Russia and Belarus Conduct Large-Scale Nuclear Forces Exercises
From May 19 to 21, exercises are underway involving 64,000 troops, 200 missile launchers, and 8 Russian strategic submarines. For the first time, nuclear warheads have been delivered to field storage sites of a missile brigade in Belarus as part of the drills.
Nuclear 'Iskander' on Belarusian Soil: What's Really Behind the 'West-2026' Exercises
The Gist: What's Actually Happening
From May 19 to 21, 2026, Russia and Belarus are conducting the largest strategic nuclear forces maneuvers in post-Soviet history. The exercises involve over 64,000 military personnel, more than 200 missile launchers, 13 submarines (8 of which are strategic missile cruisers), and 140 aircraft. But the key event that turned a routine training into a geopolitical bombshell is the officially confirmed delivery of nuclear warheads to field storage sites of a missile brigade in Belarus.
The Russian Defense Ministry's wording is extremely specific: "Personnel of the missile brigade of the Republic of Belarus are performing combat training tasks to receive special munitions for Iskander-M tactical missile systems, loading them onto carrier missiles, and covertly moving to a designated area to prepare for launches." This is the first time in history that nuclear warheads have been openly delivered to field positions outside Russian territory.
The Belarusian Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry insist the exercises are planned, not directed against third countries, and do not threaten regional security. However, the scale of the maneuvers—closing forests in 19 districts of Belarus bordering Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania—suggests this is not a routine drill but a full-fledged show of force on NATO's eastern flank.
Timeline and Context
2023. Russia announces the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. The transfer of Iskander-M operational-tactical systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Minsk is officially confirmed.
2024. The updated Russian nuclear doctrine officially includes a provision extending the "nuclear umbrella" to Belarus. This legally enshrines the possibility of using Russian nuclear weapons to defend the ally.
Late 2024. Russian Oreshnik intermediate-range missile systems, also capable of carrying nuclear warheads, are deployed in Belarus.
February 5, 2026. The New START treaty—the last major agreement regulating Russian and American nuclear arsenals—expires. Moscow and Washington enter an era of complete absence of mutual control over strategic weapons.
March-April 2026. Ukrainian drones conduct a series of successful strikes on targets in European Russia. According to analysts, the May 9 parade comes with noticeable reputational costs for the Kremlin. Simultaneously, NATO conducts large-scale maneuvers in Poland and the Baltics, while France and Poland announce joint nuclear exercises over the Baltic Sea.
May 15, 2026. Belarusian authorities close forests in 19 districts along the borders with Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania. There is no official explanation, but analysts see this as preparation for covert deployment zones for missile systems.
May 19–21, 2026. Exercises involving all components of the nuclear triad are conducted. For the first time in history, nuclear warheads are delivered to field positions in Belarus.
Who Wins and Who Loses
Russia wins. The Kremlin accomplishes three tasks at once. First, it demonstrates the ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in close proximity to NATO borders—the flight time of an Iskander to Warsaw is minutes. Second, it diverts attention from military setbacks and successful Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian territory. Third, it tests the West's reaction to a qualitatively new level of escalation.
Belarus loses—but Lukashenko wins. The country finally loses its military sovereignty. As experts from BELPOL note, "Belarus lost its military sovereignty on February 24, 2022, and this was cemented by the Collective Security Treaty of the Union State." However, for Lukashenko himself, the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons is a guarantee of personal security and status as an indispensable ally.
Ukraine loses. The emergence of a "Belarusian balcony" with nuclear weapons creates a threat on the northern front. Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrskyi confirmed in a recent interview: "The threat from Belarus is real. The Russian General Staff is now actively calculating and planning offensive operations from the north."
NATO loses—in the information domain. The alliance finds itself in a trap: a tough response would confirm the Kremlin's narrative of a "NATO threat," while a soft one would demonstrate weakness. So far, Western reaction has been limited to rhetoric, which Moscow sees as a victory.
What the Media Isn't Saying
The main underestimated aspect of the exercises was articulated by Vladimir Zhigar, a representative of the BELPOL initiative: There is no confirmed data that Russian tactical nuclear weapons are physically deployed in Belarus at all.
This sounds paradoxical given the official statements from the Russian Defense Ministry, but the facts are as follows: BELPOL has actively sought evidence of the presence of nuclear weapons and found none. "There are no confirmed facts of this. We checked, searched, looked. Even if it were deployed, it would require a significant number of Russian military personnel—there are no Strategic Missile Forces in Belarus. But no such redeployment has been detected in recent years."
Moreover, when similar but smaller-scale exercises were held a year ago, "Russian military saw the absolute unpreparedness of their Belarusian colleagues to work with this type of weapon." In other words, the current delivery of nuclear warheads may not be the final stage of deployment but a training exercise—possibly with mock-ups rather than real warheads.
Second insight: Closing forests in 19 districts is not so much a military necessity as an element of psychological warfare. Zhigar directly calls the exercises an information-psychological special operation. The closed forests create an information vacuum in which any movement of equipment can be interpreted as preparation for an offensive. This is a classic technique of creating uncertainty, forcing the enemy to disperse forces across all potentially threatened directions.
Third aspect: The legal framework for deploying nuclear weapons is in place, but that does not mean they are deployed. The Collective Security Treaty of the Union State, ratified in 2025, creates a legal framework. Certain infrastructure for rapid redeployment exists. But there is a huge gap between "we can deploy" and "we have deployed."
Forecast: Next 30 Days and 90 Days
30 days (until end of June 2026).
The exercises are over, but the information wave will grow. I expect three parallel processes. First: NATO and commercial satellite intelligence (Maxar, Planet Labs) will closely monitor Belarusian military facilities to see if nuclear warheads remain after the maneuvers. If the warheads (or their simulators) stay, it will mark a shift from "exercises" to "permanent deployment." Second: Ukraine will reinforce the northern front—Syrskyi has already given corresponding orders. Third: A debate will unfold in the Western expert community about whether the munitions were real or training dummies. There will be no answer—and that is part of the plan.
90 days (until end of August 2026).
By autumn, the main question will become clearer: was this a one-time demonstration or the beginning of a permanent nuclear presence in Belarus? If storage infrastructure is upgraded and Russian personnel increased, it will signal a transition to permanent deployment. If activity subsides, the version of a predominantly informational nature of the maneuvers will be confirmed.
By then, NATO's response will have taken shape and will likely be asymmetric: the alliance is unlikely to mirror the deployment of nuclear weapons in Poland but may accelerate the deployment of missile defense systems and increase its permanent contingent on the eastern flank.
A separate storyline is China's role. Beijing, consistently opposed to nuclear proliferation, will find itself in a difficult position: public criticism of Moscow is unlikely, but approving the deployment of nuclear weapons near NATO's borders contradicts China's nuclear doctrine. Delicate consultations through closed channels are almost certainly already underway.
And the main question that remains unanswered: are nuclear weapons physically in Belarus, or is this a brilliantly orchestrated cover operation? The answer will determine whether Russia has crossed a real nuclear Rubicon or is only simulating that crossing.
— Editorial Team
No comments yet.