The Journal of Slavic Military Studies
ISSN: 1351-8046 (Print) 1556-3006 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fslv20
Biological Weapons Allegations: A Russian
Propaganda Tool to Negatively Implicate the
United States
Roger Roffey & Anna-Karin Tunemalm
To cite this article: Roger Roffey & Anna-Karin Tunemalm (2017) Biological Weapons Allegations:
A Russian Propaganda Tool to Negatively Implicate the United States, The Journal of Slavic
Military Studies, 30:4, 521-542, DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2017.1377010
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2017.1377010
Published online: 31 Oct 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fslv20
Download by: [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT]
Date: 01 November 2017, At: 00:35
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
2017, VOL. 30, NO. 4, 521–542
https://doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2017.1377010
Biological Weapons Allegations: A Russian Propaganda
Tool to Negatively Implicate the United States
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
Roger Roffey and Anna-Karin Tunemalm
Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)
ABSTRACT
In recent years, biological weapons issues have repeatedly
been raised by Russian officials and state-controlled media.
Considering that biological weapons development and the
use thereof are banned by international law, to insinuate that
another state is engaged in activities with offensive signatures
is politically sensitive. What are the underlying motives for
raising these issues? Is Russia using anti-American propaganda
in the biosecurity arena as a tool to discredit the United States
for general political reasons, or is it used as a means for
internal purposes to motivate increased funding for advanced
biodefense research and development? A need for additional
funding is also in line with views of the Russian military and
security doctrines where the threat from biological weapons is
explicitly addressed. Russian discrediting is related to the US
support of biosafety/biosecurity upgrades at biological laboratories in the former Soviet republics. This Russian stance
toward the United States was also reflected in the run-up to
the 8th Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin
Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 2016, supported by statements of officials indicating that Russia is threatened by US
activities in the biological weapons area. This type of unsubstantiated accusations has not been helpful when attempts
were badly needed to make progress in the BTWC context.
Russian disinformation campaigns, in relation to biological
weapons and possible underlying causes, are presented and
discussed.
Introduction
Since 2013, there has been a marked increase in media and Russian official
documents, including the National Security Strategy, implying that the
United States is expanding military biological activities that could involve
the development of biological weapons on the border to Russia or disseminating biological warfare agents in countries belonging to the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). These accusations are in line
with Russia’s increasingly aggressive stance toward the United States, the
CONTACT Anna-Karin Tunemalm
anna-karin.tunemalm@foi.se
906 81 Umeå, Sweden.
Both authors have equally contributed to the article.
© 2017 Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI)
Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI),
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
522
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the European Union (EU)
in general that also includes responses to Western sanctions due to the
Russian annexation of Crimea. More and more attention has lately been
given to alleged Russian cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and a more
aggressive foreign policy in the wider perspective. ‘Hybrid tactics’ and information campaigns are useful instruments to dishonor opponents, and Russia
is using disinformation as a tool to discredit the United States and NATO by
referring to the enhancement of their area of influence along Russia’s border.
This presence contradicts Russia’s perceived desire for increased influence in
its neighborhood, at least to the borders of the former Soviet Union.
The use of biosecurity issues with reference to biological weapons to
incriminate is of concern in the impaired political security situation of
today. This is particularly troubling since states’ parties to the multilateral
treaty banning the development, acquisition production, or stockpiling of
biological or toxin weapons, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
(BTWC), could only agree on a very weak draft of a final declaration at its
8th Review Conference (RC) in Geneva conducted in November 2016.
Russia, being a former holder of biological weapons, and questions presented
by the United States concerning Russian non-compliance with the treaty only
add to the uncertain situation in what direction global initiatives in the
biosecurity arena will take.
Is what we see a part of a general anti-American campaign, or are there
further reasons for this observed focus on perceived adversaries regarding
biological weapons put forward by Russia? Could this propaganda negatively
influence the possibility to enhance biosecurity at laboratories in the former
Soviet republics, thus becoming less inclined to receive support from the
United States or other Western governments? Or is it a part of an overall
objective in discrediting Western influence in these states, states that Russia
perceives to be part of their area of influence? But why choose such a
sensitive issue as biological weapons if the objective of the propaganda is
not primarily focused on this area? Could the purpose for this type of
disinformation be to present a view that Russia is threatened by biological
weapons also from the United States, thus motivating a need to strengthen
the Russian military defense including biodefense?
As Russia is perceived to be more aggressive in its foreign policy, the
purpose of this study is to review, analyze, and discuss the recent Russian
accusations in the biosecurity area. We discuss the reasons behind these
accusations, taking into account that Russia is a former holder of biological
weapons, its declarations in its National Security Strategy and Military doctrine, and other official statements. Also of relevance is Russia’s positions at
the 8th BTWC RC, questions raised by the United States concerning Russian
compliance with the BTWC, and a number of Russian media reports covering biological weapons issues as well as ‘suspicious’ outbreaks of disease.
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
523
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
Propaganda as part of hybrid tactics
During the last decade, ‘hybrid tactics’ have received increased attention regarding
their role in different crises. In particular, the Russian intervention in Ukraine has
been discussed in relation to the use and effectiveness of hybrid warfare, which is
roughly accepted as a blend of conventional/unconventional, regular/irregular,
information campaigns, propaganda, and cyber warfare.1,2 Hybrid warfare,
including information warfare, is neither new nor exclusively Russian, especially
on a tactical level.3,4,5 The Russian Military Academy of the General Staff makes a
clear distinction between the Russian definition of information warfare — allencompassing and not limited to wartime — and the Western one — limited,
tactical information operations carried out during hostilities.6 These tactics are
reflected in the Russian military doctrine, updated and adopted in December 2014,
in which the importance of information and information technologies was
emphasized.7,8 The recent updated Russian Information Security Doctrine is
based on the fact that foreign states are intensifying their efforts to affect
Russia’s internal affairs, including by cyber-attacks against its key
infrastructure.9 Russian government agencies, scientific centers, and military
industries are believed to be targets for foreign intelligence services by means of
electronic and cyber surveillance.10,11,12 Lessons learned from the brief war with
Georgia in 2008 and during that war, according to Russian analysts, Russia’s not so
successful performance in information warfare, led to attempts to establish specific
information troops within the Russian Armed Forces.13
K. Giles, ‘Russia’s Hybrid Warfare: A Success in ‘Propaganda’, Security Policy Working Paper, 1 (2015),
Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik.
2
B. Renz and H. Smith, ‘Russia and Hybrid Warfare — Going Beyond the Label’, Aleksanteri Papers 1 (2016),
Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland, Kikimora Publications.
3
N. Popescu, ‘Hybrid Tactics: Neither New nor Only Russian’, Alert Issue, European Union Institute for Security Studies,
4 (2015), doi:10.2815/378749.
4
S. Blank, ‘Russia, Hybrid War and the Evolution of Europe’, Second Line of Defense, 14 February 2015, http://www.
sldinfo.com/russia-hybrid-war-and-the-evolution-of-europe/ (accessed 10 December 2016).
5
U. Franke, ‘War by Non-Military Means: Understanding Russian Information Warfare’, Report FOI-R-4065-SE, FOI,
Stockholm, March 2015.
6
K. Giles, ‘The Next Phase of Russian Information Warfare’, NATO Strategic Communication Center of Excellence
(2016), http://www.stratcomcoe.org/next-phase-russian-information-warfare-keir-giles (accessed 7 August 2016).
7
Russian Federation, ‘Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation’, approved by Russian Federation Presidential Edict
No. 2976 on 25 December 2014, http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/41d527556bec8deb3530.pdf (accessed
2 August 2016).
8
Y. Fedchenko, ‘Kremlin Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures by Other Means’, 21 March 2016, http://www.
stopfake.org/en/kremlin-propaganda-soviet-active-measures-by-other-means/#_ftnref3 (accessed 2 August 2016).
9
President of Russia, ‘Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation’, 6 December 2016, Kremlin, Moscow,
№ 646, https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2016/12/19/information-security-doctrine-of-the-russian-federation
-6-december-2016/ (accessed 11 February 2017).
10
Russian Government, ‘Information Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation’, signed by President Putin, 2009.
11
‘Vladimir Putin Signs New Russian Information Security Doctrine’, RT, 6 December 2016, https://www.rt.com/
news/369302-putin-russia-information-security/ (accessed 28 December 2016).
12
‘Russia Updates Plan to Counter Cyberattacks and Foreign Influence’, New York Times, 6 December 2016, http://
www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/europe/russia-putin-cyberattacks.html (accessed 28 December 2016).
