A U.S. researcher on Wednesday told a House panel that he “presumes” Russia has an active biological weapons program, Time magazine reported.
Milton Leitenberg, a University of Maryland senior scholar focusing on biological arms, told the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe that Russia does not permit outside inspections of three of its scientific facilities. As a result, he said it is not possible to know the current status of the country’s biological weapons program.
“We don’t know what they’re doing,” the arms control specialist said. “They may or may not have an active offensive program — I presume they do.”
Leitenberg noted that the U.S. government does not assess Russia to be “producing and stockpiling [biological] agent any more.”
With the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia assumed control of much of its biological weapons-related infrastructure. Moscow says it does not retain a biological arsenal and is not conducting any research into offensive uses for pathogens. However, a 2012 essay by President Vladimir Putin raised concerns that he foresees the development of a new class of biological arms made to be extra potent through genetic modification.
Russia’s recent incursion into Ukraine has caused tensions with the West to spike to their highest point since the end of the Cold War. With the uptick in tensions, old worries have returned about Russia’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
Moscow is a member of the Biological Weapons Convention. However the BWC accord does not have a mechanism for ensuring that signatories are in compliance with the treaty’s prohibition against the creation, production and possession of lethal pathogens — such as smallpox and anthrax strains — that have been modified so they can be disseminated on a large scale.
Amy Smithson, a senior fellow with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said it is feasible to find out about a nation’s potential biological weapon activities even without an enforcement mechanism in the treaty. She pointed to the efforts of U.N. weapon inspectors in Iraq after the first Gulf War, which resulted in Baghdad being forced to acknowledge its work on chemical and biological arms.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.