Will nuclear weapons return to Belarus? Nuclear weapons are being withdrawn from Belarus What are the guarantees of non-use

The Republic of Belarus is an important participant in global efforts for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the context of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Belarus first announced its intention to make its territory a nuclear-free zone in 1990 in the Declaration "On State Sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus". By signing the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, Belarus became a member of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This step was inextricably linked with the adoption of the most important political decision on the accession of Belarus to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a state without nuclear weapons.

In July 1993, Belarus officially acceded to the NPT, becoming the first state to voluntarily renounce the possibility of possessing nuclear weapons left after the collapse of the USSR. It should be emphasized that Belarus refused to possess the most modern military nuclear capability without any preconditions or reservations. Thus, our country actually initiated the process of settling nuclear disarmament issues in the post-Soviet space in the interests of international peace and security. Welcoming the fact of Belarus' accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear state, Great Britain, Russia and the United States provided security guarantees to Belarus, fixing their obligations in the Budapest Memorandum on December 5, 1994.

The withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the territory of Belarus was completed in November 1996.

Belarus regards the obligation of nuclear-weapon states under Article VI of the NPT to negotiate effective measures for nuclear disarmament as the main strategic goal of the Treaty. We support a balanced and phased approach to nuclear disarmament. Belarus welcomed the signing by Russia and the United States on April 8, 2010 of a new Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms as the next step towards the reduction of nuclear weapons. We consider it necessary to continue efforts at the national, regional and global levels to move towards the goal of universal nuclear disarmament.

The problem of guarantees of the non-use of nuclear weapons against the states parties to the NPT that do not possess such weapons remains topical. Providing unambiguous security guarantees is the key to trust and predictability in international relations and can contribute to strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime based on the NPT. Belarus intends to continue working on obtaining legally binding guarantees, which could be formalized in the form of a separate international document.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons laid the foundation international system guarantees excluding the use of peaceful nuclear energy for military purposes. This system operates under the auspices International agency By atomic energy and involves the conclusion by each state party to the NPT of separate agreements with the IAEA.

In accordance with its obligations under the NPT, in 1996 Belarus concluded an Agreement on the Application of Safeguards with the IAEA. The verification activity of the Agency carried out on the basis of this Agreement confirms the fulfillment by Belarus of obligations on the exclusively peaceful use of nuclear material and facilities. In 2005, Belarus and the IAEA signed the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement. This document significantly expands the IAEA's ability to carry out verification activities.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons clearly guarantees the right of states to pursue peaceful nuclear programs, subject to the fulfillment of non-proliferation obligations. This provision of the NPT is especially relevant due to the fact that at present there is an increase in the attention of the world community to the development nuclear technology, primarily to the creation of national nuclear energy programs. In this regard, Belarus is interested in seeing the rights of the participating States enshrined in the Treaty be fully implemented and on a non-discriminatory basis.

In May 2010, the five-yearly NPT Review Conference was held in New York, in which a Belarusian delegation took part. The conference concluded with the adoption of a final document including conclusions and recommendations for future action. The Belarusian delegation received Active participation in the work of the conference, in particular, in the development of a plan of action in the field of nuclear disarmament approved by the final document. We believe that paragraph 8 of the action plan, which indicates the obligation of nuclear states to comply with existing security guarantees, is directly applicable to the guarantees provided to Belarus in accordance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, especially taking into account the fact that the UN registered this document on November 13, 2012 as international treaty.

The preparatory process for the 2015 Review Conference is currently under way.

Belarus threatened the West possible way out from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to official Minsk, the United States and Great Britain, by applying economic sanctions against Belarus, violated their obligations towards the country. That is why Minsk may cease to comply with these conditions. This, at least, was stated by the Belarusian delegation in Geneva at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference.

The Belarusian side emphasized that it is very important for it that the tripartite security guarantees provided in accordance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in connection with Belarus' voluntary renunciation of the right to possess nuclear weapons work. "Three states - Great Britain, Russia and the USA - have undertaken to respect the independence and sovereignty of Belarus, including not to use measures of economic coercion," the Belarusian delegates emphasized. And if there are sanctions, then western partners encroach on the independence of Belarus.

