Statement by Deputy Foreign Minister of Belarus I.Sekreta at the High-Level Segment of the UN Conference on Disarmament (February 23, 2026, Geneva)

• Home /
• Press Service /
• News /

Statement by Deputy Foreign Minister of Belarus I.Sekreta at the High-Level Segment of the UN Conference on Disarmament (February 23, 2026, Geneva)

Mr. Chairman,

The Conference on Disarmament, much like its predecessor, the Committee on Disarmament, has made a tremendous contribution to ensuring international peace, security, and stability since its inception.

Unfortunately, the hope that the new post-Cold War system of international relations would be based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than rivalry created a false sense of complacency. Peace and security began to be taken for granted. The so-called "victors" of the Cold War chose to abandon the principle of equal and indivisible security, disregarding the legitimate security concerns of other nations.

The mechanisms for non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament - which for a long time served as the connective tissue of the international and regional security architecture - are crumbling and falling into decay before our eyes; however, this process began long before today.

We regret that just over two weeks ago, the Russian-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) ceased to exist. We hope that the dangerous vacuum in the sphere of nuclear arms control, which has emerged for the first time since the early 1970s, will be filled by a new multilateral instrument.

Against the backdrop of the degradation of international obligations and legal security guarantees, and the blatant disregard for international law, the world has once again returned to a point where the nuclear threat is clearly visible.

Intimidation, disinformation, the dehumanization of potential adversaries, and the prioritized development of the military-industrial complex are gaining increasing weight.

Under the pretext of a mythical "threat from the East," NATO is taking unprecedented measures to raise the military spending levels of its members to 5%. The total military expenditures of Alliance member states have long surpassed $1 trillion. In effect, the flywheel of the European military-industrial complex has been spun up to wartime speeds. Why is this necessary if, as our Western neighbors claim, they have no intention of attacking Belarus? No one spends money on missiles, mines, and tanks for no reason.

The recent withdrawal of our neighbors from the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines contributes to the destruction of the system of international humanitarian law, escalates military-political tensions in the region, and plays into the hands of arms corporations. Who do they intend to fight with anti-personnel mines? It appears they will be fighting their own citizens living in border areas.

I believe there are many military experts and representatives of special services in this hall who do not need to be told the dangers of anti-personnel mines and their destructive impact, particularly given the lack of precise maps and deployment schemes. In Belarus, a country that survived World War II, unexploded ordnance is still being recovered during construction work to this day. By voluntarily withdrawing from the Convention, our neighbors are now building up and preparing to use this dangerous arsenal.

American tactical nuclear weapons continue to be stationed on the territory of several European countries. Missile defense systems are deployed in Poland, the technical characteristics of which allow for the use of "Tomahawk" cruise missiles. Certain European nations have announced intentions to deploy American intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles on their territory or to purchase corresponding weapons systems.

How can a country like Belarus protect itself in the absence of reliable security guarantees and real confidence-building measures?

We are not engaging in a mindless arms race by radically increasing military spending. We have better things to spend our money on-our elderly and our children, and the economic well-being of our citizens.

However, given the evolving situation, we were compelled to host Russian tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent. For the same purpose, the Russian missile system "Oreshnik" was deployed on Belarusian territory. The Treaty on Security Guarantees within the framework of the Union State, signed last year by Belarus and Russia, provides for the use of any types of weapons, including nuclear ones, for defense. I emphasize: use for defense.

Our response is proportionate to the growing challenges and threats to national security and the level of escalation in the region; it is exclusively defensive in nature and is carried out in strict accordance with international law, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

I would remind critics that as far back as 2019, Belarus launched an initiative to develop a multilateral political declaration on the non-deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles following the collapse of the INF Treaty. Unfortunately, our initiative was not heard - or rather, there was no desire to hear or support it.

We do not seek confrontation. On the contrary, we are doing everything possible to reduce military-political tension in the region. A concrete example is our approach to the joint Belarusian-Russian exercises "Zapad-2025" last September. We significantly reduced the number of personnel and moved the main maneuvers deep into Belarusian territory. As a gesture of goodwill, all OSCE participating states were invited to observe the exercises. Regrettably, many Western countries did not participate, although some states, including the United States, were represented in the observation of the drills.

Mr. President,

Belarus lost every third resident in the Second World War. The categorical rejection of war, conflict, and violence is embedded in the genetic code of every Belarusian.

Overcoming international contradictions and the crisis of trust is possible only through diplomacy and dialogue. There are no alternatives to this, nor can there be. This is why Belarus remains a consistent proponent of such an approach.

We hope that the work of the Peace Council, established last week, will contribute both to the post-conflict settlement in the Middle East and to the accumulation of valuable experience for other hotspots on our planet.

We welcome the recent agreements between the United States and Russia to restore high-level military-to-military dialogue. This is an important signal aimed at restoring trust and de-escalating tensions.

We look forward to continuing professional discussions on the future of Eurasian security during the now-traditional IV Minsk Conference, which we plan to hold this autumn. This is our significant contribution to overcoming confrontation and searching for joint solutions between Europe and Asia to form an equal and indivisible security space.

In conclusion, I would also like to highlight the prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and new systems of such weapons, which is one of Belarus's priorities at disarmament forums in 2026. During the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, Belarus plans to submit its traditional draft resolution: "Prohibition of the development and manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons: report of the Conference on Disarmament."

Global peace is not a given or an option; it is a vital necessity. Peace must be pursued through the rejection of confrontation and political ambition, and through the development of effective, long-term solutions in the field of international security and disarmament. We call on everyone to follow this approach and offer it our full support.

Thank you for your attention.

print version