In the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, tense dynamics continue to evolve, particularly regarding the involvement of Belarus. As the situation develops, it becomes imperative to analyze potential motivations and strategies of the key players involved. This update delves into recent events and implications for regional stability.
Conor here: Vladimir Putin appears to have ample justification for considering the strategies outlined by Korybko below. However, there is uncertainty about whether Volodymyr Zelensky and his European allies are truly aligned with realpolitik deterrence theory. They seem prepared to fight “to the last Ukrainian,” driven by their anti-Russian agenda. Korybko discusses the prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons to restore deterrence, yet one must question their effectiveness in this scenario.
At present, Moscow is adopting a slow burn approach:
Reports indicate that Russian forces have targeted a bridge and the Dniprogres dam (which also serves as a bridge) in Zaporizhzhia. This is a concerning development given the ongoing media campaign in Russia calling for the destruction of bridges across the Dnipro in retaliation for drone strikes on Moscow….
— Leonid Ragozin (@leonidragozin) June 20, 2026
Regarding the motivations behind Zelensky’s threats directed at Belarus, one hypothesis is as follows:
I believe his “plan” is to credibly threaten an invasion of Belarus to compel Russia to reposition its troops, thereby disrupting the remainder of the summer offensive. I’m not convinced it will succeed, as they lack the reserves for such an endeavor, but it’s worth noting. https://t.co/MCiZpSd33q
— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) June 19, 2026
On another front, it appears Zelensky may soon extend his threats toward Poland as well:
Zelensky returns a Polish honor to the President of Poland after Nawrocki revoked it in response to the glorification of UPA, responsible for the mass murder of Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians. The Bandera OUN organized the UPA from the police, which assisted in Nazi genocide.… pic.twitter.com/f9mllxZ3Nm
— Ivan Katchanovski (@I_Katchanovski) June 20, 2026
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, under the Russian Foreign Ministry. This article was originally published on his website.
Russia must not permit a US-backed Ukraine to launch attacks on Belarus without consequences; otherwise, it risks losing its closest ally through either annihilation or Lukashenko’s potential “defection” to the West. Either outcome would significantly alter the strategic landscape of the Ukrainian Conflict, placing Russia at a considerable disadvantage.
Zelensky has given Lukashenko a week to dismantle air defenses and drone relay transmitters along their mutual border, or else Ukraine will take action itself. This ultimatum comes amid escalating tensions, which have built since spring when Zelensky suggested that Ukraine could capture Lukashenko, akin to the US’s actions regarding Maduro, all under the pretext of preventing a supposed Belarusian invasion. This scenario mirrors a crisis from summer 2024, details of which are available here, here, and here.
The significant difference now lies in the West’s and Ukraine’s diminishing regard for Russia’s “red lines.” Putin’s attempts to avert potential escalation that could inadvertently lead to World War III have been misunderstood as a sign of weakness. As a pragmatic leader, he projected his assumptions onto them, expecting they would recognize the risks involved. However, this has only led them to dismiss Russia’s deterrent posture.
Over the last two years, Ukraine has invaded Russia’s Kursk Region, conducted “Operation Spiderweb” against its nuclear capabilities, attempted an assassination on Putin at his residence, and has executed long-range drone strikes against cities like St. Petersburg (many believe transit through Baltic airspace) and even more recently Moscow as well. Additionally, Trump seems poised to “escalate to de-escalate,” having detected unprecedented “weakness” from Putin, igniting a backlash from major Russian strategists.
Top hawk Sergey Karaganov advocates for a first strike against Europe, starting with conventional weapons, and escalating to nukes if retaliated against, all to restore deterrence. Conversely, Putin dismissed this notion in early June, calling it “not merely nonsense, but a provocation.” Meanwhile, former top Russian intelligence officer Andrey Bezrukov cautioned that the West is attempting to “boil the frog,” seeking to neutralize its nuclear arsenal. He urged Russia to abandon its overly generous stance toward adversaries and enforce its “red lines.”
Zelensky’s ultimatum presents Putin with an opportunity to restore deterrence. Belarus stands as Russia’s mutual defense partner, participating in the Union State initiative. Moreover, Russia possesses hypersonic Oreshnik missiles and tactical nuclear weapons stationed in Belarus specifically for deterrence purposes. Putin has publicly stated that “We reserve the right to deploy nuclear weapons in response to any aggression against Russia and Belarus as part of the Union State.”
Consequently, Putin could motivate Lukashenko to reject Zelensky’s ultimatum, assuring him that Russia will respond to any Ukrainian aggression against Belarus. This retaliation could involve the unprecedented combat deployment of the Oreshnik missiles (previous uses in Ukraine were merely tests) if the aggression is substantial, such as an attack on the 500 identified targets claimed by a top drone commander late last month. In the case of significant aggression, Russia might resort to tactical nuclear weapons.
Russia cannot afford to allow US-backed Ukraine to attack Belarus without repercussions; failing to respond risks losing its closest ally to either destruction or a potential shift towards the West. Such developments would significantly alter the strategic balance in the Ukrainian Conflict, placing Russia at a substantial disadvantage. Thus, Putin must restore deterrence effectively, or face the disastrous consequences of a worsening proxy war. While the conflict’s outcome remains uncertain, pivotal actions in the coming days or weeks could dramatically shift the trajectory.
