Plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus ‘irresponsible’, says Nato; Ukrainian military says Russian attack on Avdiivka is devastating
NATO says Vladimir Putin’s plan to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus “dangerous and irresponsible” and a threat to Russia’s nuclear non-proliferation commitments.
Putin likened his Belarus plan on Saturday to the U.S. stationing its weapons in Europe, insisting Russia would not violate its nuclear non-proliferation promises.
The move, while not unexpected, is one of Russia’s most pronounced nuclear signals yet and a warning to NATO over its military support for Ukraine.
NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said on Sunday “Russia’s nuclear rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible.”
NATO is vigilant and we are closely monitoring the situation. We have not seen any changes in Russia’s nuclear posture that would lead us to adjust our own.”
Putin’s non-proliferation pledge and his description of US weapons deployment overseas were way off the mark, she added.
Russia’s reference to NATO’s nuclear sharing is totally misleading. NATO allies act with full respect of their international commitments. Russia has consistently broken its arms control commitments.
Experts said Russia’s move was significant since it had until now been proud that unlike the United States, it did not deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders. It may be the first time since the mid-1990s that it has done so.
– Reuters
The ISW also said the continuing of offences around Bakhmut, Avdiivka have become “not merely pointless, but actually harmful to Russian preparations for the next phase of this week.”
It said the loss of manpower and equipment means Russian forces will not gain any operational advantage from taking either Bakhmut and Avdiivka as they will be “unable to exploit such advances”.
Putin’s continuation of these Russian offensive operations in the current operational and strategic context amounts to strategic malfeasance. It expends scarce Russian combat power in pursuit of operationally meaningless gains rather than setting conditions to receive and defeat a Ukrainian counter-offensive that everyone appears to expect imminently.
However the ISW said Putin’s “stubbornness” could make sense “in a protracted conflict during which Western support for Ukraine wanes or ends.”
Putin might even mean these operations to set conditions for a negotiated settlement on terms he has already articulated that include international recognition of Russia’s annexation of all of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts; Ukrainian “neutrality;” the “de-militarization” of Ukraine; and the “de-Nazification” of the Ukrainian government.
The ISW said “multiple major Ukrainian operational-level victories” would be necessary to create “any prospect of a negotiated settlement of the current conflict or forcing Putin to accept unfavorable militaries realities, absent a formal settlement.”
The Institute for the Study of War says even a successful series of Ukrainian counteracts may not be enough to force Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the conflict.
In an abbreviated update, the ISW says Putin remains committed to carrying out the military campaign in an effort to “seek complete victory in Ukraine”.