13
K. Giles, ‘“Information Troops” — A Russian Cyber Command?’, 3rd International Conference on Cyber Conflict,
CCD COE Publications, Tallinn, Estonia, 2011, pp. 45–60; C. Vendil Pallin & F. Westerlund ‘Russia’s War in Georgia:
Lessons and Consequences’, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 20(2009), pp. 400–424, doi:10.1080/095923109029755.
1
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
524
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
In the media propaganda context, it can be relevant to mention the phenomenon of so-called troll factories with people employed to produce proRussian and anti-Western propaganda. Their disinformation campaigns are
becoming more sophisticated in responding to countermeasures by Western
countries.14,15,16,17 Western governments’ tactics to counter this phenomenon
includes the establishment in 2015 by the EU of the unit EEAS, East Strat Com
Task Force, to monitor and respond to Russia’s ongoing disinformation
campaigns.18,19,2021,22 Also, NATO has a Strategic Communication Center of
Excellence for ‘strategic communications’ in Riga, Latvia.23 The United States
is beefing up its previous Soviet-era efforts against disinformation within the
State Department.24 The US Congress approved an initiative to track and
combat foreign propaganda due to growing concerns that Russian efforts to
spread ‘fake news’ and disinformation threaten US national security.25
One of the main global threats, according to President Putin, is the United
States and NATO.26 Russian strategists use the term ‘hybrid war’ to refer to
alleged US efforts to weaken and ultimately overthrow governments, as in
Ukraine, according to the Russian view. Russia is said to asses these alleged
US activities as a rehearsal for an analogous operation directed against Russia
in the future, and the country’s officials warn of the increasing likelihood of
hybrid operations on Russian territory.27
14
M. Daugulis, speaking at the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence inaugural conference,
20 August 2015.
15
‘Internet Trolling as a Hybrid Warfare Tool: The Case of Latvia’, NATO Strategic Communications Centre of
Excellence, 16 July 2015, http://www.stratcomcoe.org/internet-trolling-hybrid-warfare-tool-case-latvia (accessed
27 December 2016).
16
A. Chen, ‘The Agency’, New York Times, 2 June 2015, http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/theagency.html (accessed 20 November 2016).
17
K. Giles, ‘Russia’s “New” Tools for Confronting the West Continuity and Innovation in Moscow’s Exercise of Power’,
Research Paper, Chatham House, Russia and Eurasia Program, March 2016, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/
files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016-03-21-russias-new-tools-giles.pdf (accessed 25 April 2016).
18
Atlantic Council, ‘Western Media Must Fight Russia’s Lethal Propaganda More Aggressively’, 22 September 2015,
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/western-media-must-fight-russia-s-lethal-propaganda-moreaggressively (accessed 2 October 2017).
19
K. Giles, ‘Russia’s “New” Tools for Confronting the West’, pp. 45–46 and 52–53, https://www.chathamhouse.org/
sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016-03-21-russias-new-tools-giles.pdf (accessed 25 April 2016).
20
European Commission, ‘Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Joint Framework on
Countering Hybrid Threats: A European Union Response’, 6 April 2016, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52016JC0018&from=EN (accessed 12 November 2016).
21
EU vs. Disinformation, http://eeas.europa.eu/euvsdisinfo/ (accessed 7 August 2016).
22
European Council meeting, 19 and 20 March 2015 — Conclusions, p. 7.
23
K. Giles, ‘The Next Phase of Russian Information Warfare’.
24
A. Appelbaum and E. Lucas, ‘Putin’s News Network of Lies Is Just the Start’, Newsweek, 8 November 2015, http://
europe.newsweek.com/putins-news-network-lies-just-start-331451?rm=eu (accessed 18 July 2016).
25
C. Timberg, ‘Effort to Combat Foreign Propaganda Advances in Congress’, Washington Post, 30 November, 2016,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/effort-to-combat-foreign-propaganda-advances-incongress/2016/11/30/9147e1ac-e221-47be-ab92-9f2f7e69d452_story.html?utm_term=.005ae2f1f049 (accessed
30 November 2016).
26
F. Hill, ‘Putin: The One-Man Show the West Doesn’t Understand’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 72(3) (2016),
pp.140–144, doi:10.1080/00963402.2016.1170361, http://tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2016.
1170361 (accessed 2 December 2016).
27
S. Charap, ‘The Ghost of Hybrid War’, Survival, 57(6) (2015), pp. 51–58, doi:10.1080/00396338.2015.1116147,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00396338.2015.1116147 (accessed 11 November 2016).
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
525
Russian disinformation campaigns directed against the United States in
general are not new.28,29 A notable example during the Cold War Era was a
Soviet Union-launched propaganda campaign indicating that the United
States developed AIDS/HIV as a part of biological weapons research and
development.30,31 The intention with this campaign was hinted at by the
KGB foreign intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, as he openly admitted in
1992, even though it is not possible to verify, that the KGB had circulated
propaganda that falsely claimed that the US Army made AIDS to kill Black
people.32 Another example was during and after the Korean War, when
North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union alleged that the United States
used biological weapons on a large scale in both China and North Korea.
Despite the public disclosure of Soviet Central Committee documents in
1998 that revealed that the allegations were fraudulent, China and much
more noisily, North Korea, still maintained these allegations.33 Later, China
also admitted that the accusation was fraudulent.34
After the Cold War’s end and the establishment of the US Nunn-Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR), the relationship between the
former Cold War adversaries was improved. Through this program, the
United States provided funding and expertise to former Soviet Union republics including Russia to secure and dismantle nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and infrastructure as well as re-direct former weapon
scientists.35 After President Boris Yeltsin had signed a decree that Russia
was the successor state to the BTWC and in addition stated that Russia
intended to strictly abide by it, and that work in violation of the treaty would
be stopped,36 official assessments regarding a remaining biological weapon
capability became less confrontational.
However, from 2013, Russian insinuations emerged again and became
more and more frequent, claiming that the US government was responsible
K. Giles, ‘Russia’s “New” Tools’.
V. Madeira, ‘Haven’t We Been Here Before?’, Institute of Statecraft, 30 July 2014, http://www.statecraft.org.uk/
research/russiansubversion-havent-we-been-here (accessed 20 July 2016).
30
U.S. Department of State, ‘AIDS as a Biological Weapon’, Embassy, IPP Digital, 5 January 2005, http://iipdigital.
usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2005/01/20050114151424atlahtnevel8.222598e-02.html#axzz3SzRz2gHZ
(accessed 11 November 2016).
31
H. Dale, ‘Putin’s Propaganda Machine Pumps Out Lies’, Newsweek, 6 December 2015, http://europe.newsweek.
com/putins-propaganda-machine-pumps-out-lies-328672 (accessed 18 July 2016).
32
Snapple, ‘KGB Propaganda about AIDS as a Biological Weapon’, The Legend of Pine Ridge (blog), 25 January, 2009,
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.se/2009/01/kgb-propaganda-about-aids-as-biological.html
(accessed
7 August 2016).
33
M. Leitenberg, ‘New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and
Analysis’, Cold War International History Project Bulletin, 11 (Winter 1998), pp. 180–199.
34
M. Leitenberg, ‘A Chinese Admission of False Korean War Allegation of Biological Weapon Use by the United States’, Asian
Perspective, 40(1), (2016) https://www.questia.com/read/1P3-3957054041/a-chinese-admission-of-false-korean-war-alle
gations (accessed 2 October 2017).
35
DTRA, Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, http://www.dtra.
mil/Missions/Partnering/Cooperative-Threat-Reduction-Program/
36
M. Leitenberg, R. A. Zilinskas, and J. H. Kuhn, The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012, pp. 633–634.
28
29
526
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
for developing, or even disseminating, biological weapons or agents. These
claims were essentially channelled through Russian state-controlled media.
The accusations were mainly focused on the US-supported modernization of
microbiological laboratories in bordering Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) and claimed that the United States had an underlying purpose
to exploit the laboratories for biological weapons development.