“A reasonable question arises why, despite the fixed and repeatedly confirmed commitments, some nuclear powers in practice ignore them, continuing to apply economic and political pressure. registered with the UN as an international treaty in November 2012. Violation of accepted legal obligations is an unacceptable norm of behavior for states in terms of international law", the Belarusian side stressed.

The irritation of the official Minsk is understandable. The US and the EU apply to Belarus a whole range of political and economic sanctions. The EU black list currently includes 243 individuals and 32 companies supporting the "Lukashenko regime". The number of those on the "black list" of the United States is unknown, but it is possible that it is even higher. It's about about budget-forming companies - such as Belspetsexport, Belneftekhim, Belaruskali. They sell their products mainly in foreign countries. This means that sanctions are a direct blow to the country's budget.

Along the way, Belarus reached a new - almost Soviet - level of military integration with Russia. In May, the allies will hold large-scale exercises "West-2013", where they will work out a possible nuclear strike across Warsaw. The exercises will take place in close proximity to the Polish borders. In addition, Russia announced for the first time that it plans to permanently deploy its air regiment with fighter jets in Belarus by 2015. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the start of work on this project is scheduled for this year: Moscow will place an aviation commandant's office with its neighbors and put the first duty unit of combat fighters on duty. "We intend to continue to consider issues necessary to strengthen the defense capability of our Belarusian colleagues and brothers," Shoigu stressed.

Director of the Minsk Center for European Integration Yuri Shevtsov believes that for the Belarusian foreign policy a momentous event took place. “To relocate an entire air regiment to Belarus in less than two years is very fast. And this reflects a high degree military alarm regarding NATO or individual NATO countries. Polish games of greatness have always ended badly for Poland," the expert explains. And he adds: "It is unlikely that opposition to Polish activity regarding Belarus will be limited to one Russian air regiment. At a minimum, the saturation of the Belarusian army with new weapons and equipment will go faster now. And if it comes to the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus in the event of the collapse of the Budapest Memorandum system, then the militarization of the region will increase by orders of magnitude."

Of course, such activity on the part of the official Minsk will inevitably affect the eastern borders of the EU. Poland and Lithuania will begin to rapidly increase military spending. And if for Poland they are unlikely to become too strong an economic burden, then for Lithuania, geopolitical changes will definitely mean additional problems in terms of getting the country out of the economic crisis. Shevtsov also believes that Russia will increase pressure on Lithuania - both economic and informational. "The EU does not compensate Lithuania for these losses. There will still be no war between Russia and NATO, but, here, the losses from the current Polish activity in the east for Lithuania can be quite serious," the political scientist sums up.

Experts consider it quite likely that the threats of the Belarusians will not be empty air shaking, and that the country will respond to the sanctions by withdrawing from the Budapest Memorandum. "The United States has actually already withdrawn from it. Recently, it seems, there was a statement by the US embassy in Belarus that the United States does not consider this Memorandum as a binding document for them," Shevtsov comments.

All this means that Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are about to get a legal basis to return to their nuclear status. And in the end, someone, and Belarus, will definitely be able to count on the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Moreover, the Belarusian government already possesses approximately 2.5 tons of nuclear materials, some of which are highly enriched, sufficient, for example, to quickly manufacture a "dirty" atomic "bomb."

In addition, "a number of threshold countries will receive an additional impetus to the creation of nuclear weapons, as they will see the unreliability of security guarantees from the United States. Most likely, Iran will officially try to become the first of these countries," Shevtsov describes the more distant consequences of these changes.

All this, no doubt, plays into the hands of Lukashenka. Stanislav Shushkevich, the author of the Belarusian nuclear disarmament program, says that "Lukashenko will soon begin to blackmail the United States more actively with a return to nuclear status." He will do this in order to achieve the removal of economic sanctions from Belarus. And Old Man can return to him every time he doesn’t like something in the behavior of NATO member countries. Will Lukashenka get nuclear weapon, which has been dreaming of for a long time, in the next few years will depend only on Russia.

