Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s answers to media questions regarding statements issued following G7 meetings

Question: A document approved following the recent G7 meetings claims that unlike other nuclear powers (that is, Russia and China), the United States, the UK, and France display a responsible and transparent approach in the nuclear sphere, providing “data on their nuclear forces and the objective size of their nuclear arsenal.” What is your comment?

Sergey Ryabkov: These statements are wide of the mark. They reflect the general anti-Russia and anti-China sentiment that became one of the main themes of the summit held by the so-called Group of Seven.

Russia is invariably responsible in nuclear affairs and displays all possible “transparency” within the limits determined by the considerations for political and military expediency. Over the past decade, Russia has markedly raised the level of transparency with regard to its doctrinal precepts in the nuclear sphere and the modernisation programmes embracing its nuclear deterrent. The Russian military regularly informs the public at home and the international community about the specific weapons systems guarding Russia’s sovereignty and ensuring its security, as well as about the essence and purpose of relevant exercises and drills. All of this is enough to form a judgment about our current capabilities and does not create unjustified national security risks. We play honestly.

As for the West’s attempts to score political points by informing the public about the size of their nuclear arsenals, all of this is sheer hypocrisy. First, the figures they provide are often false or relative. The data on US strategic offensive arms, which the US Department of State published not long ago, are delusive in their non-conformity with the New START counting rules that Washington stubbornly attempts to circumvent by using underhanded manipulation. As a result, they leave out considerable capabilities – more than 100 units of strategic offensive arms – which should fall within the purview of the treaty, whose fate US officials ostensibly hold so close to their heart.

As for data on the size of the UK and French arsenals, they are totally unverifiable and declarative. You can publish whatever you want. We recall the ease and indifference to international opinion, with which the UK recently increased the numerical ceiling for nuclear munitions, by more than one-third. What is indicative is that simultaneously London announced its intention to lower the level of nuclear transparency. But they tend to put forward claims against Russia alone.

Any journalist can form an opinion about the so-called “transparency” of the Western arsenals by asking the NATO countries to confirm the presence of US nuclear weapons at specific military bases in Europe and indicate the quantitative parameters. At best, the answer will be vague and unspecific, since NATO abides by the principle of “uncertainty” in this matter. The “selectivity” of Western transparency is striking.

On the whole, one has the impression that the only purpose underpinning the Western rhetoric on the size of their nuclear arsenals is to bring psychological and military-political pressure on Russia and China. Behind this is clearly a pathological desire to denigrate our two countries.

At the same time, the data publication story is a good pretext for reminding everyone of how significant the factor of NATO’s combined strategic arsenals is both under the present circumstances, where the NATO countries are maniacally obsessed with the idea of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia, and as applied to a hypothetical discussion on strategic arms control in the future, when and if the West revises its hostile policy and is mature enough to have an equitable dialogue on these issues. We note that the G7’s appeal for resuming the New START and for other steps in the nuclear sphere does not evince even the slightest willingness for NATO’s combined capabilities being taken into account in this context. Without this, there is no chance to discuss these subjects in earnest. It is a pity, as they say, but that’s life. I am certain that the West will feel sorry that they have lost an opportunity to strengthen their security through dialogue and talks.

Question: The G7 summit’s final communique says that the parties remain committed to the “universalisation, effective implementation, and strengthening of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.” How does this relate to the United States deploying its biological laboratories all over the world, including in the post-Soviet space?

Sergey Ryabkov: The entire international community should focus on the uncontrolled and extremely dangerous military biological activities that the United States and its allies pursue outside their national territory. We regard these Western activities, including in the post-Soviet space, as a real threat to the national security of the Russian Federation and other states, primarily those where these activities are taking place.

Hiding behind the provision of sanitary and epidemiological assistance, the United States has cranked out the construction and upgrading of its microbiological laboratories across the globe. It is hardly possible to identify the degree of involvement of these facilities in classified military research programmes. Obtained by the Americans, strains of local infectious agents can be used for purposes incompatible with the security interests of the host countries. Specifically, these “research projects” are fraught with the high risk of pathogens leaking into the environment and causing irreparable harm to the health of the local population.

A clear example of these US activities is the recently revealed facts of the Pentagon and its affiliated entities, including the private companies, implementing military biological programmes in Ukraine in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). An analysis of the programmes that were being carried out at Ukrainian laboratories allows us to conclude that they were developing components of biological weapons in the direct vicinity of Russian territory.

In 2022, we convened a consultative meeting on Article 5 of the BWC and a UN Security Council meeting to consider Russia’s grievances concerning Washington’s failure to carry out its obligations under the BWC. During these meetings, and along with the Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, the United States and Ukraine failed to answer the well-argued questions posed by the Russian experts. These questions remain open and call for a response. We will continue to insist that Washington and Kiev provide a comprehensive answer to diffuse this situation.

US worldwide military biological activity is graphic confirmation of the need to urgently strengthen the BWC. Highly relevant in this light are the corresponding Russian initiatives. It is no less important that the majority of the States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention, including Russia, are in favour of adopting a universal, legally binding, and non-discriminatory protocol with an effective built-in verification mechanism. It is the United States that has been blocking the work on the protocol since 2001.

Considering the above, the best confirmation of the Western countries’ commitment to consolidating the BWC regime would be some real steps to cut short the world-wide destructive military biological activity in combination with creating specific tools for BWC implementation, rather than the inflated and empty statements adopted in the wake of the G7 summit.