Biological weapons issues in the Russian National Security Strategy
(NSS) and other official documents and statements
The Russian National Security Strategy (NSS) from 2015 aims to prevent
Russia from being closed off from the rest of the world and envisages a
proactive foreign policy. Unlike the expressed threat from non-state actors in
the Foreign Policy Concept,37 in the NSS the threat from other states is
raised, exemplified by the United States.38 According to the head of the
Russian Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, the key objective of the NSS
is to strengthen national unity in the face of growing outside threats.39 In the
NSS, Russia explicitly expresses fears regarding the consequences of the
expansion of the network of US military-biological laboratories in the territory of states adjacent to Russia and how this poses a strategic threat not only
to Russia but also to Europe.40 The NSS states:
There remains a risk of an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear
weapons, the proliferation of chemical weapons and their utilization, and also
uncertainty with regard to foreign states’ potential possession, development, and
production of biological weapons. The network of US military-biological laboratories on the territory of states adjacent to Russia is being expanded.41
Russia’s military doctrine was amended in late December 2014.42 In this,
modern warfare is described to include (Paragraph 15b) ‘… weapons based
on new physical principles comparable to the use of nuclear weapons in
terms of effectiveness…’. This same phrasing was used in the military
‘Russia’s New Foreign Policy Concept Calls for Broad Anti-Terror Coalition’, Sputnik, 1 December 2016, https://
sputniknews.com/politics/201612011048059451-russia-foreign-policy/ (accessed 1 December 2016).
38
President of Russia, ‘The Strategy for National Security of Russian Federation’, Decree No. 683, signed by President
Putin on 31 December 2015, Paragraph 19, http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/ru/
l8iXkR8XLAtxeilX7JK3XXy6Y0AsHD5v.pdf (in Russian, accessed 20 December 2016); http://www.ieee.es/Galerias/
fichero/OtrasPublicaciones/Internacional/2016/Russian-National-Security-Strategy-31Dec2015.pdf
(accessed
2 December 2016).
39
P. Felgenhauer, ‘Putin Signs a National Security Strategy of Defiance and Pushback’, Eurasia Daily Monitor, 13(4)
(2016), https://jamestown.org/program/putin-signs-a-national-security-strategy-of-defiance-and-pushback/
(accessed 7 January 2016).
40
B. Gertz, ‘Russia Says US Expanding Bioweapons Labs in Europe’, Infowars, 13 January, 2016, http://www.infowars.
com/russia-says-u-s-expanding-bioweapons-labs-in-europe/ (accessed 27 November 2016).
41
President of Russia, ‘The Strategy for National Security of Russian Federation’, Decree No. 683, signed by President
Putin on 31 December 2015, Paragraph 19, http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/ru/
l8iXkR8XLAtxeilX7JK3XXy6Y0AsHD5v.pdf (accessed 20 December 2016).
42
Russian Federation, ‘The Military Doctrine’ (translated), Edict No. 2976, 25 December 2014, http://rusemb.org.uk/
press/2029 (accessed 12 December 2016).
37
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
527
doctrine from 2010. The term ‘weapons based on new physical principles’
was devised back in the 1980s by Soviet military officials and used in
reference to directed-energy weapons, geophysical weapons, and waveenergy weapons, among others. As for today, the definition has been used
as a notional term designed to underline that these types of future weapons
are based on processes and phenomena earlier unused for military purposes
and are said to include laser, electromagnetic, geophysical, radiological, and
also genetic weapons.43,44 The Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations in
2015 described more in detail these types of future threats, of which one is
genetic weapons, which includes the creation of ‘smart weapons’ that selectively affect and destroy organisms that contain a specific genetic code.45
Russia is prepared to defend itself against such weapons.46 There is great
uncertainty about what lies behind the expression genetic weapons in this
context and the media attention given to this in Russia. Further, in President
Putin’s address to the Security Council of Russia on 27 May 2015 on the
implementation of the ‘Basics of State Policy in the Fields of Chemical and
Biological Security of the Russian Federation for the Period Up to 2025 and
Beyond’, Putin raised the threats against Russia for terrorist purposes and
new foreign-made weapons, including those created using genomics, proteomics, genetic engineering, organic and inorganic chemistry, and other related
fields. New foreign weapons have also been mentioned in connection to the
use of chemical and biological agents that are stated to be not prohibited and
controlled under the BTWC and CWC.47,48,49
Russia’s view on genetic weapons
Biotechnology, and in particular genetic engineering, is a rapidly evolving
research field, and many nations as well as organizations address the link to
‘Russia Developing Advanced Weapons Based on “New Physical Principles”’, TASS, 25 November 2016, http://tass.
com/defense/914563 (accessed 23 January 2017).
44
Russian Government, Vladimir Putin, ‘Being Strong: National Security Guarantees for Russia, Government of the
Russian Federation’, the Official Site of the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, 20 February 2012, https://
web.archive.org/web/20120504063733/http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18185/
(accessed
2 December 2016).
45
V. Matveyev, ‘Russia Threatened by Weapons of the Future’, Russia Beyond the Headlines, 9 November 2015,
http://rbth.com/defence/2015/11/09/rusia-threatened-by-weapons-of-the-future_538647
(accessed
2 December 2016).
46
Russian Federation, ‘The Military Doctrine’ (translated), No. Pr.-2976, 25 December 2014, http://rusemb.org.uk/
press/2029 (accessed 12 December 2016).
47
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘Russian Biodefensive Efforts and Apparent Concerns’, Presentation PP, James Martin Center for
Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, 7 July 2016.
48
President of Russia, ‘Vladimir Putin Chairs a Meeting of the Security Council Devoted to the Implementation of
the State Policy in the Field of Nuclear, Radiological, Chemical and Biological Security of the Russian Federation,
Official Website of the President of Russia, 30 October 2015, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50596
(accessed 12 November 2016).
49
President of Russia, ‘Principles of the State Policy in the Area of Ensuring Chemical and Biological Safety and
Security of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025 and Beyond’, Decree No. 2573, approved by
President of Russia 1 November 2013.
43
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
528
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
dual-use concerns regarding biological weapon developments.50,51 Accusations
have appeared in Russian state-controlled media that the United States could be
developing genetic weapons.52 One refers to work in the United States and the
use of modified bacteria that recognize genes in a target and kill them. Specialists
are said to have difficulty differentiating bacterial ethnic cleansing from a regular
epidemic.53
During the 6th Review Conference of the BTWC held in 2006, the Russian
delegation presented a paper on developments in science and technology stating
the possibility of designing ‘ethnic weapons’. This was exemplified in the paper,
saying that data analysis of the human genome shows that it contains sequences
that could serve as targets for selective biological weapons.54 No other state party
to the BTWC included this issue in their science and technology reports. Sergei
Netesov, Deputy at the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology
VECTOR, commented back in 2004 on genetic weapons:
You know, there are politicians who set goals for scientists. These goals are often
not accomplished, but nonetheless, why not set goals and why not get money for
research? Creating genetic weapons is a goal of this kind.55
Russia quite clearly indicates a threat from genetic weapons and a firm
belief that these weapons will be developed in the future without clearly
dismissing that this could be Russia. There is even a definition of genetic
weapons on the Russian Ministry of Defence website.56 The utilization of the
quickly expanding biotechnology field for military purposes was highlighted
J. van Aken and E. Hammond, ‘Genetic Engineering and Biological Weapons’, EMBO Report, 4(Suppl 1) (2003),
pp. 57–60.
51
A. Regalado, ‘Top US Intelligence Official Calls Gene Editing a WMD Threat’, MIT Technology Review,
9 February 2016, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600774/top-us-intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing
-a-wmd-threat/ (accessed 25 January 2017).
52
Yu. A. Bobylev, ‘New Biological Weapons: Changing the Paradigm of Military Thinking’, National Security and
Geopolitics of Russia, 3–4 (2005), https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/bezopasnost-sovremennogo-obschestva-nano
tehnologiya-i-bioterrorizm (accessed 2 October 2017).
53
Expert Analytical Center, ‘The Mark of Doom: “In the not-so-distant future, a new kind of weapon could appear that
would change the balance of political power in the world. This main principle behind this weapon: seek and destroy
according to genetics”’, Gateway 2 Russia, 7 March 2004, https://www.prisonplanet.com/030704markofdoom.html
(accessed 2 October 2017).
54
Russian Federation, ‘Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention’ (unofficial translation), Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC, 20 November–8 December 2006,
Geneva,
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/81FD1E9FD2A3A535C12571FE00499319/$file/
BWC-6RC-S&T-RUSSIA-E-UNOFFICIAL.pdf (accessed 22 December 2016).
55
L. Knight-Jadczyk, ‘Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols’, 2 March 2004, https://
cassiopaea.org/cass/Laura-Knight-Jadczyk/article-lkj-04-03-06-b.htm (accessed 2 October 2017), quoting S.
Netesov in ‘Politically Desirable, Genetically Unviable’, 7 March 2004, formerly at http://www.gateway2russia.
com/st/art_217728.php, no longer online.
