Kremlin Backs Trump’s Call to End Biological Weapons — With Conditions
Kremlin praises Trump’s call to ban bioweapons but insists on binding rules, as scrutiny intensifies over U.S. lab research and past oversight failures.
By Nick Holt | The Modern Enquirer | September 26, 2025
MOSCOW — The Kremlin has welcomed U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal for a global ban on the development of biological weapons, calling the initiative “brilliant,” but signaled that Russia would only support the move if it were documented and codified at the international level.
Speaking at a press briefing on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov praised the plan but cautioned that verbal assurances were not enough.
“Undoubtedly, this is a very important proposal and it can only be welcomed,” Peskov said.
“Naturally, the Russian side is ready to participate in this process of the global rejection of biological weapons. However, it is better to document it in some way, again, at an international level.”
Trump’s Proposal
Trump unveiled the initiative at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, urging nations to renounce biological weapons and suggesting that artificial intelligence could be used in monitoring compliance.
He described the measure as part of a broader effort to address what he has called “unregulated biotech risks.”
The White House linked the initiative to Trump’s May 5 executive order on biosafety, which curtailed U.S. funding for certain overseas pathogen research.
That order followed years of controversy over “gain-of-function” experiments — research that makes pathogens more transmissible or deadly — and public criticism of U.S. funding for risky projects abroad.
Russia’s Position
While welcoming the idea in principle, Moscow used the occasion to repeat long-standing concerns about U.S. biological research activities.
Russian officials have accused Washington of operating or funding sensitive laboratories in Ukraine and other former Soviet states.
In 2023, the Russian Ministry of Defense presented documents and samples it said linked U.S.-funded programs in Ukraine to avian influenza strains and other pathogens with epidemic potential.
Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov named specific projects — UP-8, P-444, and Flu-Fly-Way — commissioned by the U.S. Department of Defense through Ukrainian institutes, which he claimed were unrelated to bird migration research and instead evaluated the spread of economically significant infections.
Russian briefings also cited documents confirming U.S. collaboration with 46 laboratories in Ukraine, acknowledged in a Pentagon fact sheet.
Washington has described these as peaceful disease surveillance and biosafety programs. Moscow has alleged they serve dual-use purposes, including the collection of biomaterials from the Ukrainian population.
The U.S. has denied any bioweapons development, though senior officials have acknowledged the existence of “biological research facilities” in Ukraine. At the same time, analysts note Russia’s own biological programs remain opaque, complicating independent verification of either side’s claims.
Global Stakes
The debate comes amid rapid advances in synthetic biology and AI-driven drug design. Experts warn that these technologies lower the barrier for both states and non-state actors to engineer pathogens, blurring the line between legitimate biodefense and weapons research.
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972 already bans the development and stockpiling of biological weapons, but it lacks a binding verification regime.
Successive U.S. administrations have resisted efforts to introduce inspections, arguing that they would endanger commercial and national security research.
Russia and China have called for stricter oversight but face criticism for a lack of transparency about their own activities.
Questions over U.S. credibility have only deepened since the COVID-19 pandemic. Congressional investigations and newly released documents show that senior officials — including Dr. Anthony Fauci — oversaw funding flows to risky coronavirus research in Wuhan while privately discussing concerns about a possible laboratory origin of SARS-CoV-2.
Testimony has since revealed conflicting statements about U.S. support for gain-of-function research, as well as efforts to downplay evidence of engineered genetic features in the virus.
Taken together, these disclosures highlight the political difficulty Washington faces in championing transparency abroad while struggling with accountability at home.
Arms Control Dynamics
Peskov’s response illustrates the familiar choreography of great-power arms control: sweeping declarations at international forums, followed by disputes over definitions, scope, and enforcement.
Russia’s swift endorsement, paired with its insistence on documentation, positions Moscow as supportive while keeping pressure on Washington to accept binding mechanisms it has historically resisted.
For Trump, the proposal functions both as international diplomacy and domestic politics. A global ban on biological weapons plays well at the UN and resonates with voters distrustful of both pandemics and government secrecy over research.
But without formal commitments, experts caution that the initiative risks becoming another symbolic measure rather than a substantive treaty reform.
What Comes Next
The future of Trump’s proposal depends on whether Washington is prepared to revisit negotiations on verification protocols under the BWC, a step previous administrations have avoided. Russia and China are expected to push for such talks, using them as an opportunity to shape — or stall — any new framework.
Until then, the initiative remains what Peskov described: an idea in need of documentation. In an era where the boundary between defense and offense in biological research grows ever thinner, the effectiveness of any ban will rest not on rhetoric but on enforcement.
Key Context:
Biological Weapons Convention (1972): Prohibits development and stockpiling of bioweapons; lacks verification.
Trump Executive Order (May 5, 2025): Restricted U.S. funding for overseas high-risk pathogen research.
Russian Reports (2023): Presented documents alleging U.S.-funded projects in Ukraine involving pathogens with epidemic potential.
COVID-19 Investigations (2024): U.S. officials admitted oversight failures in funding controversial gain-of-function research, intensifying questions about lab safety and transparency.
Nick Holt is Managing Editor of The Modern Enquirer.