible in the event of a nuclear attack on Europe from Belarus.

That is why Putin did not annex Belarus all these years, so that it could be used as an independent buffer at the initial stage of the war with the West, when Russia uses the territory of Belarus to conduct military operations, and the West continues to consider Belarus an independent state and does not violate its "integrity".

  • Vitaly Tsygankov

    Vitaly Tsygankov graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of BSU.

    One of the two founders of the first non-governmental news agency BelaPAN.

    He worked in "Zvyazda" newspapers, was a correspondent in Belarus of the Russian "Nezavisimaya Gazeta", Associated Press, columnist in "Svaboda" newspaper.

    On Belarusian Freedom since 1994.

    Correspondent of Russian Freedom in Belarus.


    FACEBOOKTWITTERSubscribe