56
‘Genetic weapons are able to damage the genetic (hereditary) apparatus of people. It is assumed/expected, that
some viruses can/may serve as the active ingredient. These viruses are in possession of mutagenic activity (with
the capability to cause hereditary changes) and can be introduced into a chromosome cells that contain
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and even chemical mutations, taken from natural sources by chemical synthesis
or biotechnological methods. The primary result of the use of genetic weapons is to cause damage/injury and
changes to basic/primary structure of DNA, which can lead to serious diseases and their hereditary transmission’.
Ministry of Defense of the Russian of the Russian Federation Encyclopedia, http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclope
dia/dictionary/details.htm?id=13770@morfDictionary (accessed 22 December 2016).
50
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
529
by Putin back in 2008 when he expressed that new breakthroughs in bio,
nano, and information technology could lead to revolutionary changes when
it comes to weapons and defense.57 In 2012, Putin further indicated that in
the future, weapons will be created based on:
new principles, radiation, geophysical, wave, genetic and psycho-physical ones
providing entirely new means for achieving political and strategic goals.58,59,60
Former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov claimed that these kinds of
weapons would be developed by 2020.61,62 It was not until 2014 that the
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs officially denied that genetic weapons
were being developed in Russia.63
In 2014, Russian statements such as these on ‘genetic weapons’ became one of
the subjects of the US congressional House Committee on Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ‘Assessing the Biological Weapons Threat: Russia and
Beyond’. In reference to the 2012 statements, the bioweapons expert Milton
Leitenberg commented that ‘genetic’ in this context can only mean one thing: a
violation of the BTWC.64,65 The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)
dismissed US assertions in the congressional testimonies and blamed the United
States for the absence of a monitoring system under the BTWC. Further to this
statement, it claimed that the participants in the congressional hearing misinterpreted a 2012 article in which Russian President Vladimir Putin said that ‘genetic’
technologies could pave the way for more sophisticated biological arms.66
Russia accuses the United States of lack of biosafety control at
high-risk laboratories as well as development of biological weapons
in CIS countries on Russian borders
Russian state-controlled media create an image that the United States lacks
adequate biosafety measures when working with highly dangerous pathogens
57
V. Putin, Speech at expanded meeting of State Council on Russia’s Development Strategy through to 2020 (2008).
D. E. Hoffman, ‘Genetic Weapons, You Say?’ Foreign Policy, 27 March 2012., http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/
transcripts/24825 (accessed 2 October 2017).
59
Russian Government, Vladimir Putin, ‘Being Strong’.
60
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘Take Russia to “Task” on Bioweapons Transparency’, Nature Medicine, 18 (2012) p. 850,
doi:10.1038/nm0612-850 (accessed 22 December 2016).
61
S. Shuster, ‘Is Moscow Developing Super Duper Secret Mega Weapons?’, TIME, 19 April 2012, http://content.time.
com/time/world/article/0,8599,2112637,00.html (accessed 22 December 2016).
62
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today’s Russia’, Occasional Paper 11, Center for
the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University, Washington DC, July 2016, pp. 44–45.
63
‘Russia Rejects Bioweapons Talk in US Congress as “Propaganda’’’, NTI Global Security Newswire, 13 May 2014,
http://nti.org/29132GSN (accessed 2 June 1016).
64
US congressional House Committee on Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ‘Assessing the Biological
Weapons Threat: Russia and Beyond’, http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-assessingbiological-weapons-threat-russia-and-beyond (accessed 8 February 2017).
65
‘Russian Federation’, in K. McLaughlin, G. S. Pearson, and S. Whitby (eds.), BioWeapons Monitor 2014, BioWeapons
Prevention Project, 2014, pp. 208–209, http://www.bwpp.org/documents/BWM%202014%20WEB.pdf (accessed
8 February 2017).
66
‘Russia Rejects Bioweapons Talk in US Congress as “Propaganda’’’, NTI Global Security Newswire, 13 May 2014,
http://nti.org/29132GSN (accessed 2 June 1016).
58
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
530
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
at military-supported biosafety laboratories, both on US soil and on the
territory of CIS countries bordering Russia. Specific mention is made regarding a US defense laboratory that had sent live anthrax spores samples
abroad.67,68,69 The US State Department’s comment on this unintentional
shipment of live anthrax spores from a US defense laboratory to other
laboratories in the United States and also abroad, which occurred in 2015,
was that it was an unintentional biosafety mistake.70,71
The problem that Russia sees in US overseas biological laboratories was
already addressed in the beginning of the 1990s during the Trilateral
Process72 and also recently in a proposal presented at the 8th RC of the
BTWC held in November 2016. More straightforward Russian claims that
the US military were carrying out actual biological weapons activities not far
from the Russian border were brought forward in July 2013. Russia’s Chief
Sanitary and Health Inspector at that time, Gennadiy Onishchenko, accused
the Americans of developing biological weapons in Georgia at a US Navy
facility, the Center for Public Health Reference Laboratory (CPHR), situated
on a former Soviet military base near Tbilisi.73
‘American and Georgian authorities are trying to cover up the real nature
of this US military unit’, according to Russian Security Council chief Nikolai
Patrushev.74
Georgian and US officials stated that the aim of this laboratory was to help
protect public and animal health through dangerous pathogens detection and
epidemiological surveillance. The United States has established similar
laboratories in Almaty, Baku, and Simferopol, where they, according to
Russian officials, ‘may be conducting research to create biological
weapons’.75,76
After Russian laboratory inspectors returned from Georgia in June 2014,
Onishchenko assessed: ‘This laboratory constitutes an important offensive
‘US Encircling Russia with Bioweapons Labs, Covertly Spreads Them — Russian FM’, RT, 11 June 2015, https://
www.rt.com/news/266554-us-bioweapons-encircle-russia/ (accessed 27 November 2016).
68
‘Live Anthrax Sent to 51 Labs in 17 States and 3 Nations — Pentagon’, RT, 3 June 2015, https://www.rt.com/usa/
264717-pentagon-live-anthrax-sent/ (accessed 27 November 2016).
69
Russian Federation, BWC Meeting of Experts Statement by Victor Kholstov, Deputy Head of the Russian
Delegation Director, Department for the Fulfillment of Conventional Obligations, Ministry of Industry and Trade
of the Russian Federation, Geneva, 13 August 2015, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
AE8CC9A202BD0920C1257EA60054288E/$file/Russian_Statement_NI_English.pdf (accessed 29 November 2016).
70
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Report on the Potential Exposure to Anthrax’, 11 July 2014.
71
US Department of State, ‘Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament
Agreements and Commitments’, 11 April 2016, https://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2016/255651.htm#BWC
(accessed 27 December 2016).
72
M. Leitenberg et al., The Soviet Biological Weapons Program, pp. 638–659.
73
J. C. Phelan, ‘Russian Official Accuses US of Biological Weapons Violations’, Activist Post, 22 July 2013, http://www.
activistpost.com/2013/07/russian-official-accuses-us-of.html (accessed 22 March 2016).
74
‘Patrushev after Russian Security Council Meeting: US Creating Biological Weapons; This Is a Threat to Russia’,
Interfax, 20 October 2015 (accessed 22 March 2016).
75
J. C. Phelan, 2013, op. cit.
76
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘Russian Biodefensive Efforts’.
67
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
531
link in the US military-biological capability’, and continued, ‘compounds
developed at the facility could be secretly employed to destabilize the political
and economic situation in Russia’.
Onishchenko is well known for offering conspiratorial theories about
Georgia. US officials emphasize that the center is not conducting any work
related to biological weapons.77,78,79,80
Russian news media and official statements have continued to address
biosecurity concerns also when it comes to Ukraine and Kazakhstan regarding the network of US-supported high-security bio laboratories.81 With
backing from the United States, the first biological center in Ukraine was
opened in 2010 as a part of the Mechnikov Anti-Plague Research Institute in
Odessa and assigned a level allowing work with strains that were used in the
development of biological weapons.82 Today, US-supported biosecurity
laboratories are situated around Russian borders in a semicircle, a source
of worry for Russia.83
US Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) including the Cooperative
Biological Engagement Program (CBEP)
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States initiated several
programs to reduce the threat from chemical, biological, and radiological
weapons and materials to enhance security. The programs were mainly
focused on preventing proliferation of knowledge and materials, converting
former production facilities in Russia and the former Soviet republics.
