If you make accusations you normally want to provide some kind of proof or context. RU claims to have such information but falls short providing details. I will refrain from commenting on the "success of RU in conducting the special military operation":
RU claims that the US have already determined the procedure for an investigation. Maybe this a translation issue but is RU really claiming that the ICRC, the UN-Secretary General and OPCW are colluding with the US in such an alleged "provocation"? At least this is what they claim
RU makes reference to their destruction of declared chemical weapon stockpiles in 2017 and calls the remaining US chemical weapon stockpile (less than 700tons) a "formidable arsenal".
Declared stockpile must not match real stockpile as explained previously. Also the remaining US stockpile cannot be used for military operations as they are in secure intermediate storage under seal. Also what is left is not really useable.
The USSR did not phase out their bioweapon program in 1972 as president Yeltsin admitted in the early 1990s. inss.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Doc…
US legislation does not permit biological weapons work. The US has ratified the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972. RU is State Party too. As is Ukraine. So any use will be a treaty violation and a violation of national laws.
While warning of a possible provocation RU then states a use of a toxic chemical has already happened. As they want to hand analytical results to OPCW, this will be interesting to follow. How they want to proof origin from a non-RU drone...who knows?
In short: This whole statement lacks credibility, makes zero sense and in my opinion is utter nonsense. Similar to previous "secret biolabs" statements. Troubling however as this might be an attempt to prepare own actions. I hope not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I already posted there is just not enough information on the alleged use of toxic chemicals in #Mariupol at this point but I see arguments being made that RU cannot use chemical weapons because they destroyed theirs under @OPCW verification. It’s worth looking at this (thread)
When a country joins the Chemical Weapons Convention it has to file an initial declaration to the OPCW. These declarations are not public.
In the declaration the country has to give details (among other things) about any chemical weapons (agents and munitions) and CW related facilities. Let's assume the case of country A - a possessor state of chemical weapons.
So we heard a lot about "#BiolabsinUkraine" and an alleged biological weapons program carried out in them funded by the US. A thread about which this is nuts and a look back in history.
Once upon a time there was a country called the Soviet Union. A country with vast amounts of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and a hidden biological weapons program. Due to historical events that we all know the SU was about to break apart.
Lithuania declared independence in March 1990 and other republics of the USSR followed. August 1991 saw an attempted coup by communist hard-liners trying to take control of the country from Mikhail Gorbachev. The coup failed and the SU ended to exist on 25/26 December 1991.
A lot has been said about the Russian TOS-1(A) system in recent days but there are a few things that amaze me more than its thermobaric missiles...
These MRLS are not operated by the Russian (rocket) artillery troops but by the Russian NBC Protection troops
Historically that makes sense as the NBC troops traditionally also use incendiary munitions (and there are incendiary missile warheads for the TOS-1(A)). It make them one of the few CBRN/NBC troops in the world with a dedicated offensive role.
And the Art IX saga at the @OPCW regarding the #Navalny poisoning enters another round. Note verbale by the Russian Federation from 2 November: opcw.org/sites/default/… A few observations (thread).
RU refutes the replies by UK, GER, FR and SWE saying "the responses [...] do not contain the necessary information and [the RU side] perceives them to be formalities with no substance that are propagandistic in nature"
This follows the refutation of RU replies to the questions by 45 State Parties. So both sides are unsatisfied with the answers provided and this in principle opens the way for furthers actions under Art IX (opcw.org/chemical-weapo…)