Conflict in Ukraine moves to dangerous rhetoric of chemical weapons

 

With the war in Ukraine entering its second month, several media outlets have started speculating over the possibility of chemical weapons being used in warzones across Ukrainian territory. 

During his official visit to Brussels last week, US President Joe Biden said NATO “would respond” if Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine. When asked if the US had evidence that Vladimir Putin is under the possession of chemical weapons, Biden said he wouldn’t comment.

"We are partly concerned because we see the rhetoric and we see that Russia is trying to create some kind of pretext that it could use chemical and biological weapons in Ukraine,” said NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Blame game

The concern, however, seems to be weaving on both sides of the battling parts. According to The Telegraph, Russia has accused US President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, of funding biological weapons labs in Ukraine. The paper claims that the accusation has raised fears that the Kremlin is laying the groundwork to use chemical weapons in Ukraine.

On 8 March, the Chinese Foreign Ministry also accused Ukraine of maintaining dangerous biological weapons labs: "The US has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone. It should give a full account of its biological military activities at home and abroad and subject itself to multilateral verification," said the spokesperson Zhao Lijian. 

US aware of “biological research facilities”

The US responded on 9 March with Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, long in charge of US policy in Ukraine, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Marco Rubio, hoping to debunk growing claims that there are chemical weapons labs in Ukraine, asked Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Nuland did not deny the claim. With palpable discomfort and halting speech, the US diplomat acknowledged the existence of “biological research facilities” saying the US was concerned they would be used by Russian forces. “We are working with the Ukrainian forces to prevent that these research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach,” said Nuland.

On 15 March, in a short video, Gabbard said there are more than 25 US-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine and called for a ceasefire at the laboratories as they could spread dangerous pathogens. Gabbard urged for the labs to me “shut down immediately” and the pathogens they hold to be destroyed.

“Instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden-Harris Administration need to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO and the UN to immediately implement a ceasefire for all military action in the vicinity of these labs,” urged Gabbard.

The Republican Senator Mitt Romney accused his ex-House counterpart of spreading “treasonous lies” that amounted to Kremlin propaganda: “Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives,” tweeted Mitt Romney in response to Tulsi Gabbard’s video post.

Russia speaks

As for Moscow, it maintains that laboratories in Ukraine have been funded by the US military to develop biological weapons components, yet local staff was being kept in the dark about their research. 

The statement was given by Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, who commands the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Protection Forces of Russia. “We believe that components of biological weapons were being made on the territory of Ukraine,” said Kirillov to RT .

On 17 March, Kirillov presented documents and imagery during a briefing with the Russian Defense Ministry, showing why the military has come to such a conclusion: “The documents have the signatures of real officials and are certified by the seals of organizations,” he said adding that “journalists and experts in the West” can “verify their veracity”.

One document, dated March 6, 2015 reportedly confirms the “direct participation of the Pentagon in the financing of military biological projects in Ukraine”, according to Kirillov. 

Kirillov went on saying that the US officially funded the projects through the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, based on the Agreement on Joint Biological Activities. However, the evidence shows that the real recipients of some $32 million in funds were Ukrainian Defense Ministry laboratories in Kyiv, Odessa, Lvov and Kharkov.

Countering bioweapons

As the blame-game goes on, evidence from the Washington Post’s archive dating back to 2005, reveals that, as of that year, the US and Ukraine agreed to work jointly to prevent the spread of biological weapons in Kyiv. The agreement was announced by former Senators Richard G. Lugar and Barack Obama.

One of the labs that received funding, according to the report, was the I.I. Mechnikov Antiplague Scientific and Research Institute, in the Black Sea port city of Odessa. It’s not clear, however, until when the agreement was in place between the US and Ukraine. 

Syria's reminiscences

On April 7, 2018, Douma, Syria, traveled the world after reports of the use of chemical weapons. To this day, what happened in Douma remains to be explained. After the episode, an investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) began. Expert toxicologists have ruled out the possibility that chlorine gas was the cause of the victims' deaths. However, leaked information from Wikileaks exposed how senior OPCW officials had censored the explosive discovery.

