Nukes to Belarus how it's going to go down

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The fact that they can fit a nuclear warhead inside the likes of a cruise missile or ICBM pretty much negates the need for nuclear-capable cannons or mortars.

Just stop worrying and learn to love the bomb

a reply to: StrangeApes

a reply to: StrangeApes

Double my bad.

Politically/Diplomatically it makes little sense, Strategically/Militarily though if nothing else it gives Ukraine another border to guard. Possibly Putin wants to provoke aggression against Belarus so he can tap into Belarusian manpower if nothing else. This way he doesn't have to get Duma's approval for full mobilization to get more troops, he can possibly introduce them from Belarus. Rumors/reports a Ukrainian attack drone shot down in the border region with Belarus






Interesting opinion piece


ukrainefrontlines.com...

Lukashenko is wrong thinking Belarus would be given not only the carriers of russia nuclear weapons, but also the button
June 10, 2023
1:17 pm

There is nothing new in nuclear weapons threat of the World by russia.

Nuclear weapons have not yet been transferred to Belarus, only their carriers, - Commander of the Joint Forces Sergiy Naev said. "There was a transfer of the carriers of such means, and as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, they announced that this would happen. As of now, it has not been noted, but that does not mean that it cannot happen in the near future."

Let's talk on the professional level about the real threats and possibilities of the use of russian nukes from Belarus with Oleksandr Kochetkov, analyst, political technologist, former developer, design engineer at the Pivdennyi Design Bureau.

Good afternoon, Oleksandr.

Hello.

Let’s sort things out. What’s going on? Has the russian Federation, the Kremlin, Putin changed their mind about placing nuclear facilities in Belarus? Or was it not supposed to happen at all? And is what Lukashenko said on camera, including to the Belarusian media, a circus?

To begin with, I have an impression that Lukashenko may know a thing or two about growing potatoes, but he definitely doesn’t know about nuclear missile weapons. For some reason, he decided that he would be given not only the carriers of nuclear weapons, the charges, but also this button, this device - the so-called “nuclear suitcase”.

No one was going to do this - control always remained with Moscow. Actually, Ukraine got rid of nuclear weapon precisely because we had no control over it.

And here’s such an interesting thing: the Kremlin hoped that, if anything happened, they could launch nuclear weapons from the territory of Belarus. And a retaliatory strike will also come to the territory of Belarus. But the button will be pressed by Putin.

However, China didn’t like this proliferation of nuclear weapons even if it’s controlled by the Kremlin. And then, it (China) publicly opposed it. And the Kremlin can’t help listening to China, especially now - it has had an effect. On the other hand, information spread that Lukashenko is an unreliable person - the Kremlin thinks.

As soon as he finds out that he has tactical nuclear weapons without a button, he will immediately begin negotiating with the West and Europe to secretly transfer these weapons to them in exchange for recognizing him as the president of Belarus. These so-called partners do not trust each other, so this nuclear blackmail has no effect.

a reply to: MisguidedAngel

Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

Putin and Russia has claimed Ukraine is an illegitimate state.

You know, a nation with its own language, culture, and ethnicity. All of which are under threat right now, a whole people.

But we’re all supposed to capitulate to Russia, because they’re “saving” a region they helped start uprisings in so they could justify a land bridge to their newly annexed region.

We signed a security agreement with Ukraine following the fall of the USSR. If we don’t at least attempt a show of solidarity, many countries with security agreements might seek to become a nuclear power.

None of this is new. And this isn’t unique to America.

Russia has a military partnership with Venezuela, and they currently have the country by the balls in the form of loans collateralized by a lot of their energy assets. So by your logic, we could just go invade Venezuela because Russia is close to home? Maybe we could annex some of it too.

Russia has the largest land mass of any nation, and they’re taking more. What other power has been absorbing territory recently?

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

Stop supplying Ukraine will all the weapons, creating more death on both sides. Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

Or, since Russia is the one that invaded Ukraine, just have Russia withdraw their troops.

It's really quite simple.

But that does nothing to help the people of Donbass, who by the way, have been dealing with war for 9 years now. Russia withdraws and Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian nazis, would make life even more difficult for these people, if they even let them live at all.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

Stop supplying Ukraine will all the weapons, creating more death on both sides. Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

Problem is, Russia wants the entire Ukraine. So just standing down and conceding land to them just prolongs the bigger issue.

Ukraine already stood down in 2014 and gave Russia Crimea without resistance. But then Russia stirred up a civil war in Eastern Ukraine then eventually invaded the country.

Now is the time to draw a line in the sand and put Russia in there place… or just cower in the corner like a little church mouse and allow them to take whatever they want… cause they got nukes!

Ya "Russia stirred up a Civil War in Eastern Ukraine". Sure.

