The Alleged Chemical Warfare Plot: BZ’s Origins, Implications and Global Impact in Russia’s Zaporozhye Region


In a significant development reported by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), an alleged terrorist attack using a chemical warfare agent, closely resembling the US-manufactured BZ, was purportedly foiled in Russia’s Zaporozhye region. This report raises numerous questions about the nature of the substance involved, its origins, and the implications of such an accusation in the ongoing geopolitical tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

The Chemical Agent BZ: Origins and Effects

The story of BZ, or 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (QNB), begins in the mid-20th century amidst the Cold War’s secretive military research. Developed in 1955 at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland, BZ’s potential as a psychoactive chemical weapon was not fully realized until the early 1960s. It was designed to incapacitate rather than kill, a concept that aligned with emerging strategies for non-lethal warfare. By 1961, the psychoactive effects of BZ were being explored, and by 1966, the United States military deemed it combat-ready.

BZ is classified by the US Army as a central nervous system depressant. Its mechanism targets cognitive functions, severely impairing memory, problem-solving, and comprehension. At high doses, BZ can induce toxic delirium, leaving individuals in a state of profound confusion and disorientation, effectively incapacitating them from performing military duties or any organized activities.

The incapacitating potency of BZ is highlighted by Igor Nikulin, a military expert and former member of the UN Commission on Chemical and Biological Weapons. Nikulin notes that a mere milligram of BZ can debilitate a person for up to 80 hours, inducing severe disorientation, hallucinations, and a complete breakdown of spatial awareness. Despite its classification as a non-lethal weapon, the potential for fatal outcomes cannot be ignored, especially at higher dosages where it can cause heart muscle paralysis.

Historically, BZ was considered for use in military operations that required incapacitation of the enemy without lethal force. Its deployment in warfare, however, remained limited, partly due to the unpredictable nature of its effects and ethical considerations surrounding its use. The chemical’s properties and effects on human cognition made it a subject of interest not only for military application but also for research into pharmacological tools and the mechanisms of anticholinergic delirium.

Human studies conducted in the 1960s provided valuable insights into the effects of BZ. These studies, involving controlled administration of BZ to volunteers, established a baseline understanding of its physiological and psychological impact. The research aimed to ascertain safe exposure levels and the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) for BZ, critical for setting safety standards for potential military use. The findings from these studies underscored the substance’s potency and the fine line between incapacitation and severe toxicity.

The research into BZ also extended to its environmental stability and the development of exposure guidelines, particularly in contexts such as military field drinking water standards. Efforts to understand the fate of BZ in water and establish safe consumption levels were crucial for ensuring the safety of military personnel. These guidelines reflected a comprehensive approach to managing the risks associated with BZ, incorporating data from human exposure studies and the known pharmacokinetics of the substance.

In the realm of chemical warfare and defense, BZ stands out as a testament to the complex interplay between military innovation, ethical considerations, and the imperative of safeguarding human health. While its use in actual combat scenarios remained limited, the research and debates surrounding BZ have contributed significantly to the discourse on non-lethal weapons and the ethical boundaries of warfare. The legacy of BZ, encapsulated in its development, proposed military application, and the extensive safety protocols established in its wake, continues to inform contemporary discussions on chemical agents and their place in modern warfare and security strategies​​​​.

Chemical NameAgent BZ (3-quinuclidinyl benzilate)
PropertiesOdorless, environmentally stable, white crystalline powder with anticholinergic activity
UsesPreviously considered for military incapacitation; currently a pharmacological tool (QNB)
Effects on HumansProduces anticholinergic delirium, cognitive dysfunction, hallucinations, inability to perform tasks. Effects are completely reversible.
Exposure RouteInhalation, likely involves aerosolized solid
Lethality Estimates (Humans)Ketchum (1963) estimates: 2–5 mg/kg, 0.3–1.4 mg/kg, 0.2–1.2 mg/kg (via various extrapolation methods)
Nonlethal Effects StudyKetchum and colleagues (1963, 2006; Ketchum et al. 1967); ICt50: 60.1 mg-min/m3
Animal Effects and LCt50 ValuesMydriasis, cycloplegia, ataxia, lethargy, erratic behavior, weakness, hyperactivity. LCt50 values range from 12,000 to 123,000 mg-min/m3.
AEGL-1 ValuesNot recommended due to insufficient data
AEGL-2 ValuesEstimated threshold for incapacitating effects: 20 mg-min/m3 or 4 mg/m3. Time scaling with n = 1 for durations up to 1 hour. 4-h and 8-h durations not recommended.
AEGL-3 ValuesDerived from monkey LCt50 reduced 10-fold: 3,700 mg-min/m3. Time scaling as per AEGL-2. 4-h and 8-h durations not recommended.
This table organizes the complex information about Agent BZ in a more digestible format, highlighting its properties, applications, effects on humans and animals, and regulatory guidelines based on exposure levels.

