A research institute outside Moscow is manufacturing chemical weapons that Russia’s military has deployed in Ukraine — in violation of international law — a report by Skhemy (lit. “Schemes”), the investigative unit of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Ukrainian service, has found.
The Applied Chemistry Research Institute in Sergiyev Posad, a town just over 40 miles northeast of Moscow, sources the components for its grenades from companies across Russia that have not yet been hit by Western sanctions. The facility also receives materials from Chinese firms which it uses to produce banned phosphorus munitions, the investigation revealed.
Despite its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, Russia has not abandoned such weapons but has instead modernized and expanded their production. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) has documented more than 10,000 chemical attacks on its country’s troops — mostly with RG-Vo (РГ-Во) grenades, short for “hand grenade with toxic substance,” which were introduced to Russia’s arsenal in December 2023, according to Skhemy. The grenades are widely used by Russian units, including the 114th and 136th Motorized Rifle Brigades and detachments of the National Guard (Rosgvardiya).
The weapons contain toxic CS and CN gases. While their production is not formally banned, using them in combat violates international law. Russian forces employ the RG-Vo to flush Ukrainian soldiers from dugouts and other shelters before attacking. The grenades have been displayed at exhibitions and on television broadcasts by state-controlled propaganda channel RT, but the Kremlin denies using them.
How the grenades are used
- After pulling the pin and securing the safety lever, the grenade is attached to a quadcopter (a four-rotor drone).
- The operator flies it over Ukrainian positions and drops it into a dugout.
- Toxic smoke quickly fills the space. Soldiers either put on gas masks or flee for air.
- Once they leave cover, Russian troops open fire.
Ehm, dude your own remarks are full of denial and diversion. Look in the mirror before “playing the victim” and acting surprised, right? You reap what you sow.
Then somebody should point out the denial and diversion and explain what is correct. Denial shouldn’t be a justification for insults.
I agree, but he made the initial claim, so all the burden of proof is on him. Do not let people make wild claims and then let them off the hook to actually prove it. Or in other words: If you let people do that, you end up with Trump, as countering all the bullshit talked FAR too long.
I also agree, but effectively he is claiming that the West must be losing since they fall back to using chemical weapons propaganda. So the article is the proof.
I do not understand. How is one proof of the other? Did you read his comment?
The article is overexagerating. Why would they do that if they had better news to publish?
What better news? Nothing is happening, so they make this exaggeration.
That’s possible but the accusation of chemical weapons can’t be made often. Why risk the credibility of future accusations?
In today’s lesson, we will learn about the difference between hating the US propaganda machine and having cultural/ethnic hatred for the Russian people