The US State Department has indicated that Russia is no longer interested
in the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR). This USfinanced program dates back to the ‘Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of
1991’ and was established to help decommission nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons and infrastructure after the collapse of the Soviet
Union.84 The CTR Program, managed by the American Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA), has been engaged in biological threat reduction
‘DoD Funded Lab in Georgia Ruffling Feathers in Russia’, Security Assistance Monitor, 18 October 2013, https://
securityassistancemonitor.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/dod-funded-lab-in-georgia-ruffling-feathers-in-russia/
(accessed 7 August 2016).
78
‘Hordes of Fighting Viruses Ready to Attack (in Russian), Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 25 March 2016, http://nvo.ng.ru/
concepts/2016-03-25/6_virus.html (accessed 29 March 2016).
79
The real name of the institute is Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR).
80
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘Russian Biodefensive Efforts’.
81
‘US Bio Weapons at Russia’s Doorstep?’, Sputnik, 14 August 2015, http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150814/
1025752508/us-bioweapons-near-russia.html (accessed 15 July 2016).
82
L. Savin, ‘On the Pentagon’s Biological Laboratories in Ukraine’, Strategic Culture Foundation, 24 November 2014,
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/11/24/pentagon-biological-laboratories-ukraine.html
(accessed
20 July 2016).
83
Ibid.
84
M. B. D. Nikitin and A. F. Woolf, The Evolution of Cooperative Threat Reduction: Issues for the Congress,
Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, R43143, 8 July 2013, pp. 4–7.
77
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
532
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
efforts to eliminate biological weapons programs and associated infrastructure of the former Soviet Union. In this capacity, CTR has also, through the
International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), attempted to redirect
former weapons scientists into research for peaceful purposes. Russia has not
agreed to allow visits or joint work at the key military biological facilities that
were the leading facilities in the offensive biological weapons program since
1991, and this has limited the scope of the program.
In 2012, Russian officials stated that Russia does not need this financial
assistance from the ISTC, and the withdrawal from ISTC was effectuated in
2015. Instead, the importance of safeguarding Russian state secrets was
emphasized.85 The existing arrangement no longer authorize US involvement
in CTR projects to secure or eliminate what might be left of the former Soviet
chemical and biological weapons complexes. This is in keeping with the general
trend of decreasing the presence of both the US Department of Defense and
State Department inside Russia. Instead, the US Department of Energy, in
partnership with the Russian Ministry of Energy, will likely lead most future
CTR-related projects in Russia, with a reduced presence on the ground of US
government personnel and contractors to execute the projects.86,87 The CTR
Program, extended in 2012 by the Department of Energy, completely terminated
its activities in Russia by a decision announced at the end of 2014.88
The Nunn-Lugar CTR program, which previously worked on elimination
of biological weapon infrastructure in the former Soviet Union outside
Russia, has in recent years expanded this non-proliferation work into new
countries that do not have a history of biological weapons development. The
CTR program now operates in more than 40 countries worldwide. The CTR
has, for example, been engaged in both Syria and Libya regarding the
elimination of chemical weapon-related chemicals, as well as in the West
African Ebola outbreak.
As of 2015, Russia also withdrew from the earlier mentioned ISTC, which
was established in 1992, and no new projects in Russia are planned through
that mechanism. ISTC has been setting up projects aimed at engaging former
weapons scientists in peaceful, civilian science and technology activities mainly
financed by the United States, Canada, the EU, Japan, Norway, and South
Korea, together with some corporate partners. The ISTC has been
‘Russia May Quit Nunn-Lugar Program’, Sputnik, 10 October 2012, http://sputniknews.com/military/20121010/
176527879.html (accessed 20 July 2016).
86
R. Weitz, ‘Russian-US Cooperative Threat Reduction beyond Nunn-Lugar and Ukraine’, Arms Control Today, 2014,
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_0708/Features/Russian-US-Cooperative-Threat-Reduction-Beyond-NunnLugar-and-Ukraine (accessed 21 July 2016).
87
US Department of State, ‘A New Legal Framework for US-Russian Cooperation in Nuclear Nonproliferation and
Security’, 2013/0772, 19 June 2013, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/06/210913.htm (accessed
12 July 2016).
88
V. Dvorkin, ‘Brief Commentary on the Termination of the Nunn-Lugar Program’, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 6 February 2015, http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/02/06/brief-commentary-ontermination-of-nunn-lugar-program (accessed 10 July 2016).
85
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
533
headquartered in Moscow since 1994. This office was closed in 2015 as a
consequence of the withdrawal. No reason was officially given for Moscow’s
pulling out when it was announced in 2010, but Russian officials have indicated that the organization’s mission in Russia was considered completed.89
The new ISTC headquarter is now situated in Astana, Kazakhstan.
The US Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), which prior to
2010 was called the Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP), has emphasized
engagement to improve biosafety, biosecurity, and disease surveillance
capabilities.90 This is done by assisting partner nations’ governments in research
and infrastructure improvement, in particular with regard to especially dangerous
pathogens, thus promoting and implementing the One-Health concept.91 CBEP’s
objective is to cooperatively assist partner nations in addressing obligations
assumed by signing the United Nations National Security Council Resolution
(UNSC) 1540: to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons and their means of delivery. The CBEP works in coordination with the
US State Department, the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the US Department of
Agriculture, and the US Combatant Commands, among others.92
The CBEP has supported activities in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union
housed a major part of its biological weapons production complex. One
example of this was the dismantlement of Biokombinat in Tbilisi, Georgia.
The program has built Central Reference Laboratories (CRLs) with biosafety
level 3 (BSL-3) capabilities in Ukraine and Kazakhstan. A CRL is also under
construction in Azerbaijan. The program has completed upgrades at 39
secured laboratories in Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The
US Department of Defense continues to support upgrades and training at
these facilities, as well as facilities in Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan.
An aim with this is to establish a regional early warning system for outbreaks
of infectious diseases, thus improving epidemiological surveillance.93,94 The
Richard G. Lugar Center for Public Health Research, opened in 2011, is a stateM. Matishak, ‘Future in Doubt for International WMD Nonproliferation Center’, NTI, 2001, http://nti.org/21476GSN
(accessed 20 December 2016).
90
The Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP) Research Strategic Plan: Addressing Biological Threat
Reduction Through Research, US Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Cooperative Threat
Reduction, October 2013, http://biogirl757.weebly.com/uploads/3/9/6/8/39680816/cbep_research_strategy.pdf
(accessed 12 July 2016).
91
Ibid.
92
DTRA, Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), 2016, http://www.cdham.org/cooperative-biologicalengagement-program-pakistan (accessed 20 July 2016).
93
‘Why the US Is Building a High-Tech Bubonic Plague Lab in Kazakhstan. When Kazakhstan’s Central Reference
Laboratory Opens in September 2015, the $102-Million Project Laboratory Will Serve as a Central Asian Way
Station for a Global War on Dangerous Disease’, Popular Science, 29 August 2013, http://www.popsci.com/
technology/article/2013-08/why-us-building-high-tech-bubonic-plague-lab-kazakhstan (accessed 15 July 2016).
94
US Embassy to Georgia, Defense Threat Reduction Office, 2016, http://georgia.usembassy.gov/embassy_offices_
andotheragencies2/defense-threat-reduction-office.html (accessed 22 July 2016).
89
534
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
of-the-art BSL-3 research facility constructed by the DTRA and handed over to
the Georgian National Center for Disease Control (NCDC) for operation and
ownership in 2013.95 There is an implementing agreement between the Walter
Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) in Maryland and the NCDC as of
2015.96 The CBEP program initiative in the former Union Republics of the
Soviet Union has been scaled back in recent years, with a re-orientation of efforts
to countries in Africa and South Eastern Asia.
Russia blames the United States for infectious disease outbreaks
There have been a number of accusations in news media in relation to recent
outbreaks and incidents in the biosecurity arena. The Ebola outbreak, the Zika
virus epidemic, and African swine fever are diseases that Russian spokesmen
have connected to a lack of biosecurity measures as well as biological weapons
threats lately. Pravda claims in an article full of insinuations: ‘The US government has a vast arsenal of biological weapons of mass destruction and plans to
let loose them’. It continues: ‘The Department of Energy is the agency primarily tasked with making weapons of mass destruction for the US government (e.g., nuclear weapons and biological weapons of mass destruction)’.97
Also, Professor Vladimir Nikiforov, the head of the Department for
Infectious Diseases Institute for Advanced Studies of the Russian Federal
Medical-Biology Agency, states that the ability to use deadly Ebola hemorrhagic fever as a dangerous biological weapon exists.98 To further add to the
biological threat picture, the former head of Rospotrebnadzor, with responsibilities for public health and biodefence issues, and Chief Sanitary Inspector
of Russia, Gennady Onishchenko, expressed on the next day that he did not
exclude the possibility that the current spread of Ebola is caused by someone’s artificial intervention.99,100 The view that artificial propagation of
viruses in the world is a possibility that cannot be excluded was emphasized
by the head of Ministry of Health, Veronika Skvortsova, in 2016, referring to
both the Ebola and the Zika virus outbreaks.101 The Georgian Center for
Public Health Reference Laboratory has also been accused of being involved
95
Ibid.
NCDC, ‘Implementing Agreement between Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) and National Center
for Disease Control and Public Health (NCDC) was signed 14.12.2015’, http://www.ncdc.ge/Category/Article/4296
(accessed 20 December 2016).
97
W. Edstrom, ‘American Bioweaponry’, Pravda, 13 May 2016, http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/
13-05-2016/134413-american_bioweaponry-0/ (accessed 23 July 2016).
98
‘Ebola Can Be Turned Into Bioweapon, Russian & UK Experts Warn’, RT, 8 August 2014 (accessed 10 March 2017).
99
‘Russian Health Official: The Current Epidemic of Ebola May Be Due to the Use of Biological Weapons’,
InvestmentWatch, 10 August, 2014, http://investmentwatchblog.com/russian-health-official-the-current-epidemicof-ebola-may-be-due-to-the-use-of-biological-weapons/ (accessed 20 July 2016).
100
‘Ebola: Manufactured Disease by US Federal Government’, Pravda, 8 October 2014, http://www.pravdareport.
com/society/stories/08-10-2014/128746-ebola_virus-0/#sthash.7mrbSqs4.dpuf (accessed 20 July 2016).
101
‘Ministry of Health Doesn’t Exclude Viruses Being Spread Artificially’, Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ,
8 February 2016, http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/02/ministry-of-health-doesnt-exclude.html (accessed 10 March 2017)
96
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
535
in the deliberate spread of African swine fever virus in Russian regions.102,103
Onishchenko even threatened to resume the trade embargo on Georgian
imports due to the US-supported bio laboratory in Tbilisi.104
Russian scientists have claimed that they have as from 2012 identified an
increase in the type of mosquito that carries the Zika virus in Abkhazia.105
‘This worries me because about 100 kilometers from the place where this
mosquito now lives, right near our borders, there is a military microbiological laboratory of the Army of the United States’, commented Gennady
Onishchenko. He continues, ‘The Pentagon did not build a military biological base [in Tbilisi] to protect Georgian children from measles’.
As head of Rospotrebnadzor between 1996 and 2013, Onishchenko had
several institutes, among them two former Biopreparat institutes (State
Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector and State Research
Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology [SRCAM]) and five
anti-plague institutes under him. These institutes played an important role
in the Soviets’ biological weapons program.
In the beginning of February 2016, RIA Novosti, the state-operated domestic
Russian-language news agency, published a story in which Onishchenko, at the
time an advisor to Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and since
October 2016 a member of the State Duma, answered the following question:
Could the Zika virus be associated with biological weapons? He said that this
possibility has been taken into consideration, but he noted that one must not
jump to conclusions.106 On 15 February, Russia’s public health agency said it
had registered its first known case of Zika infection.107 In the information portal
Information Nigeria, a further spin on the Zika story could be read. It claimed
that ‘The Zika virus is used as a bioweapon using GMO (genetically modified)
mosquitoes to spread the disease’, and it blamed Bill Gates, basing this on a
leaked confidential Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report. According to the
media, President Putin was said to be ‘angered’.108 This exemplifies how antiAmerican conspiracy theory can be created and spread even though the statement was rebuffed. It started with RIA Novosti’s question — ‘Could the virus be
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘Russian Biodefensive Efforts’.
‘Russia Threatens Georgian Trade Over US Biolab’, NTI Global Security Newswire, 22 July 2013 (accessed
20 June 2016).
104
‘Russian Official Warns Georgia over US-Funded Bio Lab’, Civil Georgia Daily News, 20 July 2013, http://civil.ge/
eng/article.php?id=26288 (accessed 20 June 2016).
105
‘Former Russian Health Chief Suggests US Plotting Zika Attack’, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
19 February 2016, http://www.rferl.org/content/former-russian-health-chief-suggests-us-plotting-zika-attack
/27555365.html (accessed 22 July 2016).
106
‘Zika Virus — A Biological Weapon of US’, CEPA Brief Estonia, 15–21 February 2016, http://infowar.cepa.org/
Briefs/Est-21-Feb-16 (accessed 20 October 2016).
107
‘Former Russian Health Chief Suggests US Plotting Zika Attack’, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
19 February 2016, http://www.rferl.org/content/former-russian-health-chief-suggests-us-plotting-zika-attack
/27555365.html (accessed 22 July 2016).
108
‘Russia Accuses Bill Gates of Engineering the Zika Virus as a “Bioweapon”’, Information Nigeria, 19 February 2016,
http://www.informationng.com/?p=351255 (accessed 18 July 2016).
102
103
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
536
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
associated with biological weapons? — and ended up with the title ‘The US Is
Behind the Zika Virus’. After the BBC republished the story, it was also picked
up by several (and not only pro-Kremlin) media channels.109 Prime Minister
Medvedev had to take disciplinary action with Onishchenko for violation of
rules of public speeches, but it is actually not clear if this refers to his statement
on the Zika virus.110 Later, Medvedev then removed the penalty that had been
imposed on Onishchenko.111
Apart from these examples, there are other outbreaks, real or fabricated,
that have been used in connection with accusations of biological weapons
activities. In Eastern Ukrainian media it was claimed: ‘20 Ukrainian soldiers
have died and over 200 soldiers are hospitalized in a short period of time
because of a new and deadly virus, which is immune to all medicines.’
Donetsk People’s Republic intelligence indicated that a virus, the
Californian Flu, had been leaked from the same place where research on
this virus was carried out and connected this with the outbreak. The laboratory mentioned is located in Shelkotantsiya, 30 km from Kharkov, and is a
base for US military experts, according to Vice-Commander of the Donetsk
Army Basurin, in January 2016.112,113 However, the Ukrainian Defense
Ministry has no information about any such mass illness.114
Russian view on the US BTWC compliance
Biological weapons issues have repeatedly been taken up by Russian statecontrolled media, as described in this article. This stance was reflected in
the run-up to the 8th Review Conference (RC) of the BTWC in 2016 and
supported by statements of officials indicating that Russia is threatened by
US activities in the biological weapons area. Russia was active with
proposals for the 8th RC. One of those proposals was again to initiate
negotiations on a legal binding protocol for the BTWC.115 Another was a
‘Zika Virus — A Biological Weapon of US’, CEPA Brief Estonia, 15–21 February 2016, http://infowar.cepa.org/
Briefs/Est-21-Feb-16 (accessed 20 October 2016).
110
Government of Russia, ‘To Remove Penalty on Onishchenko Gennady Grigorevich, Assistant to the Chairman of
the Government of the Russian Federation, D. A. Medvedev, Previously Imposed in Accordance with the Decree of
the RF Government’, 24 February 2016, No. 284-R disciplinary action.
111
‘Medvedev Took Disciplinary Action with Onishchenko’, Aboutnews, 24 May 2016, http://russiannewsonline.
blogspot.se/2016/05/medvedev-took-disciplinary-action-to.html (accessed 18 July 2016).
112
DPR Defense Ministry: Situation Report, Dninews, 12 January 2016, https://dninews.com/article/dpr-defenseministry-situation-report-12012016 (accessed 20 February 2016).
113
‘Deadly Virus Leaked from US Laboratory in Donbass — DPR Army and Intelligence’, Dninews, 22 January 2016,
https://dninews.com/article/deadly-virus-leaked-us-laboratory-donbass-dpr-army-and-intelligence
(accessed
10 July 2016).
114
‘Kremlin Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures by Other Means’, StopFake, 21 March 2016, http://www.stopfake.
org/en/kremlin-propaganda-soviet-active-measures-by-other-means/#_ftnref3 (accessed 20 August 2016).
115
Armenia, Belarus, China, and the Russian Federation, ‘Proposal for Inclusion in the Final Document of the Eighth
Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, Geneva, 16 December 2015, BWC/MSP/2015/WP.4/
Rev.1,
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/1524B57D89C7FDE4C1257F1F0042BF16/$file/
G1528664q.pdf (accessed 9 February 2017).