The FSB’s Claims

In a series of operations that have stirred international concern, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has claimed to thwart multiple sabotage efforts attributed to Ukrainian nationals and their accomplices, revealing a complex web of alleged plots involving unconventional warfare methods. These incidents underscore the deepening tensions and the escalating shadow war between Russia and Ukraine, amid the broader conflict that has engulfed the region since 2014.

The Thwarted BZ Analogue Plot

A particularly alarming claim made by the FSB involves the interception of a plot to deploy a chemical agent, described as an analogue of BZ, by three detained Ukrainians. The FSB presented evidence, including video footage of the arrest and packages containing bottles marked “Biosporin” with labels in Ukrainian, suggesting a deliberate attempt to use chemical warfare within the conflict zone. This incident, according to the FSB, indicates a dangerous escalation in the types of weaponry being considered for use, raising serious questions about the boundaries of the ongoing conflict and the potential for broader regional or even global repercussions​​​​.

Ukrainian Pilot Detention

Adding to the complexity of these operations, the FSB claimed to have detained a Ukrainian pilot after his light aircraft crashed in Russia’s Bryansk region, near the Ukrainian border. The incident, detailed by the FSB and reported by Russian state news agency TASS, involved the pilot allegedly attempting to flee back into Ukrainian territory before being apprehended by Russian border patrol. The pilot was reportedly armed with an assault rifle, magazines, and a bulletproof vest, hinting at a potentially broader mission or reconnaissance effort within Russian territory​​.

Alleged Sabotage and Espionage in Crimea

Further claims by the FSB include the detention of individuals in Crimea, accused of preparing “terrorist attacks” with explosives purportedly transported in electric stoves. Among the evidence listed by the Russian security services were “five ready-to-use” bombs, six kilograms of “British-made” explosives, and various surveillance devices. These incidents point to a significant intensification of espionage and sabotage activities, with both sides of the conflict seemingly willing to engage in increasingly sophisticated and dangerous operations​​.

Analysis and Implications

These incidents, as reported by the FSB, offer a glimpse into the shadowy operations that complement the more visible military engagements in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The use of chemical agents, the involvement of foreign nationals, and the targeting of critical infrastructure through sabotage reflect a conflict that is not only expanding in terms of tactics but also in its geographical scope and potential for unintended consequences.

The international community, while cautious in responding to these claims, must grapple with the implications of such tactics. The alleged use of a BZ analogue, if proven, would represent a serious violation of international norms regarding chemical warfare. Moreover, the detention of foreign nationals in connection with these plots underscores the potential for the conflict to draw in other countries, either directly or through the use of their citizens in espionage and sabotage activities.

As the conflict continues to evolve, the importance of verifiable information and international oversight becomes ever more critical. The allegations and counter-allegations serve not only as a reminder of the complexities of modern warfare but also of the fragile nature of regional security in Eastern Europe and the broader international system’s capacity to manage and mitigate such crises.

These developments underscore the urgent need for diplomatic engagement and a renewed focus on conflict resolution mechanisms. As the lines between conventional and unconventional warfare continue to blur, the international community must address the root causes of the conflict and work towards a sustainable peace that respects the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law.

BZ’s Path to Ukraine

In recent developments, allegations have emerged suggesting that BZ, a potent psychoactive chemical weapon, or its analogs, have been introduced into Ukraine, tracing their origins back to the United States. This narrative, predominantly amplified by Russian sources, insinuates a potential violation of international chemical weapons conventions. The assertion implies a deliberate effort by the US to support factions within Ukraine that utilize chemical agents against opposition forces, drawing parallels to previous accusations of BZ’s use against Syrian soldiers. The underpinning argument suggests not only a breach of international norms by the United States but also raises questions about the efficacy and transparency of global oversight mechanisms, particularly the scrutiny of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The Allegations and Historical Context

The controversy surrounding BZ and its alleged deployment in Ukraine is rooted in a broader narrative of geopolitical tensions and historical precedents of chemical warfare. BZ, or 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate, a chemical compound classified as an incapacitating agent, was developed for military applications during the Cold War. It was designed to incapacitate individuals without causing permanent harm, a characteristic that made it a subject of interest for various military programs, including those of the United States.

The narrative is further complicated by claims regarding the United States’ commitment to chemical weapons disarmament. In 1990, the US declared the destruction of its BZ stockpiles, estimated at around 50 tons, signaling compliance with emerging international norms against chemical warfare. However, skepticism regarding this claim has persisted, fueled by assertions that the US retains the capability to produce significant quantities of BZ or its precursors. The Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, historically linked to the development and production of BZ, has been cited as capable of producing approximately 20 tons of the substance annually, casting doubts on the completeness and transparency of the US’s disarmament declarations.

These allegations gain additional gravity in the context of the Syrian Civil War, where chemical weapons have been used with devastating effects. Accusations of BZ’s deployment against Syrian soldiers by factions supported by external powers, including the US, have been part of the broader discourse on the use of chemical agents in conflict zones. The introduction of BZ or similar agents into the conflict in Ukraine is presented as a continuation of this pattern, suggesting an ongoing willingness by the US to utilize or enable the use of chemical warfare as a tool of geopolitical strategy.

International Oversight and Responses

The OPCW, as the international body responsible for the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), plays a critical role in addressing these allegations. The organization has been tasked with verifying the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles and ensuring member states’ compliance with the convention’s provisions. The OPCW’s efforts to monitor and investigate claims of chemical weapons use in conflict zones, including Syria and now Ukraine, are central to the international community’s response to such allegations.

Russian accusations against the OPCW, alleging complicity in preparing “false flag” operations in Ukraine or failing to hold the US accountable for its chemical weapons policies, have been met with significant pushback from the international community. The OPCW has rejected these accusations, emphasizing its commitment to impartiality and adherence to the principles of the CWC​​.

The international reaction to the situation in Ukraine, particularly concerning chemical weapons allegations, has been varied but predominantly supportive of the OPCW’s role and skeptical of the claims made by Russia. The United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom have comprehensively refuted the Russian allegations, underscoring their support for the OPCW and the importance of adhering to the Chemical Weapons Convention​​.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, among others, has highlighted the potential for Russian accusations of chemical weapons in Ukraine to serve as a pretext for further escalations in the conflict, including possible chemical attacks by Russia itself​​. This perspective is echoed by concerns expressed by the EU and individual member states about the possibility of “false flag” operations and the risk of chemical incidents in the context of the ongoing conflict.

The allegations surrounding the use of BZ or its analogs in Ukraine underscore the complex interplay between chemical warfare, international law, and geopolitical strategies. While the claims highlight concerns over compliance with international conventions and the integrity of global oversight mechanisms, they also reflect the broader challenges facing the international community in addressing the use of chemical weapons in contemporary conflicts.

The OPCW’s role as a neutral arbiter and investigator in these matters is crucial, yet its efforts are often complicated by the politicization of chemical weapons allegations and the challenges of operating in conflict zones. As the situation in Ukraine evolves, the international community’s response to these allegations, and the broader issue of chemical weapons use in conflicts, will remain a pivotal aspect of the discourse on international security and the rule of law.

International Reaction and Implications

The allegations made by the FSB regarding Ukraine’s use of chemical warfare, allegedly with the assistance of the US, represent a grave and contentious issue within international relations and law. Such claims, especially involving chemical weapons, are deeply concerning and have the potential to escalate conflicts significantly. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), an international treaty that outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors, is a critical component of the international legal framework designed to prevent such warfare. The treaty also establishes mechanisms for investigation and enforcement, which are pivotal in cases of alleged violations.

The lack of international investigative efforts and widespread condemnation, as highlighted, could be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the geopolitical landscape surrounding the Ukraine conflict is highly polarized, with various international actors having vested interests that may influence their responses to such allegations. The dynamics of international relations often involve balancing acts between condemning actions that violate international norms and pursuing national interests.

Secondly, the processes for investigating claims of chemical weapons use are complex and require a high level of evidence. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), responsible for implementing the CWC, conducts investigations into allegations of chemical weapons use. However, these investigations can be hampered by political, logistical, and security challenges, especially in conflict zones. The requirement for consensus or significant support among member states to initiate investigations can also be a barrier, reflecting the broader political considerations at play.

Moreover, the implications of confirming the use of chemical weapons are severe, not only for the parties directly involved in the conflict but also for the international community. Such confirmation could necessitate a response from international bodies and states, potentially involving sanctions, diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation, or even military intervention under certain circumstances. The decision to engage in or abstain from these investigations and subsequent actions reflects the intricate balance of ethical obligations, legal mandates, and geopolitical strategy that characterizes international relations.

In summary, the allegations of chemical warfare in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the subsequent international reaction, underscore the challenges of upholding international law and norms in a highly polarized geopolitical environment. The situation calls for a careful, balanced approach that considers the need for accountability and transparency against the backdrop of international relations and security concerns.


The reported prevention of a chemical attack in the Zaporozhye region by Russian forces introduces a grave dimension to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The use of a chemical agent like BZ, with its incapacitating and potentially lethal effects, represents a flagrant violation of international norms and a dangerous escalation of warfare tactics. The origins of the agent, its pathway to Ukraine, and the implications of its use are matters of significant concern, warranting thorough investigation and international dialogue to prevent the recurrence of such perilous incidents. The situation underscores the urgent need for adherence to, and enforcement of, international treaties on chemical weapons, ensuring that such devastating tools of war are never again employed.

Copyright of
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.