In the early days of the OPCW investigation of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, toxicology experts ruled out the use of chlorine gas as the cause of death for the more than 40 civilians found at the scene. Instead of publishing this finding, senior OPCW officials withheld it and then launched an investigation into a veteran inspector who questioned OPCW's censorship.

The suppression of toxicologists is among a number of deceptions by the OPCW leadership aimed at corrupting the scientific process of the investigation at Douma, as detailed in The Grayzone’s investigation and the various official documents presented by Wikileaks.  

German toxicologists

In early June 2018, four OPCW staff went to Germany to meet with toxicologists/pharmacologists, all recognized world experts in chemical weapons poisoning. The trip was approved at the highest levels through a Mission Alert Order. The delegation consisted of Dr. Brendan Whelan and Dr. Sami Barrek, both senior members of Douma's investigation team, Dr. Marc Blum, Head of the OPCW Laboratory, and Dr. Soumik Paul, Head of the OPCW Health and Safety Branch.

German experts saw numerous photos and videos of the victims and were told what the alleged witnesses had described to inspectors. Some alleged witnesses claimed a rapid, even immediate onset of severe foaming due to exposure to a toxic chemical (Original Report for 7.82). As the final report revealed: “Victims began arriving [to the hospital known as Site 1] shortly after 7 pm with excessive salivation or foaming at the mouth.” (paragraph 8.56). The alleged attack took place around 7:00 pm (paragraph 8.58).

Within an hour, toxicologists easily confirmed what the OPCW team and other experts already suspected – that such a rapid onset of profuse foam was incompatible with exposure to chlorine. According to the leaked minutes of that meeting, previously published by Wikileaks:

“…experts [toxicologists] were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and exposure to chlorine. In particular, they stated that the appearance of excessive foam, due to pulmonary edema, observed in photos and reported by witnesses, would not occur in the short period of time between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time when the videos were recorded (approximately 3-4 hours).”

 

The evidence was now overwhelming that the more than 40 victims filmed at Site 2 had not been killed by nerve agents or chlorine gas. But the Douma samples did not reveal any other toxic chemicals that could have caused the rapid foaming. Could it be that the highly toxic chemical had not been detected in the samples? The OPCW team and German toxicologists discussed this possibility, but found it unlikely.

Oliver Stone’s 2016 Ukraine on Fire defies mainstream narrative on Russia-Ukraine war

 Article published in Travel Tomorrow

Ukraine on Fire presents a likely controversial overview of Ukraine’s political history leading up to the 2014 protests in Euromaidan and shedding light on today’s military developments in Eastern Europe.

Directed by Igor Lopatonok and produced by Oscar winner Oliver Stone, the 2016 documentary defies the mainstream media narrative on the geopolitical analysis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, spanning events from the World War II to the Cold War. The film features the international pressure over Ukraine — leading to an apparent coup d’état ousting the democratically elected Viktor Yanukovich and culminates with the implications of NATO expansion.

In the documentary, Oliver Stone uses his critical lens on the Ukraine crisis, and more specifically on the role played by the US. Labelled as propaganda by the Western media, Russia’s argument of “denazifying” Ukraine as a justification for the invasion is analysed in Ukraine on Fire with the spotlight on a number of neo-nazis groups that, over time, seemed to have incorporated the Ukrainian National Guard.

Ukrainian Nazis joining forces with Hitler

In a throwback to World War II, the documentary denounces the estimated 80,000 Ukrainian ultra-nationalists — notorious for their cruelty towards the Polish, the Jewish and Russian people — who have joined the Schutzstaffel, the infamous Nazi SS.

In 1929, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was founded by Stefan Bandera, an ardent nationalist known by the CIA for leading a “reign of terror” and masterminding several ethnic cleansing operations, such as the 1941 Babi Yar massacre, where nearly 34,000 Jews were killed. However, after the war, Bandera fled to Europe, backed by the CIA for safe entry.

