The death of a laboratory technician at Russia's plague research institute in Irkutsk has reignited concerns about the country's biological research activities. The incident, reported by the New York Post and picked up by European media, has prompted politicians and commentators, particularly in the United States, to point to a network of Soviet-era laboratories where biological agents were allegedly developed for offensive purposes.
The Irkutsk institute, located north of Mongolia, has long served as a repository for highly virulent strains of plague, anthrax, and other pathogens. Officially, these facilities are dedicated to public health protection. However, a US study cited by the New York Post claims that the plague laboratories collaborated with the USSR's biological weapons programme. The Kremlin has consistently denied such allegations, but the lack of transparency continues to fuel suspicion.
Defensive vs. offensive research
Dr Mirko Himmel, a biological weapons expert at the University of Hamburg, explained to Euronews that a clear distinction must be made between defensive research, which is permitted under international law, and offensive research, which is prohibited. "Biodefence research, which will certainly also deal with the plague pathogen as a biological agent, can be found in many countries with the appropriate technical, human and financial resources. These include the US, the UK, Russia, China, EU countries such as Germany and France, and others," Himmel said.
He added that while no state has publicly acknowledged running an offensive biological weapons programme, "corresponding suspected cases have been reported. The US, in particular, suspects China, Russia, North Korea and Iran of running offensive biological weapons programmes." Himmel also noted that biodefence research could serve as a cover for offensive work.
The theoretical use of plague bacteria as a weapon was also addressed. "If, despite the internationally agreed ban, state actors were to develop and have ready-to-use biological weapons using the plague pathogen as the active agent, then, for example, victims of a biological weapons attack using the plague pathogen could contract pneumonic plague by inhaling the aerosolised pathogen," Himmel said. He suggested that such agents could be dispersed as bioaerosols via aircraft or explosive devices, though such programmes are generally secret.
The verification gap
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), in force since 1975, prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons. However, as Himmel pointed out, "the ban lacks a verification mechanism to check whether member states are complying with the treaty." This means that, despite the formal prohibition, there is no way to independently confirm that states are not conducting offensive research.
"There should therefore be no biological weapons based on the plague pathogen as a biological agent," Himmel said, "but due to the lack of a verification regime in the BWC, it remains unclear to civil society whether, and to what extent, states are conducting research into biological weapons."
The incident in Irkutsk has also drawn attention to the broader geopolitical context. The United States has repeatedly accused Russia of violating the BWC, while Moscow has dismissed such claims as propaganda. The European Union has called on Russia to provide more details about the Siberian plague case, as reported in EU demands for transparency. Meanwhile, the Russian government has rebuffed these calls, even as a second case was reported.
For European observers, the issue is not merely academic. The continent has a long history with plague, as the Black Death in Germany reminds us. The potential for biological weapons to be used in conflict zones, such as Ukraine, where Russian strikes on civilians have been documented, adds urgency to the debate.
As the world watches the fallout from the Irkutsk incident, the fundamental question remains: without a robust verification mechanism, how can the international community trust that the BWC is being upheld? The answer, for now, is that it cannot.
