Felshtinsky: Military Operation To Liberate Belarus Must Be Completed By July 1, 2023

Vitali Tsyhankou was a host during the Interview.

Well-known American historian Yury Felshtinsky, the author of Blowing Up Russia, believes that everything has been prepared in Belarus for a long time for the use and storage of nuclear weapons.

Yuri Felshtinsky gave an interview to Radio Liberty journalist Vitali Tsyhankou. He said that Putin has been preparing for a nuclear strike against Europe since March last year. The well-known historian believes that the fastest and most bloodless way to end the war and stop Russian aggression is the Allied intervention in Belarus.

– You have been steadily telling for a long time that Russia is going to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus to launch a nuclear strike against European countries from the territory of Belarus. Why are you so confident? Did you have certain sources of information or just a theoretical analysis of the situation?

– All of us have the same sources of information: statements by the Russian and Belarusian leadership. Also, there are some statements by Russian and Belarusian propagandists who are receiving the salary from their masters. We do not have any other sources of information, and we do not need them. Everything happens before our eyes. Lukashenka brought Belarus out of the nuclear-free status a year ago. Lukashenka has repeatedly said that he will turn to Russia with a request to "return" the nuclear weapons that Russia removed in 1995 based on agreements reached with Ukraine and Belarus in 1994 (the "Budapest Memorandum"). Lukashenka has repeatedly mentioned that Poland and Lithuania pose a threat to Belarus, including a nuclear threat (it is an outright lie, but he said it). Putin was on a visit to Minsk last time and Lukashenka announced later that the Belarusian aircraft would be re-equipped in Russia for "specific munitions" (missiles with nuclear warheads) that would be installed on Belarusian planes. These aircraft were sent to Russia and were upgraded. So, Putin has announced that it’s true, Russia will redeploy missiles with nuclear warheads for Belarusian aircraft and Iskanders to Belarus, where these nuclear weapons will be under the command and control of the Russian MoD. All this has happened before our very eyes during the last year, and it was the final message. However, there could be only a few hours from the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus to the delivery of a nuclear strike. So we have very little time for preventive actions against the actual threat.

– Some experts say that it is rather unrealistic to prepare everything necessary for the deployment of nuclear weapons in Belarus by July 1. They believe that Putin's statement is more political than real. What can you say about it?

– We heard about "July 1" from Putin, and I would generally ignore this date. There is no need to build "storage facilities" for nuclear weapons at all. If something will be built in Belarus “by July 1”, the bomb shelters for the country's leadership, since it will be necessary to expect a retaliatory strike on Belarus by NATO forces. Putin has been preparing for an operation to launch a nuclear strike on Europe since March last year. In Belarus, a long time ago, everything was prepared for the use of nuclear weapons and for their storage. So “July 1” from Putin’s lips may turn out to be outright misinformation, so that “specialists” are now thinking about what Russia will have time to do and what it won’t have time to do by July 1, and does this mean that nothing “definitely” will happen before July 1. I wouldn't be so sure about that. Many things can happen by July 1.

If Putin wanted to deploy nuclear weapons closer to European borders as part of a “political statement”, as you say, or pressure and blackmail, he would not need to deploy nuclear weapons in another state, in Belarus, violating, by the way, the 1995 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Also, Russia is a member state of the Treaty, that’s why Putin emphasized that this was not a transfer of nuclear weapons to Belarus, but the transfer of Russian-controlled nuclear weapons to Belarus. Putin would transfer these weapons to the Kaliningrad region if it was part of a "political statement" or bluff and blackmail. Poland, Lithuania, Sweden and Finland can easily be threatened from there (you can see it on the map). By the way, the Russian leadership has just threatened Sweden and Finland, as well as the rest of Europe, with "deadly consequences" if they join NATO. So, unfortunately, the transfer of nuclear weapons to Belarus has nothing to do with political manoeuvres, bluffs or blackmail. This is the final phase of preparations for a military operation to deliver a nuclear strike on Poland and Lithuania, as Lukashenka warned. That is how things should be assessed.

– So far, the United States is reacting to reports about the possible deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus rather restrainedly. Why? Maybe there is some kind of behind-the-scenes dialogue with the Kremlin?

– I'm sure that there are backdoor talks ongoing, and you can guess what it is: give us Ukraine, otherwise we will launch nuclear strikes on Poland and Lithuania from Belarus. What did you say? Are you going to destroy Belarus then? Yes, we don’t care at all (I think, by the way, that Putin used obscene language to describe it). We want Ukraine and it is important for us to win there at any cost. (And then we will move to Moldova - but this was said in a whisper so that the Americans do not hear). Deal?

Approximately such a dialogue is now being conducted between Moscow and Washington. I am not inclined to believe that the United States will yield to Russia in this matter. They will look for some other solution to the problem.

