I’m a bit dubious that even Putin’s Russia would hand control of working nuclear weapons to any neighbors, allied puppet or not.
The increasingly warm relations between Moscow and Tehran makes me wonder what Russia is offering Iran in exchange for all those drones they’re using to attack Ukraine.
Some nuclear ‘know how’ would be all too on form for the current Russian government.
Quite the photo choice for Lukashenko.
Aide: President Lukashenko, what are you doing?
Lukashenko: Checking to make sure.
But he just has.
Though the operative word there may be “control”. Putin may control the puppet Lukashenko, but I bet he will not let Lukashenko control the tactical nukes now inside Belarus.
I already posted this in the Nukes thread, but it belongs here too.
Tokayev commented on Lukashenko’s recent statement about Kazakhstan joining the Union State and the Kremlin’s readiness to share nuclear weapons with everyone.
“Lukashenko offered Kazakhstan to join the Union State. I liked his joke. I think it is not necessary, because there are other integration associations, mainly the Eurasian Economic Union,” Tokayev said.
Who’s to know if they’re even viable? Inoperative one’s would have same effect.
Came here for this. Thank you.
So, PAL, does everyone get nuclear weapons; or just the exciting opportunity to host the Kremlin’s nuclear weapons for them?
Air Ballistic & Bombs?
I’m sure there’s nneo-Confederates who want Texas or similar to succeed who have already contacted him asking about the application process.
… I’m not clear on how “joining the Union State” is any different from just being annexed by Russia
Wagner Group don’t come in to remove the “fascists” if you join voluntarily.
Alaska would be an especially big score for Putin
IIRC many intelligent, well-educated Russians believe that the US only leased Alaska from Russia.
ETA: Found it.
There’s precedent for ensuring your allies are “armed” but not actually in control of the nukes: