On the menu today: Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Why does it always come back to biological-research labs? No, Ukraine does not have a secret biological-weapons program — or at least there’s no proof of one. A biological-research facility and a biological-weapons-research facility are not the same thing — but even if Ukraine has no biological weapons, that doesn’t mean the stuff in the country’s various labs can’t be dangerous. And the U.S. — and the world — have good reasons to not want a bunch of hungry, young, poorly briefed Russian conscripts traipsing through biological-research labs with samples of who-knows-what in vials and petri dishes in the sample fridges. Meanwhile, the IAEA passes along more ominous reports from Chernobyl.
Back to the Lab Again, in More Ways Than One
From a Ukrainian presentation at a 2011 conference, organized by the U.S. State Department’s Biosecurity Engagement Program:
What high-containment biological (high BSL) laboratories exist in your country? What are the facilities’ main goals and priorities?
There are over 4,000 registered microbiological laboratories in Ukraine, but only 2 of them have a permit to work with microorganisms of the first pathogenic group, 402 laboratories have a permit to work with the microorganisms of the second pathogenic group, and all others are allowed to work only with microorganisms of the third and forth pathogenic groups. Here it is necessary to note that the classification of pathogenic organisms and therefore classification of the laboratories in Ukraine differs from the international one. It is inverted (i.e., in Ukraine “one” is the highest risk and “four” is the lowest risk) and also has some additional differences. . . .
According to the available data, there are no laboratories in Ukraine that fulfill BSL-4 requirements. One of the laboratories that has a permit to work with the microorganisms of the first pathogenic group did, however, recently undergo an international audit as a BSL-3 laboratory and received a preliminary positive evaluation.
Even biosafety-level-two laboratories work with some nasty stuff — e.g., hepatitis, HIV, salmonella. Biosafety-level-three laboratories work with microbes that can cause serious or deadly diseases through inhalation — e.g., Covid-19, tuberculosis, yellow fever, SARS, West Nile, some strains of influenza. Biosafety-level-four laboratories work with the most dangerous pathogens that carry the highest risk of infecting lab personnel — e.g., Ebola, Nipah, Marburg.
Ukraine does not have a level-four lab today. Just as it did a decade ago, Ukraine has thousands of labs, but only a handful work with airborne, potentially deadly pathogens, and a few hundred work with “moderate-risk agents.”
Still, the security of those labs and what’s in them is something worth worrying about when they’re in an active war zone. During a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing Monday, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida asked a question of Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
Rubio: Let me ask you, does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?
Nuland: Ukraine has biological-research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach.
Rubio: I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they’ve uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country with NATO’s coordination. If there is a biological- or chemical-weapon incident or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100 percent, it would be the Russians that would be behind it?
Nuland: There is no doubt in my mind, Senator. And it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves.
Yes, Ukraine has biological-research facilities. A “biological-research facility” is not the same as a biological-weapons-research facility. (Although it is worth noting that a lot of research into dangerous pathogens is dual-use; the more you know about how to fight dangerous viruses and bacteria, the more knowledge you could theoretically apply to weaponizing viruses and bacteria.) When state-owned Russian media such as TASS breathlessly echo a Russian official’s statement that “In Ukraine, a network of more than 30 biological laboratories was created,” they really want your mind to insert the word “weapons” in between “biological” and “laboratories.”
Any major university or major hospital/medical center is going to have a lab that, at minimum, will have samples that may include dangerous or contagious pathogens collected from patients, etc., separate from any labs doing medical research on these kinds of viruses and bacteria.
It is not a shock or surprising that “the U.S. government is concerned about preventing any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach,” as Nuland put it. We’ve already seen Russian forces reckless enough to fire shells at Europe’s largest nuclear-power plant, hitting the training center . . . and then follow it up by firing missiles at a radioactive-waste facility near Kyiv and shelling a nuclear-research facility producing radioisotopes for medical and industrial applications. The invading Russian forces have already proven to be spectacularly irresponsible; God knows what could happen if a bunch of hungry, young, poorly briefed Russian conscripts were to go traipsing through a biological-research lab with samples of who-knows-what in vials and petri dishes in its sample fridges.
While theoretically anything is possible, I would be surprised if anything Ukraine was doing in its biological-research facilities constituted a secret biological-weapons program. Ukraine has ratified the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. For Ukraine, a secret biological-weapons program would represent enormous risk for very little reward; if such a program were revealed, it would instantly alienate Ukraine’s Western allies and wipe out their chances of joining the European Union or NATO someday.
What’s more, if Ukraine had a secret biological-weapons program, it would be one that was researching or producing weapons that the Ukrainians left unused on the shelf as the Russian army came storming across the border. And if you’re not going to use your secret biological weapons when 200,000 heavily armed Russian troops are knocking on your door, either you’re never going to use them, or you never had them in the first place.
By contrast, the Soviet Union’s biological-weapons program “was by far the largest and most sophisticated such program ever undertaken by any nation,” with stories that will horrify you — including accidental leaks that killed innocent people, with the true cause of the disease covered up by an authoritarian regime. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russians pledged they would get rid of all that toxic, dangerous stuff of nightmares — but Moscow never quite satisfied the U.S. with its reports of its inventory. The Russians blocked inspections of certain facilities that had been used to create and store biological weapons in the past.
As for modern Russia, the U.S. government’s annual review of arms-control and nonproliferation treaties published last year concluded that:
The Russian Federation maintains an offensive [biological weapons] program and is in violation of its obligation under Articles I and II of the BWC. The issue of compliance by Russia with the BWC has been of concern for many years. . . . While there were no specific expert level consultations in 2020, on August 27, 2020, the United States added the 48th Central Scientific Research Institute, Kirov; 48th Central Scientific Research Institute, Sergiev Posad; and 48th Central Scientific Research Institute, Yekaterinburg — the key military biological facilities previously referenced — to the Entity List. These three entities have been determined by the U.S government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, the United States has reasonable cause to believe these institutes are Russian Ministry of Defense facilities associated with the Soviet and Russian biological weapons program.
You Would Think Russians Would Have Learned to Not Mess Around with Chernobyl
Speaking of those nuclear plants that the Russians shelled, the Wall Street Journal reports that, “The Ukrainian government says the Chernobyl nuclear power facility now controlled by Russia has lost power, threatening the cooling of radioactive material stored there and risking radioactive leakage. A powerline to the power plant has been cut, the Ukrainian government said Wednesday, leaving the facility without electricity. Without power, the 20,000 spent-fuel assemblies stored there are at risk of overheating if the coolant evaporates.”
Yesterday, International Atomic Energy Agency director general, Rafael Mariano Grossi, warned that the Russians were not allowing Chernobyl operating staff to come and go from the plant:
In contrast to the current situation for staff at Ukraine’s operating nuclear power plants who are rotating regularly, the same shift has been on duty at the Chornobyl NPP since the day before the Russian military entered the site of the 1986 accident on 24 February, in effect living there for the past 13 days, the regulator said. The Ukrainian regulator added that the staff had access to food and water, and medicine to a limited extent. . . . Director General Grossi has repeatedly stressed that staff operating nuclear facilities must be able to rest and work in regular shifts, stating this is crucial for overall nuclear safety.
ADDENDUM: In case you missed it yesterday, no, there is no such thing as a “limited no-fly zone.”