General Buzhinsky assessed the likelihood of Kyiv’s provocation with chemical weapons

Kyiv, it seems, is vital to drag Europe into an armed conflict in Ukraine, for which he uses a variety of provocations: an anti-aircraft missile that fell in Poland, shelling of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, the creation of a “dirty bomb” … Now, apparently, another, related with a chemical attack. At least the Western media, in particular, Politico, reports that Russia is allegedly preparing to use chemical weapons in Ukraine. And the Pentagon is sending its experts to Eastern Europe to train military operations in the event of a chemical threat from Russia.

The former head of the International Treaty Department of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Military Sciences, Lieutenant-General in the reserve Yevgeny Buzhinsky, who at one time dealt with issues of chemical disarmament, in an interview with MK, said that he considers the provocation with the use of chemical weapons by Kyiv quite real.

– In your opinion, can everything that Politico writes about the use of chemical weapons by Russia in Ukraine be part of the preparation of such a provocation on the part of Ukraine itself?

– Why not? Russia, by the way, has repeatedly warned the international organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons – the OPCW – about the preparation by Kyiv of sabotage using chemical weapons.

– It is unlikely that the Kiev leadership will risk acting independently in this matter. The chemical scam requires the support and cover of the United States, which the Americans provided to the same White Helmets in Syria.

– Yes, and what is interesting here is that the US itself has not destroyed its own stocks of chemical weapons. Until recently, Russia and the US were the two largest chemical weapons powers, with about 40,000 tons each.

I remember when we were negotiating with the Americans within the framework of the “chemical convention”, we drew up schedules for its destruction. Our delegation then immediately said that we would not be able to meet these deadlines due to economic and financial reasons. After all, these were the 90s, it was difficult with the economy in our country. The Europeans then promised us: don’t worry, we will help you, you just destroy. And I will not deny that they really helped, they built five factories to destroy our chemical weapons.

Did you also share technology?

– We had our own technologies for the destruction of chemical munitions. By the way, our scientists then proposed a very effective and cheap technology for the destruction of chemical weapons. We were ready to share it with the Americans. But they flatly refused.

At the same time, the States decided to play it safe, saying: if one of the parties does not fit into the schedule, then the other side – and here they meant themselves – will be allowed to slow down the disposal process. Say, this is required in order to avoid uneven destruction.

– As far as I know, in 2017 Russia announced that it had completely destroyed its chemical weapons, while the United States never did so.

– Yes, we did it with the use of those very cheap advanced technologies. But the Americans said that they allegedly did not have enough funds to destroy chemical weapons.

– Despite the fact that they have billions of dollars for military assistance to Ukraine, but not enough to destroy their chemical arsenals.

– This, of course, is my personal opinion, which, unfortunately, is not shared by anyone, but I believe that if the Americans behave this way, we could think about resuming the production of chemical weapons ourselves.

Otherwise, it turns out that we are now in an unequal position with them. They have the whole range of weapons of mass destruction, including, by the way, biological ones. And we have only nuclear weapons. It’s not fair.

– How could your proposal be implemented purely technically?

– And so: how long have they not yet destroyed chemical weapons there and left them in their warehouses? Let’s say about 100 tons. Then we should also produce about 100 tons, and let them lie in storage.

– Then they certainly will try to accuse us of all mortal sins. They will carry out chemical attacks around the world like the “Skripal case”, putting the blame on us. And in Ukraine, something similar will be staged.

– I don’t think that they will resort to this favorite means of theirs – “newbie”. By the way, not too dangerous. For their provocations, they generally do not use the most powerful means. True, and not the most harmless, but at least they are not military nerve agents sarin, soman or VX, which can cause really dire consequences. But what they did in Syria, for example, with the same chlorine, may well be repeated. Moreover, the option worked out. Somewhere in the city they will carry out a sabotage using chemical weapons, some “White Helmets” will immediately appear there and announce that the Russians have arranged all this. In addition, they will confirm everything with “irrefutable evidence” – they will find, for example, a fragment from Russian ammunition.

– So, we must take some counter-arguments, present our weighty facts proving that we did not do it.

– Well, what are the counter-arguments? When they did this in Syria, they immediately found a piece of supposedly Russian chemical munition with the inscription “Made in Russia” at the “crime scene”. I already said then: if it had been a Russian provocation, there would have been more likely to find a fragment with the inscription “Made In USA”.

But now it’s like this: the more ridiculous the lie, the more willingly it is perceived in the West. And therefore, no matter what arguments we give, in any case, they will be served there in a way that is beneficial to them. Here, for example, now: they shot our prisoners of war, but in the West they still say that this is a fake. The Ukrainians themselves claim that our prisoners of war provoked them to be shot. And nothing, they believe!

– Politico writes that if a chemical attack occurs, it will be organized using chemicals that are easy to hide. Russia, allegedly, due to the lack of evidence, will be very difficult to blame for this attack.

– I am not a chemist, I do not undertake to talk about chemicals, but I think that the situation with the use of chemical weapons is quite possible. Now in Kyiv, everything is possible, any provocation. Winter is coming, it’s cold, there is no electricity, as well as a normal food supply … Ukraine in such conditions can do anything. I think they did not abandon the idea of ​​radiological weapons there either. The same “dirty” bomb with radioactive isotopes can be used. So I do not exclude anything, not only the use of chemical weapons by Kyiv.

– Does Kyiv have it at all?

– The idea is not to be. According to official data, at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were no chemical weapons on the territory of Ukraine. In total, the USSR had about 40,000 tons of chemical munitions. It was believed that all of them are located on the territory of the RSFSR. Although no one can say this with 100% certainty. It is quite possible that something remained in Ukraine. And even if not, it can easily appear there. After all, the Americans have chemical weapons. And they, as we now see, do not feel sorry for anything for the “square”.