109
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
537
proposal for extending Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) Form A
Part 2 to include overseas laboratories controlled by the Ministry of
Defense. This proposal did probably not help in negotiating the very
weak outcome from the 8th RC.116 Both proposals were, as the Russian
delegation knew well, totally unacceptable for the US delegation. This later
proposal was the very same that killed the trilateral process in the
1990s.117 The Russian Foreign Ministry made a comment in late
November 2016 on the outcome of the non-constructive RC by saying:
‘In this context, a question arises about real plans of those who hampered
the Review Conference in solving its tasks’, implying that this included
the United States.118
The Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergey Lavrov, has on several occasions expressed concerns over the United States’ refusal to negotiate a
monitoring mechanism in the form of a Protocol for the BTWC, thus
leading to the conclusion that the United States may be involved in
covert biological research for military purposes.119 According to Russia,
the US administration is obviously not interested in strengthening the
BTWC. In 2001, Russia implied that the United States unilaterally
torpedoed multilateral talks in Geneva regarding work on a verification
mechanism for the BTWC and has since obstructed their restart.
‘Decades of international efforts to strengthen the convention were
derailed’, according to a statement by the Russian MFA in 2014.120
The indictment comes amid a wider list of accusations against the
United States over American violations of various international agreements dealing with weapons control.121 The statement came in response
to a US annual report from 2014 on compliance with international
treaties that accused Russia of various wrongdoings, including the
BTWC. Similar responses have appeared after each US annual compliance report.122
In June 2015, at the annual Meeting of States Parties to the BTWC in
Geneva preceding the 2016 RC, the Russian MFA again expressed that the
United States is actively obstructing international efforts to eliminate
Russian Federation, ‘Proposal to Enhance the Format of Confidence-Building Measures under the Biological
Weapons Convention’ (English unofficial translation), BWC/CONF.VIII/WP9, Geneva, 14 October 2016.
117
M. Leitenberg et al., 2012, op. cit., pp. 638–672.
118
‘Russia Profoundly Disappointed with Results of BTWC Review Conference — Foreign Ministry’, TASS,
28 November 2016, http://tass.com/world/915188 (accessed 9 January 2017).
119
Strategic Culture Foundation, ‘Russia Questions Peaceful Nature of US Biological Research’, 3 September 2016,
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/09/03/russia-questions-peaceful-nature-us-biological-research.html
(accessed 9 February 2017).
120
‘Russia Rejects Bioweapons Talk in US Congress as “Propaganda’’’, NTI Global Security Newswire, 13 May 2014,
http://nti.org/29132GSN (accessed 2 June 2016).
121
‘US Encircling Russia with Bioweapons Labs, Covertly Spreads Them — Russian FM’, RT, 11 June 2015, https://
www.rt.com/news/266554-us-bioweapons-encircle-russia/#.VXmB8Rig7G4.twitter (accessed 15 July 2016).
122
‘United States Preparing Biological Bomb for Russia; This Is More Dangerous Than Massive Nuclear Strike’
(translated from Russian), Svobodnaya Pressa, 26 July 2013.
116
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
538
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
biological weapons, seeking to covertly involve other nations in research on
weaponized diseases.123 This connects to concerns made by Russia’s MFA in
March 2016 about the US Department of Defense’s biological-related activities close to the Russian borders.124 Also, in May 2016, the Russian Deputy
Foreign Minister Ryabkov declared that the US work on the weakening of the
BTWC, at the same time that they are increasing their own military biological infrastructure, including close to Russian borders, according to him,
undermines the BTWC.125 They go even further with the accusation that the
United States ‘actively continues searching for causative agents … of horrible
pandemics of the past. The reasons for why the US is expanding “its cultures
of contagious agents” are unknown’.126
The US view on Russian BTWC compliance
In 1992, President Yeltsin signed a decree committing Russia as the BTWC
successor to the Soviet Union and prohibiting illegal biological warfare
activities in Russia.127 During discussions in Moscow in September 1992,
Russian officials confirmed the existence of a biological weapons program
inherited from the Soviet Union and committed to its destruction. Russia
further committed to the termination of offensive research and the dismantlement of production capabilities, as well as a 50 percent reduction of
personnel engaged in military biological programs and a 30 percent reduction in military biological research funding.128 Since the end of the Cold War,
the full scope and sophistication of the Soviet biological weapons program
has become increasingly evident, but it still has not been fully acknowledged
by Russia.129
Although Russia had inherited the past offensive biological research and
development program from the Soviet Union, Russia’s annual BTWC CBMs
(Confidence-Building Measures) submissions since 1992 have not satisfactorily documented whether this program was completely destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes in accordance with Article II of the BTWC. The
US State Department’s Compliance Report from 2016 states:
‘Hordes of Fighting Viruses Ready to Attack’ (in Russian), Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 25 March 2016, http://nvo.ng.ru/
concepts/2016-03-25/6_virus.html (accessed 9 March 2017).
124
Russian Federation, BWC Meeting of Experts Statement by Victor Kholstov, Deputy Head of the Russian
Delegation Director, Department for the Fulfillment of Conventional Obligations, Ministry of Industry and Trade
of the Russian Federation, Geneva, 13 August 2015, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
AE8CC9A202BD0920C1257EA60054288E/$file/Russian_Statement_NI_English.pdf (accessed 4 February 2017).
125
RIA Novosti, 22 August 2016.
126
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘Russian Biodefensive Efforts’.
127
V. Litovkin, ‘Yeltsin Bans Work on Bacteriological Weapons. This Means: Work Was Under Way, and We Were
Deceived’ (in Russian), Izvestiya, 27 April 1992.
128
‘Russian Federation’, in K. McLaughlin, G. S. Pearson, and S. Whitby (eds.), BioWeapons Monitor 2014, BioWeapons
Prevention Project, November 2014, pp. 208–209, http://www.bwpp.org/documents/BWM%202014%20WEB.pdf
(accessed 8 February 2017).
129
M. Leitenberg et al., 2012, op. cit., pp. 633–634.
123
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
539
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
Available information during the reporting period indicated that Russian entities
have remained engaged in dual-use, biological activities; it is unclear that these
activities were conducted for purposes inconsistent with the BTWC. It also
remains unclear whether Russia has fulfilled its BTWC obligations in regard to
the items specified in Article I of the Convention that it inherited. Russia previously acknowledged both that it is a BTWC successor state and that it inherited
past offensive programs of biological research and development’.130
At the 8th BTWC RC in 2016, the US ambassador stated:
Some delegations wanted to use the intersessional process to discuss their aspirations for a verification protocol. We don’t agree that this is a useful way ahead.
One delegation [Russia131] was particularly interested in creating a battalion of
mobile biomedical units owned and operated by the BTWC. We thought this was
neither feasible nor a particularly effective approach.132
Discussion
The tension that existed during the Cold War between the two superpowers
is well known and was further stepped up with the start of the nuclear arms
race. Disinformation campaigns concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD) were used that, before the millennium, also included claims by the
Soviet Union of deliberate infectious disease outbreaks, insinuating biological
weapons activities. This was followed by a time of moderation of this aspect.
One reason for this was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, at that time a
possessor state with an extensive biological weapons program. Tension
between Russia and the United States has again gained momentum.
Particularly significant is the systematic use of news and social media by
Russia for disinformation campaigns as an instrument to spread rumors and
speculations regarding, for example, the cause behind covert biological
weapons activities and outbreaks of infectious diseases.
This is also reflected in official statements and documents with more or
less direct reference to biological weapons and deliberate spread of infectious
disease agents. In particular, the United States is accused of being involved in
covert biological weapons-related activities, both in the United States and in
former Soviet Union republics. The intent for the Russian gambit in the
US Department of State, ‘2016 Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and
Disarmament Agreements and Commitments’, April 2016, https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/
255898.pdf (accessed 1 February 2017).
131
Russian Federation, ‘Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention Operationalizing Mobile Biomedical Units
to Deliver Protection against Biological Weapons, Investigate Their Alleged Use, and to Suppress Epidemics of
Various Etiology’, Geneva, 4 July 2016, BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/WP.1/Rev.2, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/
(httpAssets)/890278DD80A68208C1257FF0003583AD/$file/BWCCONF.VIIIPC2.Wp1.Rev.2.pdf and BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/
WP.1/Rev.2/Add.1, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/DACF87E6E7780870C12580290028DD5F/
$file/BWCCONF.VIIIPCWP.1Rev.2Add.1.pdf (accessed 19 January 2017).
132
Statement by Ambassador Robert Wood, US Special Representative for the Biological Weapons Convention,
25 November 2016, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/4228C43A8E40AE06C125807A0057164D/
$file/USA+closing+and+compromise+text.pdf (accessed 15 January 2017).
