In the interview he had been asked to respond to recent comments of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who provoked anger out of Moscow by suggesting the Western military alliance could eventually see its nukes deployed to Eastern European partners.

According to state-run BelTA, the exchange went as follows:

The Belarusian head of state was asked about a recent statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg regarding the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe.

Aleksandr Lukashenko responded by saying: “Yes. Then I will suggest that Putin should return nuclear weapons to Belarus.”

“What nuclear weapons?” Dmitry Kiselyov asked Aleksandr Lukashenko to clarify.

The head of state said: “We will agree on what kind. The nuclear weapons that will be most effective in such an engagement. I said for a reason that we in Belarus’ territory are ready for it. As a thoughtful landlord I haven’t destroyed anything [of the USSR infrastructure for nuclear weapons], all the depots remain in place.“

The ending reference to “all the [USSR] depots” remaining in place and ready to go is certainly interesting related to what many pundits have dubbed the ‘new Cold War’, given also the renewed soaring tensions linked to everything from the emerging Ukraine crisis 2.0, to the Poland-Belarus migrant border standoff, to the US and Russia now tit-for-tat booting each other’s diplomats.

https://twitter.com/dinamite_girl/status/1465688364196274179?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It was in the midst of the migrant border standoff with Poland earlier this month, for which the EU slapped more sanctions on the Belarusian government, that Lukashenko first raised the nuclear hosting issue.

Reuters reported in mid-November that he “wants Russian nuclear-capable Iskander missile systems to deploy in the south and west of the country, he said in an interview with a Russian defense magazine…”

The bombshell remarks from Belarus’ long-time leader came after the US-led military bloc’s head, Jens Stoltenberg, expressed concern earlier this month that Germany’s new government could decline to purchase a new fleet of aircraft capable of launching nuclear weapons once chancellor Angela Merkel leaves her post.

Stoltenberg said that NATO’s nukes “provide European Allies with an effective nuclear umbrella. This, of course, also includes our eastern Allies and they are an important signal of Allied unity against any nuclear-armed adversary.” The bloc’s chief said that the plans to shuttle armaments was necessary because of the alleged threat posed by Russia.

Stoltenberg’s proposals drew ire in the Kremlin, with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko proclaiming that the NATO head’s remarks threaten the peace accords signed between the two parties. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, inked between Russia and the US-led bloc, was signed in May 1997. Under the agreement, Moscow and NATO do not consider each other as opponents. The document separately promised not to station nuclear weapons on the territory of new members of the bloc from that date onwards.

The military bloc’s potential deployment of atomic warheads even closer to Russia has long been a point of contention in relations between the two powers. Last year, Lavrov’s deputy, Sergey Ryabkov, said that Moscow hopes the US will stop “‘sharing’ nuclear weapons with its allies.”

While Russia and Belarus remain part of a closely cooperative union state – such an action as Russia transferring such weaponry to Belarus would without doubt trigger a crisis on par with the 2014 Crimean crisis (or beyond), and potentially leading to war with NATO. And given Putin recently had to distance himself from Lukashenko’s threats to shut off Russian energy supplies running through Belarus, it’s highly unlikely the Kremlin would ever sign off on stationing nukes there. Of course that could all change depending on how close NATO in the future places its own nuclear arsenal.