Cold War

“The CIA’s fingerprints can be found throughout the conflict,” the film stated, referring to the aftermath of the protests in Ukraine, both the 2004 and 2014 revolutions and events dating back to the Cold War. According to the documentary, CIA documents declassified in 2016 reveal strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.

Such ties would serve as a possible source of counter-intelligence against the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Ukrainian nationalists were part of numerous military operations, including Operation Belladona, Operation Lynx, and Operation Trident. Yet, during the Nuremberg trials in 1945-1956, Ukrainian Nazis were spared from proper justice. “By 1951, the Agency [CIA] excused the illegal activities of OUN’s security branch in the name of Cold War necessity,” reads a declassified memo from the CIA.

The Ukrainian ultra-nationalist movement kept growing with names like Dmytro Dontsov, Andriy Melnyk and Roman Shukhevych shaping the neo-Nazi movement. In 1989, the Ukrainian nationalist organisation Narodny Rukh (People’s Movement) was created, serving as an incubator for neo-Nazi leaders against the Soviet Union’s trajectory towards the West guided by Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika and Glasnost policies.

Shortly before the end of the Soviet Union, in 1991, Oleh Tyahnybok founded yet another nationalist group, Svoboda, which ideology was the purging of Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine. As early as 2012, the BBC reported the danger of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists, particularly Svoboda, and the EU passed a resolution condemning the group as anti-Semitic and xenophobic.

US ties with Svoboda

Despite the warnings from Europe, Victoria Nuland from the US State Department met Tyahnybok, Svoboda’s leader, in February 2014, ahead of the Euromaidan protests. The plot thickens when Nuland was caught on tape with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, masterminding an apparent coup d’état. “Now it would be great to help glue this thing and have the UN help glue it and, you know, f*ck the EU,” said Nuland.

Recalling his troubled tenure as a President (2010-2014), Viktor Yanukovich told Oliver Stone: “My high-level contact was VP Joe Biden. We had frequent phone conversations but the problem was that Mr Biden said one thing but they did different things in Ukraine.”

As for Mr Pyatt, the US Ambassador, Yanukovich said he received visits from Maidan representatives all the time. “We got the impression that the headquarters in charge of the whole process was in the US embassy,” said Yanukovich.

EU and IMF pressure

Throwing back to 2013, Yanukovich explained that Ukraine was going through a difficult economic period and the country was torn between turning to the EU, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or Russia. With an existing trade agreement with Russia, Yanukovich sought to negotiate a new — and better — agreement, but both the EU and the IMF offered “unacceptable solutions”, he said.

“A significant rise in utility rates, for electricity and natural gas. This would mean a lot more expenses for the people, while their income would stay at the same level,” said Yanukovich about the IMF’s proposal. Ukraine suggested other solutions, but these were officially rejected by the IMF in November 2013.

Kyiv was left with Russia, which said it was ready for partnership if their interests were taken into account. Interviewed by Oliver Stone, the Russian President Vladimir Putin said that an agreement with Ukraine “would mean that EU goods would enter the Russian market without any negotiations”, which was not tolerated by the EU.

Talking about the trade agreement proposed by the EU, Yanukovich said that Ukraine couldn’t go ahead because it “required essential economic expenses and Europe didn’t provide any loss balancing.”

Euromaidan

After Ukraine’s decision to move towards the East for trade partnerships, the documentary reveals the manufacturing of a protest, with Euromaidan right behind the corner. As the November 2013 protest started in Ukraine, three new TV channels went on the air and suddenly became stunningly popular. Spilno TV was launched on November 21, Hromadske TV went live on November 22 and Expresso TV followed on November 24. These channels went viral supporting the protests, which were asking for an alignment with the EU and encouraging more and more people to go to Maidan.

Eventually, the protests led to overthrowing the President Yanukovich after an apparent coordinated action between the US and Ukrainian nationalist groups. Such outcome was reported by the filmmaker as the result of a successful staged revolution which included “money, the media and techniques”.