130
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
540
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
biosecurity arena is not quite clear and has most certainly several motifs.
Could one aim be to try to decrease CIS states’ interest in cooperating with
Western governments and especially the United States? Whatever the reason
for these types of disinformation campaigns dealing with biological weapon
issues, the types of campaign and coordinated statements by officials imply
that they are deliberate and encouraged by the Russian government. Russia
has chosen to withdraw from the supporting programs under ISTC and
CBEP in a time when Russian life sciences are having problems with funding
and brain drain. The only reason given by Russia is security concerns, thus
raising further questions.
Russia has not previously been in favor of a verification protocol to the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) during the Ad Hoc
Group negotiations. Now, on the other hand, Russia is proposing a return to
negotiations to develop a verification mechanism. One can only speculate why
this mechanism should not include verification of activities carried out at
facilities or visits to these. At this time, many states within the EU are advocating
a need for measures for compliance monitoring. Russia is well aware that the
United States is not in favor of verification or in resuming negotiations, as they
believe that the BTWC and compliance with it cannot be verified. So the
question arises if this new Russian interest in negotiations and verification is
genuine or more directed at trying to present a picture of the United States
stopping the previous negotiations at a critical stage and how it will now be
perceived as preventing any progress in the BTWC.133 This could then well fit in
with the anti-American propaganda insinuating that the United States is trying
to hide a biological weapons program. Another aim can be to try to cause a wider
gap in the positions of the EU and the United States on how to proceed in the
BTWC arena at a time when the BTWC really needs to be strengthened.
Are the Russian statements and media comments only a way of responding to
the Compliance Reports of the US State Department regarding Russian possible
non-compliance with the BTWC and that Russia has not provided satisfactory
information about whether the Soviet Union’s offensive program has been
terminated and dismantled? Despite the Soviet Union’s signing of the 1972
BTWC, the Republics continued their program. In 1992, Russian President
Boris Yeltsin admitted having an offensive biological weapons program in the
report of the BTWC CBMs without giving any details, and he said that a deadly
anthrax accident at Sverdlovsk in 1979 had been caused by ‘our military
development’.134 Recently, the Sverdlovsk strain genome was sequenced, indicating a natural strain that had not been genetically manipulated.135
‘Russia Profoundly Disappointed with Results of BTWC Review Conference — Foreign Ministry’, TASS,
28 November 2016, http://tass.com/world/915188 (accessed 9 January 2017).
134
M. Leitenberg et al., 2012, op. cit., pp. 631–638.
135
J. W. Sahla et.al., ‘A Bacillus anthracis Genome Sequence from the Sverdlovsk 1979 Autopsy Specimens’, mBio,
16 August 2016, doi:10.1128/mBio.01501-16.
133
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES
541
If the Russian government really believes that the United States is carrying
out covert activities in breach of the BTWC, including at some CIS states’
high-security bio-laboratories on the border of Russia, can be discussed. It is
no secret that the United States has supported an upgrading of security at a
number of laboratories in CIS states. The EU, and some member states, has
also had programs to support these laboratories, which Russia has not
commented on.136 Russia also presented a paper at the 8th BTWC RC in
November 2016 in which they also supported some laboratories in CIS
states.137 If, on the other hand, the Russian propaganda is only aiming at
presenting a negative image of the United States for general political reasons,
why then choose such a sensitive area for Russia as biological weapons?
Russia has, on several occasions, emphasized the growing threat of possible use of biological weapons and the risk of bioterrorism, including in the
latest National Security Strategy (NSS) and Military Doctrine of the country.
Statements in Russia’s NSS and Military Doctrine regarding biotechnology,
genetics, and modern weapons based on new physical principles are not easy
to understand. Also of concern are Russian insinuations that there is foreign
development of chemical and biological weapons that are not controlled by
international treaties. According to Zilinskas, these official statements could
signal a new Russian military effort to develop third-generation biological
weapons.138 Milton Leitenberg, a senior research scholar at the University of
Maryland, has expressed concern regarding comments Putin made when
raising the prospect of modern weapons based on new physical principles,
including genetics.139 Russia denies possession or development of biological
or genetic weapons.
Can the purpose of the propaganda and disinformation on suspect
American activities be aimed at a domestic audience to show what an
unfriendly nation is doing in the biosecurity arena, thus emphasizing the
increased biological weapons threat against Russia? Is this used as a strategic
tool to motivate and enhance research and military investments and increase
of the budget to counter this perceived threat? It is perhaps not surprising
that Onishchenko is so vocal on accusing the United States of developing
136
Canada, Denmark, European Union, Finland, Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
United Kingdom and the United States of America, ‘International Activities of Global Partnership Member
Countries related to Article X of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention’, BWC/CONF.VIII/WP.21,
8 November, 2016.
137
Russian Federation, ‘Russia’s Implementation of Article X of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention’, BWC/
CONF.VIII/WP.37,
23
November
2016,
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/
6A8F092EBAC58A36C1258076002E1C12/$file/BWCCONF.VIIIWP.37.pdf (accessed 3 February 2017).
138
R. A. Zilinskas, ‘The Soviet Biological Warfare Program and Its Uncertain Legacy Past Soviet secrecy When Linked
with a Promise by Putin Raise Nagging Questions about Russian BW-Related Intentions’, Microbe, 9(5) (2014),
pp. 191–197.
139
M. Leitenberg, ‘The Biological Weapons Program of the Soviet Union’, Hearing on Assessing Biological Weapons
Threat: Russia and Beyond, Testimony before the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, 7 May 2014, http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/
subcommittee-hearing-assessing-biological-weapons-threat-russia-and-beyond and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/CHRG-113hhrg87836/html/CHRG-113hhrg87836.htm (accessed 2 February 2017).
Downloaded by [FOI TOTALFÖRSVARETS FORSKNINGSINSTITUT] at 00:35 01 November 2017
542
R. ROFFEY AND A.-K. TUNEMALM
biological weapons due to his former position as the head of
Rospotrebnadzor, when he became adviser to Medvedev. Also, what is the
underlying message behind the prospect raised by President Putin regarding
creating weapons based on new physical principles in the future when he
included the term genetics in this? Is there a possibility that Russia has not
abandoned the idea of utilizing biological agents/biotechnology as a means of
warfare in a future conflict, factually or as a rhetorical instrument? Is there a
risk that the biosecurity arena can be included in Russia’s use of hybrid
tactics and modern warfare as a tool to destabilize or cause panic in a target
population, and if so, is the threat of use or that of indicating an adversary’s
use enough? Is using outbreaks, real or made up, a strategy to create mistrust
in a population against foreign states’ responsible authorities and
government?
In this article, questions and discussions on why Russia wishes to present
false information regarding biological weapons issues and infectious disease
outbreaks have been presented. It is not possible to come up with a clear
answer as to why Russia acts in this way. Instead, lines of thinking that can be
further analyzed are given. The influence of ‘fake news’ has, following the
2016 US presidential election, gained a lot of attention as has the problem of
identifying rumors in online social networks. Different tools have been
developed to analyze the spread of fake information.140 One question is:
Will the relationship between the United States and Russia improve with
Trump as President from 2017 and will these kinds of accusations disappear?
Notes on contributors
Roger Roffey is a former Deputy Research Director at the Swedish Defence Research Agency
(FOI) in Stockholm. His main research area is in biotechnology, biological weapons defense,
biosecurity, biological weapons/bioterrorism threat assessments with special focus on Russia,
with numerous reports and articles. He has also been a technical expert for the Swedish MFA
for the BTWC. One recent relevant article is: ‘Russian S&T Is Still Having Problems —
Implications for Defense Research’, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 26(2) (2013),
pp. 162–168.
Anna-Karin Tunemalm is a Deputy Research Director at the Division of CBRN Defence and
Security at the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI). As a chemical and biological
weapons specialist, she has authored and contributed to a number of FOI reports in that
area. A recent scientific article, co-authored with Dr. Per Lind (FOI) and Prof. Mohammad
Fazlhashemi (Professor in Islamic Theology and Philosophy, Uppsala University), is
‘Incentives for the Iranian Chemical Boom: A Strategic Motivation or Applied Needs?’,
Domes, 23 (2014), pp. 15–36. doi:10.1111/dome.12044
‘US University Launches Tool to Show How Fake News Spreads’, Reuters, Technology News, 21 December 2016,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tech-fake-idUSKBN14A2CO?il=0 (accessed 21 December 2016).
140