A New York Times analysis shows security upgrades unique to Russian nuclear storage facilities, at a Cold War-era munitions depot.

Russia already has nuclear warheads on its own soil that are close to Ukraine and NATO countries, but by basing some in Belarus, the Kremlin appears to be trying to accentuate its nuclear threat and bolster its nuclear deterrent.

Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, made reference to such a site early last year, saying Russia would soon be completing the construction of “special storage for tactical nuclear weapons” in Belarus.

The New York Times analyzed satellite imagery and photos, and spoke with nuclear weapons and arms control experts, to track the new construction, which started in March 2023.

The site is 120 miles north of the Ukrainian border at a military depot next to the town of Asipovichy. Some of the recently built structures there have features that are unique to nuclear storage facilities at bases inside Russia. For example, a new, highly secure area is surrounded by three layers of fencing, in addition to the existing security perimeter of the entire base. Another telltale sign is a covered loading area connected to what appears to be a concealed Soviet-era underground bunker.

MBFC
Archive

  • DarkThoughts
    -5•6 months ago

    Why publicize this instead of handing it to government officials? The NYT is really doing some weird shit recently.

    • @breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOPEnglish
      21•6 months ago

      A U.S. State Department spokesperson would not say if the United States was monitoring any particular site in Belarus, but said the department is keeping a close eye on the situation in order “to ensure Russia maintains control of its weapons in the event of any deployment to Belarus and upholds its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” An April 2024 State Department report said that the U.S. would not change its nuclear posture in response to the developments in Belarus.

      What in the article makes you think that governments don’t know about this? I’d gamble that there’s about a 0% chance that this is news to military intelligence.

      • DarkThoughts
        -10•6 months ago

        What in the article makes you think that governments don’t know about this?

        What about my comment makes you think that I thought that?

        • @BradleyUffner@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6•6 months ago

          You suggested that they should have given this info to the government instead of publishing it. That implies you thought the government didn’t know about it.

          • DarkThoughts
            -3•6 months ago

            It implies that there’s no way for us to know for sure but that we should rather inform governments instead of the public about those kind of information.

            • @pufferfischerpulver@feddit.deEnglish
              2•6 months ago

              Well now the government knows? That’s assuming they didn’t know and / or haven’t been informed ahead of publication. I don’t see where the danger in having this information available publicly is?

    • @floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
      19•6 months ago

      I imagine if the NY Times is putting it out there it’s probably something the US government wants out there.

    • @lud@lemm.eeEnglish
      9•6 months ago

      Why not? It’s not like it matters. If they actually try to use nukes every is likely to die anyway. It doesn’t really matter if NATO knows exactly where they are and of course they know, and of course Russia knows that NATO knows.

      But it’s interesting from a political stance that Russia has nukes in Belarus.

      • @FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3•6 months ago

        Would be very interesting if they manage to defenestrate Lukashenko and come up with an actual democracy…Vlad waking up to a neighbor with his nukes might give them pause

        • @bamboo@lemm.eeEnglish
          4•6 months ago

          If Lukashenko were to be assassinated, Russia would likely just formally annex the territory. Lukashenko already lost an election to the opposition, and Putin just kept him there anyways. No chance the opposition could take over without first defeating the Russian military.