World has no chance yet: Russia, West taking up nuclear arms Serhey Bohdan's scenario

All week there was a discussion of the plans announced by Putin for the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus. They marked the deepening of the conflict in Eastern Europe in the direction of nuclear confrontation. Against the background of stagnation at the front, there is still a demand for escalation in the region, which, it is believed, will overcome the stagnation. Ukraine is turning into a field of experiments, where the features and norms of modern large-scale war are determined. This new type of war will put an end to several international conventions and will combine the use of conventional weapons and various weapons of mass destruction.

Demilitarised Belarus

The Russian decision to deploy nuclear weapons in a union state was not an easy one. The price was high for Moscow itself: suffice it to point out at least that it was not only met with the expected criticism from the West but was also negatively perceived by China, which called on the nuclear powers to stop deploying nuclear weapons outside their territory. In light of such international repercussions, the Russian explanation sounded all the more unconvincing as it linked its move to the British decision to supply Ukraine with depleted uranium shells.

Of course, London's actions cannot in any way be described as just a run-of-the-mill decision to send armour-piercing ammunition. Even depleted uranium remains uranium: it indiscriminately affects populations afterward and permanently contaminates the area of application, no matter how much Western politicians try to manipulate the data on the effects of its use. This is what makes it different from conventional weapons and it is telling that so far depleted uranium has only been used in countries "decommissioned" by the West and once, in a moment of sincerity, openly called "rogue states" by the Western establishment - in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Nevertheless, the connection between sending Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus and British uranium munitions to Ukraine looks far-fetched, as the former can hardly neutralize the latter and vice versa. More convincing is the link between the deployment of Russian weapons in Belarus and the relocation of American nuclear weapons from Germany to Poland, which is located next door to Belarus and Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast. Warsaw has long pushed for a solution that would allow it to take another step towards military domination in Europe by becoming the main US ally not only in Eastern Europe but on the whole continent.

The situation in eastern Europe is conducive to that. And here we come to the real reason for the transfer of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus. The fact is that the troops available in Minsk are insufficient to neutralise the current threats. Even now, when the region is plunged into war, Minsk has refrained from a serious increase in its military budget, as well as from building up the army.

The Belarusian army has traditionally had two operational commands and deployment areas, the Polish and Baltic, which are roughly the same length and have two motorised rifle brigades deployed in each. There are no reserve brigades of this type in the Belarusian army.

In the southern Ukrainian direction, there were few troops initially, and in the 2000s and 2010s the last remnants of them were removed, in addition to decommissioning key military facilities such as the airfields in Pruzhany and Luninets. Given that the Ukrainian direction is longer than the Polish and Baltic directions combined, this means that Minsk needs at least four motorized rifle brigades alone to cover the border with Ukraine, not to mention other units!

The Belarusian government not only does not have these troops, but also has no money to create additional units. Some forces have been sent from Russia to reinforce the Ukrainian direction, but these forces - under Belarusian command - are insufficient, and most of them are unlikely to be permanently stationed in Belarus. Moscow cannot help with additional units and equipment - every soldier counts right now. Putin will most likely have to withdraw some Russian troops from Belarus in the nearest future due to Finland's expected accession to NATO and rapid deployment of allied forces along the extremely poorly defended Russian-Finnish border.

The prospect of a "second front"

The situation on the border between Belarus and Ukraine is pushing both Minsk and Moscow closer. First, politicians from Zelenskyy's party started talking about a "second front with Belarus" and plans to deploy eight more motorized rifle brigades on its side of the border with Belarus in addition to the units already deployed there - Kyiv deployed the first pair of brigades there back in the mid-2010s! Second, threats to send the Ukrainian army's Main Intelligence Directorate units, created by activists of the radical Belarusian opposition, to Belarus are becoming louder and louder. Ukrainian intelligence has been actively working with the Belarusian opposition since the mid-1990s, which is why it has a very solid base, and if anyone can create Belarusian 'contras', it is the Ukrainian special services.

This is facilitated by the cultural and historical proximity of the two peoples. It has contributed to wars and instability rolling over from Ukraine to Belarus throughout history. All these Cossack campaigns calling for the liberation of the Belarusians ended badly - either in great bloodshed for Belarus or in the defeat of the Cossacks. Therefore Kyiv's current claims sound like another round of the same historical inclination of the Ukrainian side to "liberate" its neighbours and brothers. To liberate and, of course, to dominate - the Ukrainians also have their geopolitics "a la Dugin".

Apart from a possible intervention by radical Belarusian activists in Ukrainian military uniform, Minsk is worried about possible action by Poland - especially if Ukraine's situation continues to deteriorate. On 19 March, the Polish ambassador in Paris warned - Poland will go to war if Ukraine loses. Warsaw then claimed that the interpretation of his words was wrong, but the Polish establishment's mood is correct - just read the Polish media and analytics to be sure.

Objectively, Minsk has reason to be concerned. Warsaw has effectively put it in a semicircle by drawing it closer militarily and politically to Vilnius and Kyiv. The countries in question - Poland, Lithuania, and Ukraine - have all entered into an extremely close, albeit informal, politico-military alliance with Great Britain, which aims to reshape the region between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. Warsaw hopes to play a leading role in this.

Alongside, the Polish government is hastily building up its military power, e.g. by 2035 it plans to double the size of the army (from the current 150,000 to 300,000), although even with the current forces Warsaw has de facto military superiority in the region. At the same time, the Poles are making a huge emergency purchase of military equipment: 366 US Abrams tanks, a thousand South Korean K2 Black Panther tanks, 900 K9A1 self-propelled howitzers, 38 Hymars MLRS systems, and more. Initially, it looked like a risky move - the country simply did not have all those tens of billions of dollars. But Warsaw quickly realised that the Ukrainian crisis could provide Poles with a unique opportunity to rearm at the expense of external funding. And indeed, the EU's European Peace Facility has just allocated almost one billion euros for the transfer of old weapons to Ukraine, in exchange for which Warsaw buys the newest weapons from the ocean. There is no doubt that this subsidy will not stop there.