The United States, obviously, will have to somehow respond to this. An attempt to pacify the intractable Lukashenka may turn into new conflicts for NATO member countries. What is especially unsafe against the backdrop of growing military power China and angry rhetoric against the West from Russia.

At the session General Assembly United Nations in New York, many states have already signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (it was adopted on July 7, 2017 at the UN Headquarters and opened for signature on September 20. - Ed.). As UN Secretary General António Guterres put it, by doing this they want to create a world "without doomsday weapons." But countries with nuclear weapons (NW) do not participate in the initiative.

Atwho has nuclear weapons and how many?

It is generally accepted that there are actually nine nuclear powers in the world today - the USA, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. At their disposal, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) as of January 2017, are in total about 15 thousand nuclear warheads. But they are distributed among the G-9 countries very unevenly. The United States and Russia account for 93 percent of all nuclear warheads on the planet.

Who has official nuclear status and who does not?

Officially, only those that signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are considered nuclear powers. These are (in order of creating their first atomic bomb) the USA (1945), the USSR/Russia (1949), the UK (1952), France (1960) and China (1964). The remaining four countries, although they have nuclear weapons, have not acceded to the treaty on its nonproliferation.

North Korea withdrew from the treaty, Israel has never officially recognized that it has nuclear weapons, but Tel Aviv is believed to have them. In addition, the United States assumes that Iran continues to work on the creation of an atomic bomb, despite the official rejection of the military use of nuclear energy and control by the IAEA.

How did the number of nuclear warheads change?

Although over time more and more states have acquired nuclear weapons, the number of nuclear warheads today is much lower than in the days of cold war. In the 1980s there were about 70,000 of them. Today, their number continues to decline in accordance with the disarmament agreement concluded by the United States and Russia in 2010 (the START III treaty). But the quantity is not so important. Almost all nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenal and making it even more powerful.

What are the initiatives for nuclear disarmament?

The oldest such initiative is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The states that signed it, which do not have nuclear weapons, take upon themselves the obligation to refrain from creating it for a long time. The official nuclear powers undertake to negotiate disarmament. However, the agreement did not stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Another weakness Treaty - it divides the world in the long run into those who have nuclear weapons and those who do not. Critics of the document also note that the five official nuclear powers are also permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Were there successful contracts about nuclear disarmament?

The USA and the USSR/Russia have destroyed a significant number of nuclear warheads and their carriers since the end of the Cold War. Under the START-I treaty (signed in July 1991, entered into force in December 1994, expired in December 2009. - Ed.), Washington and Moscow have significantly reduced their nuclear arsenals.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signing START III, April 2010

This process was not easy, it was slowed down from time to time, but the goal was so important for both sides that Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed the START III treaty in the spring of 2010. Obama then announced his desire for a nuclear-free world. Further fate of the treaty is considered uncertain against the backdrop of the demonstration policy military force hosted by US President Donald Trump, and Russian actions regarding Ukraine.

Which countries have given up nuclear weapons?

From trying to create atomic bomb refused shortly before the abolition of the apartheid regime in South Africa, as well as Libya in 2003. The former republics of the USSR, which inherited nuclear weapons after its collapse, stand apart here. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the Lisbon Protocol, which made them parties to the START-1 treaty, and then acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The largest arsenal, the third in the world after the United States and Russia, was in Ukraine. Rejecting it, Kyiv received financial assistance in return, as well as guarantees of security and territorial integrity from nuclear powers, enshrined in the so-called Budapest Memorandum. However, the memorandum was in the nature of a voluntary commitment, was not ratified by any of the states that signed it, and did not provide for a mechanism of sanctions.

Context

With the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine in 2014, critics of the memorandum say that Kyiv's renunciation of nuclear weapons did not justify itself. They believe that Ukraine's possession of nuclear weapons would prevent Russia from annexing Crimea. On the other hand, experts point out that North Korea can set off a chain reaction when all more countries want to get atomic warheads.

What are the prospects for a ban on nuclear weapons

The current initiative to ban nuclear weapons is nothing more than a symbolic gesture against the nuclear arms race. If only because all nine nuclear powers do not take part in this initiative. They claim that nuclear weapons are best protection from attack, and point to an already existing non-proliferation treaty. But there is no mention of a ban in this treaty.