NATO expansion

A crucial element featured in the documentary is NATO’s military threat bordering the Russian Federation. NATO has not stopped expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from 17 countries in 1990 to 30 today, several of which were once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.

“Why do we react so vehemently to NATO’s expansion?” asked Putin. “We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can’t resist the pressure of the USA.”

Putin stressed the military threat that NATO membership poses to Russia, saying that “anything at all can appear in such country such as missile defense systems, new bases, or, if necessary, new missile strike systems.”

Putin’s lack of sense of security has been compared to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the US drew a red line in respect of the installation of medium-range missiles 70 km from its border and the world was at the brink of nuclear war.

“This is a very dangerous topic. It’s a topic of war. War between the US and Russia would be complete madness,” said Yanukovich referring to NATO expansion.

Described by critics as Russian propaganda, Oliver Stone’s Ukraine on Fire 2016 documentary presents verifiable claims that bring a different perspective when reflecting on the military escalation in Ukraine and have recently been voiced by the US political scientist John Mearsheimer.

Crisis in Ukraine on the focus of the EU Summit

Article published in Cafebabel

Meeting at the European Council. European Council © Flickr

For the first time chaired by Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, the European Summit took place in Brussels, on the 18th of December. Ukraine and the investment plan were some of the topics approached by the European leaders. 

A few days before Christmas, European leaders discussed the problems of the Union and ways of tackling it. Rather than decisions made, the meeting started a new cycle in European politics. As expected, EU leaders discussed topics such as the €315 billion package proposed by Juncker and the situation in Ukraine. European leaders have different opinions and views in how the EU should deal with Russia, however, all the Union is cohesive against Putin’s intervention in neighbor’s territory. No more sanctions against Russia were decided under the EU Summit. 

“This is a good chance to brief the council. We need to support the reform agenda. It is time for the EU to make Ukraine a success. This requires work in Europe and Ukraine. We need to develop a sound strategy with Russia, like Donald Tusk said. We start tonight and I am ready to follow this up with the foreign ministers in January,” said the EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini during the Summit. 

The situation in Ukraine is clearly a sensitive topic on the European agenda. However, more than outlining possible ways on how the EU should toughen up the sanctions against Russia, EU leaders and diplomats appeared to be willingness to follow the diplomatic way of solving this difficult situation, urging Russia to the benefits of ending the occupation in Crimea. “We should keep those sanctions in place until Russia changes its behavior and stops the aggression in Ukraine,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron. UK’s leader went further saying “the door is always open to Russia if it changes its behavior,” he added. 

The new President of the Council, Donald Tusk, said that Russia is now a “strategic problem” for Europe and not Ukraine. Tusk stated that the biggest challenge for Europe now is Russia’s approximation not only to Ukraine but also to the EU. 

On the German side, Chancellor Angela Merkel made it clear that the EU will not step back regarding Russia sanctions unless Putin reconsiders. Likewise Cameron’s statement, Merkel also reminded that the sanctions were imposed for specific reasons and, therefore, they can be lifted as soon as the reasons are no longer there. 

Following the Minsk Protocol, an agreement to halt the war in the Donbass region of Ukraine and signed in September 2014 between the actors in this war, French President François Hollande and Chancellor Merkel want to see developments in the protocol, with the support from Russia. Moreover, Hollande has recognized that the sanctions against Putin are one of the reasons for the sudden economic and monetary crisis which has shaken Russia recently. The French leader believes this is the best way to regulate the problem as Putin is isolated in the international scene. 

The EU has already barred imports from Crimea (unless they show a Ukrainian credential) as well as enacted limitations on individuals and some major companies in the region. One of the steps taken in account by the leaders is precisely whether to impose a total ban on European investment in Crimea. Russia was already banned from importing goods from the EU. As a reaction, Putin’s country is also not importing any goods from the EU. This represents a major threat for many farmers and for the EU in general.