You have a lot to learn if you believe this. Russia didn't change the laws in Ukraine that targeted one specific ethnic group from living their life like they had been for hundreds of years already. Russia didn't arm Ukrainian nationlists to attack families that weren't following these new laws and rules. Russia didn't chase unarmed ethnic Russian Ukrainians into a building and set it on fire and block off every escape route forcing these people to either burn to death or if they somehow escaped the burning building they were either shot or beaten to death by the Ukrainian government led nationlists.

But ya "It's Russias fault"

How dare they protect their ethnic people from this type of barbaric behavior?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The US is currently occupying a third of Syria but I guess that's ok.

a reply to: midicon

Apparently, there are around 900 U.S. soldiers operating in Syria there to curb the Islamic State(ISIS).

The majority of such at the Al-Tanf military base.

So it must be quite the feat to occupy a third of the nation with less than 1000 troops.

a reply to: andy06shake

Not for the US Andy. They can't be removed by the Syrian forces that would just be suicide for Syria. As Trump said they are there for the oil and they are keeping it.
It's the American way!

a reply to: midicon

Imperialism 101 really, if that's the case, not that i condone the mentality, but our own nation has been playing that game since day dot.

Again my understanding was the US forces were there to fight ISIS.

But there are always ulterior motives and factors to the equation.

And i still find it hard to believe 900 troops can occupy a third of the nation, unless they are "Space Marines".

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The US is currently occupying a third of Syria but I guess that's ok.

I don’t remember saying that’s OK.

But I also don’t see how 900 US troops in a country already enveloped in a civil war compares to a nation with hundreds of thousands currently trying to take land from a country permanently.

I have mostly disagreed with US foreign policy in modern times. But that doesn’t excuse Russia from expanding their borders, which isn’t unique to Ukraine.

It’s beyond me how the trend of self hating westerners has arisen though. Russia, the country allied with North Korea, Iran, and China is currently being celebrated by many in the west purely because they’re playing contrarian against domestic politics.

One of the most ruthless empires in recent history is suddenly a force for good because “NWO, WEF”.

The country with the most land mass is taking more, and we’re supposed to forget how similar this looks to the USSR.

If Russia is helping anyone, why are a vast majority of former USSR countries the most concerned?

I don't support Russia, never have done. I'm also not self hating, far from it. I just don't like the hypocrisy that I see all around me. We, the West played a major role in causing this conflict.

a reply to: midicon

Every nation is a collection of imperfect humans. We’re certainly no different. Even in the context of this conversation I’d have no problem pointing out how bad some of our foreign policy has been in recent history. But that’s every country that plays at the geopolitical level as a power.

We, the West played a major role in causing this conflict.

I’ve heard that before, but usually when pressed for the “major role” I get a hyperbolic reason on how we played a major role.

I do appreciate that you pointed out the West instead of singling out the US. Because all the trouble started around Ukraine’s bid to join the EU, though many conflate that with NATO.

Yet, no one disputes that Viktor Yanukovych ran and won on the platform to bring Ukraine into the EU. It was out in the open he campaigned on that, and we can assume he was voted in with the populace agreeing on that. So it appears the people wanted to leave the Russian sphere of influence, which isn’t surprising considering their past experiences.

A country wanting self determination is the key aspect of sovereignty. I hardly see how them doing that puts the major role of the conflict in the west.

The only way I could see that is if the West and or the US fully orchestrated the protests. I don’t doubt we didn’t stoke the flames in some capacity whether it be material support or just online propaganda… But without solid proof of that, it’s hard to deny people may have protested anyways since Yanukovych promised them to do it and reneged right before the deal was made.

Russia took Crimea and the world largely did nothing. Putin could have just taken that and built the bridge and had the win. But they wanted more, and it even appears they were going to take the whole thing given the early ambition into Kyiv.

Russia invaded and is looking to absorb land. I’m sorry, but there’s no way we can assign majority blame to anyone else. The world is connected now, and everyone is pushing their ideas and agendas in the marketplace of ideas. If a country can’t accept that and goes all imperial spreading, that’s on them.

originally posted by: MisguidedAngel

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher

Things are about to get heated How does NATO handle this ?

Stop supplying Ukraine will all the weapons, creating more death on both sides. Just allow the Donbass to join Russia, which the majority want and allow the people on both sides of Ukraine to live peacefully and allow the people of Donbass to live their life with their native customs without fear of being attacked because of what their heritage is. Its really quite simple.

Very misguided indeed.

Take this scenario for an example:

Your neighbor encroaches into your yard, even takes one of your bedrooms from your house and moves his stuff in. And you're fighting and arguing and he stops to asks you, "Why can't we just have peace? Just let me have the bedroom and the yard and let's just have peace, ok? We can get along just fine and stop fighting, just let me have the bedroom."

a reply to: Mahogany

Nail, hit on head!

Can I ask those on here who know such things, what sort of "tactical nukes" have been deployed and how powerful are they compared to the Hiroshima one?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The yield varies for tactical nuclear weapons from a fraction of a kiloton to approximately 50 kilotons.

Comparatively speaking the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 were between 12 and 21 kilotons.