NATO also does not support the treaty, which was opened on September 20 for signature. The campaign for its signing, as stated in the official statement of the alliance, "does not take into account the increasingly threatening international security environment." Jean-Yves Le Drian, French foreign minister, called the initiative "almost irresponsible" "self-deception." According to him, it can only weaken the nonproliferation treaty.

On the other hand, Beatrice Fin, head of the international campaign for the abolition of nuclear weapons, called on the countries of the world to join the initiative. She stressed that nuclear weapons are "the only type of weapon mass destruction, which is still not banned, despite its destructive power and threat to humanity. "According to her, with the advent of Donald Trump to power in the United States, this threat has increased.

See also:

North Korean missiles and bombs

Rocket launches in North Korea last years increased noticeably. Pyongyang is testing ballistic missiles in defiance of UN resolutions and gradually tightening sanctions. Experts do not even rule out the start of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

Beginning - during the late Kim Il Sung

Although the number missile tests has grown precisely in the last four years, the first of them were held back in 1984 - under the then North Korean leader Kim Il Sung. According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, over the past 10 years of his rule, the DPRK conducted 15 tests, and there were no launches from 1986 to 1989 inclusive.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

Kim Jong Il: the beginning of nuclear tests

Kim Jong Il, the son of Kim Il Sung, who led the country in July 1994, also did not stand aside. During the 17 years of his reign, 16 missile tests were carried out, although almost all of them took place in two years - 2006 (7 launches) and 2009 (8). This is less than in the first 8 months of 2017. However, it was during the reign of Kim Jong Il that Pyongyang's first two tests of nuclear weapons took place - in 2006 and 2009.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

Kim Jong-un: unprecedented activity

Under the son and grandson of the former rulers, the activity of the DPRK in the missile sphere has reached an unprecedented level. For 6 years, Pyongyang has already carried out 84 launches of ballistic missiles. Not all of them were successful, in some cases the rockets exploded at the start or in flight.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

towards Guam

In early August 2017, there were reports that the North Korean army was developing a plan to launch four ballistic missiles. medium range in the direction military base USA on the island of Guam pacific ocean. The reaction of US President Donald Trump was predictably harsh and threatening.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

Over Japan

On August 29, 2017, the DPRK carried out another test, and this time the missile flew over the territory of Japan - the island of Hokkaido. Kim Jong-un said that the launch of a rocket towards Japan is a preparation for a war in the Pacific.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

Sixth nuclear

A few days after the missile was launched over Japan, the DPRK announced that it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon, specifying that it was hydrogen bomb. This was already the sixth underground nuclear explosion held by Pyongyang. Experts estimated the yield of the bomb at about 100 kilotons.



Rocket and nuclear tests of the DPRK: a project of three generations of Kims

Meetings and condemnatory statements

After almost every North Korean missile or nuclear test, security councils convene for emergency meetings. different countries and the UN Security Council. But they, like the condemning statements of world leaders, have not yet brought any effect.

In response to US sanctions, Belarus threatened to regain its nuclear status. And on the same day, Sergei Shoigu announced the creation of a Russian air base in Belarus. It is possible that the aircraft of the Russian Federation will be carriers nuclear missiles. It looks like we're heading back to a full-blown cold war.

Belarus has threatened the West with a possible withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to official Minsk, the United States and Great Britain, by applying economic sanctions against Belarus, violated their obligations towards the country. That is why Minsk may cease to comply with these conditions. This, at least, was stated by the Belarusian delegation in Geneva at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference.

The Belarusian side emphasized that it is very important for it that the tripartite security guarantees provided in accordance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in connection with Belarus' voluntary renunciation of the right to possess nuclear weapons work. "Three states - Great Britain, Russia and the USA - have undertaken to respect the independence and sovereignty of Belarus, including not to use measures of economic coercion," the Belarusian delegates emphasized. And if there are sanctions, then Western partners encroach on the independence of Belarus.

