- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 61,436
- Reaction score
- 486,012
March 9 2022 rbbm.
Why biological weapons could be more of a threat than nuclear warfare (telegraph.co.uk)
''Last week Weber, who now sits on the Council on Strategic Risks, warned that chemical – or even disease-inducing biological – weapons may be used in Ukraine. Indeed he believes the chances of a chemical or biological attack being launched by the Russian military are much higher than the risk of a nuclear strike.
“Despite Putin’s reckless bluster on nuclear weapons, the use of biological weapons in Ukraine is much more likely,” Weber told The Telegraph.
“The USSR had the largest biological weapons programme the world has ever known and parts of it have continued uninterrupted since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Russia has three military biological facilities that have never, to our knowledge, been visited by non-Russians. We don't fully know what they're up to.”
''As if on cue, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov publicly raised the spectre of chemical and biological weapons. Russia, he claimed – without providing evidence – had information that the US was worried about the prospect of losing control over secret Western chemical and biological laboratories in Ukraine. ''
''Weber worries the Kremlin is playing up a fictitious threat of weapons of mass destruction to create a justification – a so-called “false flag” – for Putin to widen his range of military options. He points out that this would follow the Syrian playbook: Assad’s regime would blame Isis or al Qaeda affiliates whenever it conducted a chemical attack.
As Hamish de Bretton Gordon, the British Army’s former chemical and nuclear weapons chief puts it: “The Putin playbook seems to have been developed in the last five years in Syria. Of course chemical weapons are part of it – particularly fighting in towns and cities.”
Why biological weapons could be more of a threat than nuclear warfare (telegraph.co.uk)
''Last week Weber, who now sits on the Council on Strategic Risks, warned that chemical – or even disease-inducing biological – weapons may be used in Ukraine. Indeed he believes the chances of a chemical or biological attack being launched by the Russian military are much higher than the risk of a nuclear strike.
“Despite Putin’s reckless bluster on nuclear weapons, the use of biological weapons in Ukraine is much more likely,” Weber told The Telegraph.
“The USSR had the largest biological weapons programme the world has ever known and parts of it have continued uninterrupted since the break-up of the Soviet Union. Russia has three military biological facilities that have never, to our knowledge, been visited by non-Russians. We don't fully know what they're up to.”
''As if on cue, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov publicly raised the spectre of chemical and biological weapons. Russia, he claimed – without providing evidence – had information that the US was worried about the prospect of losing control over secret Western chemical and biological laboratories in Ukraine. ''
''Weber worries the Kremlin is playing up a fictitious threat of weapons of mass destruction to create a justification – a so-called “false flag” – for Putin to widen his range of military options. He points out that this would follow the Syrian playbook: Assad’s regime would blame Isis or al Qaeda affiliates whenever it conducted a chemical attack.
As Hamish de Bretton Gordon, the British Army’s former chemical and nuclear weapons chief puts it: “The Putin playbook seems to have been developed in the last five years in Syria. Of course chemical weapons are part of it – particularly fighting in towns and cities.”
️Ukraine’s military: Ukraine regains control of Derhachi, Kharkiv Oblast.
