Thread by @russianforces

My take is that the probability of nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus is about zero. But there are options. Russia promised to modernize BY Su-25(?) aircraft and give BY Iskander missiles that "can be used with conventional as well as nuclear payload" kremlin.ru/events/preside… 1/

It is possible that the the aircraft and missiles will indeed be deployed in BY, crews will be trained, exercises held, etc. But it is very unlikely (in my view impossible) that actual nuclear weapons will be moved to Belarus

https://twitter.com/CameronJJJ/status/1540809790934351873?s=20&t=fT71OlDcrQG0qDMkIF72vw

2/

Weapons could be stored in Russia, e.g. at the Bryansk-18 national-level site or maybe at smaller base-level facilities in Shatalovo and Shaykovka. As I understand it, if a decision is made to bring forces to the level of high readiness that includes deployment of weapons... 3/

... then weapons are taken out of storage and moved closer to delivery systems (aircraft, missiles). This would mean transporting weapons over a rather long distance - definitely more than 100 km or much farther. That is not something unheard of in the Soviet practice, though 4/

Once moved close to the delivery systems, warheads don't have to be mounted immediately - they could probably be kept "in tents" for some time. Definitely days, maybe weeks. But they would have to be returned to a permanent storage facility (if not used, of course) 5/

So, while some nuclear sharing-like arrangement might be possible, it does not mean that nuclear weapons will be stationed in Belarus. In that regard, the situations would be different from that in NATO, where weapons are as close to their delivery systems as they can be 6/

There is nothing good about either arrangement. Weapons should be moved away from their delivery systems as far as possible. It may not solve all problems, but it would introduce an additional visible step in the process. See our Lock them Up report unidir.org/publication/lo… 7/7