“A reasonable question arises why, despite the fixed and repeatedly confirmed commitments, some nuclear powers in practice ignore them, continuing to apply economic and political pressure. was registered with the UN as an international treaty in November 2012. Violation of accepted legal obligations is an unacceptable norm of behavior of states from the point of view of international law," the Belarusian side stressed.

The irritation of the official Minsk is understandable. The US and the EU apply a whole range of political and economic sanctions to Belarus. Currently, the "black list" of the EU includes 243 individuals and 32 companies that support the "Lukashenko regime." The number of those on the "black list" of the United States is unknown, but it is possible that it is even higher. We are talking about budget-forming companies - such as Belspetsexport, Belneftekhim, Belaruskali. They sell their products mainly in foreign countries. This means that sanctions are a direct blow to the country's budget.

Along the way, Belarus reached a new - almost Soviet - level of military integration with Russia. In May, the allies will hold large-scale exercises "West-2013", where they will work out a possible nuclear strike on Warsaw. The exercises will take place in close proximity to the Polish borders. In addition, Russia announced for the first time that it plans to permanently deploy its air regiment with fighter jets in Belarus by 2015. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the start of work on this project is scheduled for this year: Moscow will place an aviation commandant's office with its neighbors and put the first duty unit of combat fighters on duty. "We intend to continue to consider issues necessary to strengthen the defense capability of our Belarusian colleagues and brothers," Shoigu stressed.

Yury Shevtsov, director of the Minsk Center for European Integration Problems, believes that a landmark event has happened for the Belarusian foreign policy. "To relocate an entire air regiment to Belarus in less than two years is very fast. And this reflects a high degree of military anxiety about NATO or individual NATO countries. Polish games of greatness have always ended badly for Poland," the expert explains. And he adds: “It is unlikely that the opposition to Polish activity regarding Belarus will be limited to one Russian air regiment. At a minimum, the saturation of the Belarusian army with new weapons and equipment will go faster now. will increase exponentially."

Of course, such activity on the part of the official Minsk will inevitably affect the eastern borders of the EU. Poland and Lithuania will begin to rapidly increase military spending. And if for Poland they are unlikely to become too strong an economic burden, then for Lithuania, geopolitical changes will definitely mean additional problems in terms of getting the country out of the economic crisis. Shevtsov also believes that Russia will increase pressure on Lithuania - both economic and informational. "The EU does not compensate Lithuania for these losses. There will still be no war between Russia and NATO, but, here, the losses from the current Polish activity in the east for Lithuania can be quite serious," the political scientist sums up.

Experts consider it quite likely that the threats of the Belarusians will not be empty air shaking, and that the country will respond to the sanctions by withdrawing from the Budapest Memorandum. "The United States has actually already withdrawn from it. Recently, it seems, there was a statement by the US embassy in Belarus that the United States does not consider this Memorandum as a binding document for them," Shevtsov comments.

All this means that Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are about to get a legal basis to return to their nuclear status. And in the end, someone, and Belarus, will definitely be able to count on the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Moreover, the Belarusian government already possesses approximately 2.5 tons of nuclear materials, some of which are highly enriched, sufficient, for example, to quickly manufacture a "dirty" atomic "bomb."

In addition, “a number of threshold countries will receive an additional impetus to the creation of nuclear weapons, since will see the unreliability of US security guarantees. Most likely, Iran will officially try to become the first of these countries,” Shevtsov describes the more distant consequences of these changes.

All this, no doubt, plays into the hands of Lukashenka. Stanislav Shushkevich, the author of the Belarusian nuclear disarmament program, says that "Lukashenko will soon begin to blackmail the United States more actively with a return to nuclear status." He will do this in order to achieve the removal of economic sanctions from Belarus. And Old Man can return to him every time he doesn’t like something in the behavior of NATO member countries. Whether Lukashenka will receive nuclear weapons, which he has been dreaming of for a long time, will depend only on Russia in the next few years.

The United States, obviously, will have to somehow respond to this. An attempt to pacify the intractable Lukashenka may turn into new conflicts for NATO member countries. Which is especially unsafe against the backdrop of the growing military power of China and the embittered rhetoric against the West from Russia.

Maxim Shveits

On Monday Russian ambassador in Belarus, Alexander Surikov, when asked by Interfax about whether Russia would deploy new military facilities in Belarus in connection with the deployment of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, answered quite unexpectedly:

It already depends on the level of our political integration. And also from the points of view of experts, diplomats, the military: it is necessary, it is possible, when, how. I mean facilities related to nuclear weapons.

Quite a diplomatic answer right down to the last sentence. But no one pulled the ambassador for language, and the informational nuclear bomb exploded.

The next day, Alexander Surikov hurried to correct the situation. He told ITAR-TASS that his position on military cooperation "has been completely misinterpreted". At the time of writing, official Minsk and Moscow refrained from commenting. But on both sides of the ocean there is a discussion of prospects. The American senators are outraged, the Minister of Defense of Lithuania calls for prudence.

The entire military infrastructure of the Belarusians is in perfect condition, this also applies launchers missiles from nuclear warheads, which were exported to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Returning missiles to the mines is much faster than building a radar in Poland, says Ivan MAKUSHOK, Assistant Secretary of State of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.

He is echoed by some Russian generals. For example, the president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, believes that Russia should place tactical nuclear weapons (with a range of less than 5,500 km) on the territory of Belarus.

Deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus does not make Minsk nuclear power and does not violate its international obligations,” Interfax quoted Ivashov as saying. - Just as US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany do not make Germany a nuclear power.

In general, the military is already making plans.

FIRST HISTORY

Stanislav SHUSHKEVICH, initiator of the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Belarus: I understood what a threat it was to the country

Enough Belarusian lives defend Russia, - Stanislav Shushkevich reacted to the statement, under which they began to withdraw nuclear weapons from Belarus. - remember the second world war. Belarusians have suffered millions of losses, which cannot be compared with any other nation. Again they want to substitute Belarus and make of it nuclear test site, which will be the first hit in the event of a conflict? Why is it necessary?

- But, perhaps, the Belarusian side will receive financial benefits?

You can't trade lives.

- But in case nuclear war will there really be a difference where the missiles are located - in Lida or Smolensk?

This is a very big difference. When there were nuclear weapons in our country, we had so many missiles that Belarus had to be destroyed in the first place.

- And how did the withdrawal process begin?

From the Belovezhskaya agreement. I immediately said that without any preconditions or compensation, we are ready to remove nuclear weapons from our territory. The operation was also beneficial for Russia - it received weapons without compensation.

- And what were you guided by when making such a decision?

- I headed the Department of Nuclear Physics for 20 years and understood what a threat these weapons pose to Belarus. It was very easy for me to convince the government of this.

P.S. Stanislav Shushkevich nominated for Nobel Prize peace. The initiative comes from former president Poland Lech Walesa. Shushkevich is nominated for his main peaceful achievement - the withdrawal of nuclear missiles from Belarus.

HOW IT WAS

In 1996, the last strategic missile was withdrawn from Belarus.

Our country voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons.

Belarus inherited 81 intercontinental ballistic missile(flight range over 10 thousand km) and 725 warheads tactical class. An army with such an arsenal could destroy a target at any point. the globe. On the other hand, enemy missiles were also aimed at Belarus.

In April 1992, the government voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. And in February 1993, the Supreme Council decided to join the Republic of Belarus to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Gradual withdrawal has begun nuclear weapons in Russia. The last echelon with RS-12M Topol missiles was withdrawn on November 27, 1996.

BY THE WAY

Russian bombers count on the airfield in Baranovichi

Russian strategic bombers Tu-160 and Tu-95 resumed flights to the US coast. In order to fly to the destination, the so-called jump airfields are used - sites where aircraft can be provided with technical assistance, refueling is carried out, and crews are provided with rest. One of these airfields is located in Baranovichi. Russian generals reported that now the bombers are flying without nuclear weapons on board.

SAID

I think there will be no such situation and situation for delivering tactical nuclear weapons here ... If there is a threat to our peoples, nothing needs to be ruled out, we must ensure our security with all our strength and means. (Alexander LUKASHENKO during the Union Shield-2006 exercise.)