For Poland, it is a historic chance to once again try to come out on top in eastern Europe. So far so good, and the current alliance of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, clearly dominated by Warsaw, looks like a new, modernised edition of the old Rzeczpospolita, and the Polish establishment is happy to play with these historical allusions. The Polish state had repeatedly tried to establish itself as a hegemon in eastern Europe in the past, but it lacked the resources to dominate the region sustainably - as a result, although Poles sometimes even invaded the Kremlin itself (in 1612 alone, in 1812 in alliance with Napoleon), ultimately Poland itself was then torn apart. This time Warsaw is trying to pay more attention to attracting resources from allies - in addition to EU funds, the Polish government has reached serious agreements with Washington in the military sphere.

Under these circumstances, Minsk would like to defend itself against a "liberation march" by radical activists, with the participation of sympathetic elements in the state structures of neighbouring countries. And the only solution seems to have turned out to be, from the point of view of Belarus and Russia, nuclear, although its consequences in the long term negate much of what Minsk and Moscow wish to achieve in the short term, as the deployment of such weapons raises the stakes in the confrontation.

Dealing for a rise

However, the stakes are already being raised by all players betting on escalation. This tendency to "pile on" began to intensify in the autumn, when the war took a low-key turn and, in response to increasing Western military aid to Kyiv, the Kremlin hinted at the possible use of nuclear weapons. No matter how much Putin was ridiculed in Eastern Europe and the West, these hints were not seen as a bluff in world politics, and so, say, China repeatedly declared loudly that such moves were unacceptable.

The confrontation between Russia and the West is now gaining new momentum. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on March 30 that the EU leadership was beginning to cautiously address the issue of sending "some kind of peacekeeping type" troops to Ukraine. Orban compared the situation to a year ago when the issue of supplying weapons was just as cautiously raised, and now it's all about the number and terms of even combat aircraft. These allegorically meaningful admissions by the Hungarian leader suggest that we are talking about a de facto military intervention by EU troops (in fact, of course, by NATO).

For his part, Belarusian President Lukashenko warned on March 31 that strategic nuclear weapons may be sent to Belarus following a tactical one, and the infrastructure is in place for this. He said his refusal to destroy Soviet-era missile silos was one of the reasons his relations with Western leaders have malfunctioned since the beginning. This sounds plausible and illustrates the special nature of the confrontation when it comes to atomic weapons.

Amid an exchange of nuclear threats, the Western establishment makes no secret of its willingness to fight for victory. On Friday, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, having barely arrived in Beijing, immediately warned his hosts that their peace plan on Ukraine would not even be discussed and that the only peace plan that the collective West is prepared to talk about is the "Zelenskyy plan". The latter, as is well known, consists of ten clauses stipulating the unconditional withdrawal of the Russian Federation from the entire territory of Ukraine within the 1991 borders with reparations.

And following Sanchez, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell on March 31 unceremoniously declared that Chinese mediation towards peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow was unacceptable and that Beijing could only play a role in forcing Russia to accept the "Zelensky plan" if it wished. Borrell even showed rare courage, promising to go to Beijing in person in a couple of weeks and make this point in the eyes of the Chinese leaders.

In other words, unlike during the Cold War, when leaders in the West and East were very careful to juggle nuclear threats, times have now changed, with parties treating the nuclear arsenal as just another piece of military power. Interestingly, immediately after the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war even a rather restrained Germany immediately started explaining on TV that a nuclear war is not scary and Putin's nuclear threat is in your head. Get rid of your fear and Putin will be defeated, as he will never use nuclear weapons himself. These reassurances sounded very interesting against the background of what had previously been said about the concentration of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border - that it was all a bluff, he would never launch an invasion.

"Heart of Darkness"

In conclusion, the confrontation is just beginning to heat up and there is a lot of fuel material. So many global and regional powers have become revisionist forces that want to seriously reconsider the existing international arrangements. At the same time, their lack of coherent policies, in other words, opportunism, adds to the danger. This became evident when it became obvious in the context of the increasing confrontation between Russia and NATO that there are enormous gaping holes in the defence perimeter on all sides. In other words, it is hardly possible to speak about some kind of consistent preparation of aggression against each other by those parties as a whole. Rather, it is more likely to be about radical elements on both sides who were betting on escalation and war.

The world is not just now on the brink of a slow slide into nuclear war, which began with the shelling of nuclear power plants and continues with the transfer of munitions containing radioactive material, the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, and threats to deploy strategic ones. It does not stop there, in fact, a radical new model of warfare is taking shape before our eyes. Even the most lethal weapons of the previous era with the most indiscriminate effects, such as cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines, are again acceptable and even countries that have signed conventions prohibiting them have begun to use them. Open dehumanization, "dehumanization", of which the Europeans have long blamed non-Europeans, has become the norm, but as it turns out, both sides in this war are perfectly capable of killing prisoners, shelling disloyal or "unfriendly" civilians, not to mention being prepared to destroy critical civilian infrastructure. It legitimises unprecedented collective punishment of citizens of opposing countries. It finally legitimises the use of weapons of mass destruction.

In the century before last, the writer Joseph Conrad saw the "heart of immense darkness" in Africa, embraced by boundless cruelty. In the last century, the film director Francis Coppola, influenced by the horrors of the Vietnam War, believed that it had shifted to Indochina and filmed "Apocalypse Now" about it. Nowadays, this "heart of darkness" is also emerging in Eastern Europe.