Conor here: Putin sure seems to have more than enough reasons to turn to some of the measures Korybko mentions below. The problem is it’s not clear that Zelensky and his European handlers subscribe to realpolitik deterrence theory. They are willing to fight to the “last Ukrainian”—and perhaps more in their anti-Russia crusade. While Korybko mentions the use of tactical nuclear weapons to finally restore deterrence, why assume that would be effective?
For now, Moscow continues with the slow burn approach:
The Russians have reportedly struck a bridge and the Dniprogres dam (also serving as a bridge) in the city of Zaporizhzhia. A worrying development in the light of the media campaign in Russia to start destroying bridges across the Dnipro as a revenge for drone attacks on Moscow.…
— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) June 20, 2026
As for what’s driving Zelensky and his handler’s threats against Belarus? Here’s one theory:
IMO his “plan” is to credibly threaten an invasion of Belarus to force Russia to redeploy troops and disrupt the rest of the summer offensive season. Don’t really think it’ll work, they don’t have the reserves for that, but who knows. https://t.co/MCiZpSd33q
— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) June 19, 2026
And on another front, it looks like Zelensky might have to start threatening Poland here soon too:
Zelensky sends by post Polish order back to President of Poland after Nawrocki stripped him of it in response to glorification of UPA that perpetrated mass murder of Poles, Jews & Ukrainians. Bandera OUN organized UPA from police which assisted Nazi genocide.… pic.twitter.com/f9mllxZ3Nm
— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) June 20, 2026
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website.
Russia can’t allow US-backed Ukraine to attack Belarus with impunity otherwise it risks losing its closest ally, whether to destruction or Lukashenko’s “defection” to the West, either scenario of which would shift the strategic balance of power in the Ukrainian Conflict to Russia’s supreme disadvantage.
Zelensky gave Lukashenko one week to remove air defenses and drone relay transmitters along their joint border otherwise Ukraine will do it for him. This comes amidst their growing tensions that have been boiling since spring after Zelensky implied that Ukraine could capture Lukashenko like the US captured Maduro on the pretext of preempting a supposedly imminent Belarusian invasion of Ukraine. This closely resembles their summer 2024 crisis which readers learn more about here, here, and here.
The crucial difference between then and now, however, is that the West and Ukraine no longer have any respect for Russia’s “red lines” after Putin’s noble efforts to avert a dangerous escalation cycle that could inadvertently lead to World War III were misperceived by them as “weakness”. Being a consummate pragmatist, he projected his calculations onto them and thus thought that they’d stop after realizing that they’re playing with fire, but all that happened is that they no longer take Russia’s deterrence seriously.
Over the past two years, Ukraine invaded Russia’s Kursk Region, conducted “Operation Spiderweb” against its nuclear triad, tried assassinating Putin at his residence in Valdai, began carrying out long-range drone strikes against St. Petersburg (which many speculate transit through Baltic airspace) and recently Moscow too, and Trump is now preparing to “escalate to de-escalate” after sensing even more “weakness” than ever from Putin. This has sparked a harsh reaction from top Russian thought leaders.
Top hawk Sergey Karaganov still insists on a first strike against Europe, first with conventional weapons and then with nukes if they retaliate, for restoring deterrence even though Putin declared in early June that such talk “is not simply nonsense; it is a provocation.” Meanwhile, former top Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov warned that the West is trying to “boil the frog”, with one of their goals being to neutralize its nuclear forces. He called for Russia to stop being so “nice” to its foes and finally enforce its “red lines”.
Zelensky’s ultimatum to Lukashenko gives Putin the chance to finally restore deterrence. Belarus is Russia’s mutual defense ally and they both participate in the Union State project. Moreover, Russia also has hypersonic Oreshnik missiles and tactical nukes in Belarus, which were deployed precisely for deterrence purposes. As Putin himself declared in September 2024, “We reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Union State.”
Accordingly, Putin could advise Lukashenko to reject Zelensky’s ultimatum, promising that Russia will retaliate against Ukraine for any attack against Belarus by authorizing the first-ever combat use of the Oreshniks (he recently clarified that prior such uses in Ukraine were for testing purposes). If Ukraine aggression against Belarus is significant, such as if it attacks the 500 targets that a top drone commander claimed late last month had been identified there, then Russia could retaliate with tactical nukes instead.
Russia can’t allow US-backed Ukraine to attack Belarus with impunity otherwise it risks losing its closest ally, whether to destruction or Lukashenko’s “defection” to the West, either scenario of which would shift the strategic balance of power in the Ukrainian Conflict to Russia’s supreme disadvantage. Putin must therefore finally restore deterrence or risk the worst-case endgame scenario in this proxy war. The conflict’s outcome is still far from decided, but that could instantly change depending on what he does.
The idea that this would limit the Russian forces available for their summer offensive strikes me as utter nonsense: defending one’s allies is not part of the “SVO” police operation (which involves only contract troops) but rather the defense of an ally’s territory. A war, then. This could pave the way for the deployment of conscript units, of which there is a surplus in the Russian army.
Given the weakness and lack of motivation and training among Ukrainian troops in the rear, this could be closer to “live-fire training” for the Russians than to a real offensive.
The use of strategic weapons (missiles and even nuclear weapons) is de facto and de jure authorized in the event of an attack on the territory of Russia or an ally.
Here, “Z” shows that he is at the end of his rope and that a nuclear war in Europe seems preferable to him than continuing down the current path, which is leading him inexorably to defeat. This kind of paranoid reasoning, leading to delusions of grandeur and an underestimation of risks, is typical of the side effects of regular cocaine use, which appears to be commonplace in the upper echelons of Kyiv.
It looks as if Zelensky is taking a page from Iran’s handbook with respect to attacking the attacker’s allies. Anyway, Russia’s using tactical nukes would be a major escalatory step towards nuclear apocalypse and an atrocity, in addition to setting a horrible precedent. They could be a weapon of last resort in case of a full-scale invasion threatening to capture Minsk and overthrow the government, but hardly if this is just about bombing some installations across the border.
‘But we will lose the war and our prestige otherwise’ is not a sufficient reason to use nukes. Nukes are not supposed to be a guarantee that you get to achieve whatever aims you set yourself and to win all your wars, they are supposed to be a weapon of last resort to be used in self-defence if you are being invaded (or attacked with nukes, obviously), and for all of the Kremlin’s suggestions that it is acting to prevent something like that in the future, that is not happening yet. Using nukes in advance just to prevent a hypothetical future development is unwarranted (and considering it acceptable would make their use ubiquitous). And even if you are being invaded, it seems, well, a bit ridiculous to claim that you are forced to use nukes in response to the invasion when you yourself have started the war and invaded the country that is invading you. Maybe try stopping your own invasion first?