– You have already stated in some media sources that to prevent nuclear strikes, the West’s reaction to the possible deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus should be actions to remove Lukashenka, that is, military aggression against the current Belarusian government, primarily from Poland or Ukraine. But today the option of such actions sounds quite unrealistic. Do you think this could change? What could be the reason?

– Lately, everything sounds “quite unrealistic” about Russia at first glance and then it turns out to be real. Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 did not seem realistic the year before. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 did not seem realistic in 2013 either. And certainly, the full-scale war of Russia against Ukraine in February 2022 seemed realistic to no one. Now, after all, all this seems very realistic and even expected development of events retroactively, you will agree. I published my first article titled "The Third World War" two days after Russia's invasion of Crimea in March 2014. I also published a book called “The Third World War: Fight for Ukraine” in Kyiv in 2015, and wrote that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would inevitably happen and that they would invade from the territory of Belarus. Almost no one considered this scenario to be realistic in 2015. And even in February 2022, before the invasion, many (I won’t list names) prominent experts argued that there would be no invasion and that it was impossible because it was “unrealistic”.

Russia began military aggression against Belarus in 2020-2021 when it occupied this small Eastern European country, conveniently bordering several other Eastern European states at once. Now we are talking about a liberation mission and de-occupation of Belarus, and not about "military aggression against the Belarusian state authorities." The legitimate Belarusian government is now abroad, and the opposition is abroad or in Belarusian prisons. It is about helping the Belarusians to overthrow the dictator and his regime and restore the democratic system of government in Belarus, at the same time liberation of Belarus from Russian occupation and eliminating a new threat, a Russian nuclear strike on Eastern Europe from the territory of Belarus. But there is really no other solution to the recent nuclear problem, except the overthrow of the Lukashenka regime and the restoration of democracy in Belarus. All other decisions will have disastrous consequences for Europe. Forceful intervention in Belarus by the allies is the fastest and most bloodless way to end the war that has begun and stop Russian aggression.

– Do you think that any option for bargaining with Lukashenka is no longer possible? Is there an offer he "can't refuse"? Why? Is it because he is still the same Lukashenka or due to the fact that he is simply dependent so much on Russia and no longer decides anything, even such serious issues?

– We have already crossed the lines when bargaining and negotiations were possible. There can be no bargaining with either Putin or Lukashenka nowadays. There can be no negotiations with Putin because he is a war criminal and there is an international arrest warrant issued against him. The negotiations with Lukashenka are impossible because there is no longer such a government leader, or even a dictator Lukashenka. There is a state criminal - a traitor to the Belarusian people, an instigator and a defector. He is ready to ruin Belarus in Putin’s interests (not even Russia, because everything Putin does is done to his own interest, harming Russia's interests). After all, Belarus will be wiped off the map by NATO's retaliatory strike, with all the further consequences. But, as we see, Lukashenka is not worried about this. Please note: they are discussing a nuclear strike on Poland and Lithuania but no one is talking about NATO’s response. How can one imagine such planning of a military operation? Lukashenka has at least something to do with all this as the leader of Belarus.

– An attempt to remove Lukashenka by military means can cause rather harsh actions from Russia. No one is seriously afraid of the fact that they can send their troops to protect Lukashenka given the experience of the Russian-Ukrainian war. However, is it possible that Moscow will inflict a nuclear strike on those states that begin to conduct a military operation against Lukashenka? Is it possible that this will deter them from taking harsh actions against Lukashenka?

– If Russia was ready to launch a nuclear strike on Europe and the United States (and face retaliatory strikes), it would already have done it. If Russia were ready to invade Eastern Europe with its troops, it would have done it already. Russia has no need to send troops to protect Lukashenka, these troops are already there, at least from 2020-2021. Is Russia ready to fight NATO troops in Belarus? By the way, we know that the Russian army is not prepared judging on its successes in fighting in Ukraine. Will the Belarusian army fight on Putin's side against NATO troops in Belarus? It will not because there will be Belarusian units that are already fighting in Ukraine on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the Russian occupiers at the forefront of these troops. Still, only the units of the Kalinouski regiment are not enough to overthrow the Lukashenka regime and restore democracy in Belarus. The support of the Ukrainian army is also needed, and to be sure, also the support of the armies of Lithuania and Poland, which are part of NATO troops. I would prefer that the military operation to liberate Belarus be completed before July 1, 2023. Since no later than September 2023, Putin plans to launch a nuclear strike on Eastern Europe from Belarus, even despite the fact that this scenario, as you mentioned previously, “sounds quite unrealistic” for many. But it will be too late when it "sounds realistic".

As for Russia's retaliatory nuclear strike on Europe in the event of an invasion of the Allied forces into Belarus, it is impossible for the same formal reasons that make it impossible for NATO to deliver a retaliatory strike on the territory of the Russian Federation in the event of nuclear strikes on Europe from Belarus. That is why Putin did not annex Belarus all these years to have it as an independent buffer state at the initial stage of the war with the West, when Russia used the territory of Belarus for military operations, and the West continues to consider Belarus an independent state not violating its “integrity”.