Radioactive Russian Drones - A Conversation with Vitaly Shevchenko

Hello and welcome to RUSI in London. I'm Natya Siskuria, Senior Research Fellow for Russia, Eurasia and Black Sea Security at RUSI. And this is Global Security Briefing, the podcast from RUSI's international security team that provides insights on security developments around the world. In April this year, Ukrainian air defenses shot down modified Russian Garand-2 strike drone over Chernihiv region near the village of Kamka. Investigators examining the wreckage found a radiation warning label on the warhead and detected gamma radiation at levels many times above the natural background. The story traveled quickly. Within hours it was being reported internationally as Russia using radioactive weapons and in some accounts as a dirty bomb. The security service of Ukraine says the drone was carrying an R-60, a small Soviet air-to-air missile first fielded in 1970. The R-60M variant in service since 1982 uses a fragmentation element made of depleted uranium weighing around 2.8 kilograms. Russia has been mounting these missiles and Garand-2 drones to threaten the Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters sent up to intercept them. The SBU has said that the Russian air defense system has been working on the situation for a long time. since documented further cases two strikes in Sumy region in April and six more across Chernihiv region between April and June tests of debris found gamma radiation levels far above the permitted limit a war crimes investigation has been opened under article 438 of Ukraine's criminal code this is therefore a story about a weapon but also about evidence who produces it how it was verified and how it is reported in the hours before anyone can check it to take us through it I'm joined by the author of a recent BBC monitoring explainer on this Vitaly Shevchenko Russia editor at BBC monitoring which is a specialist service within the BBC World Service delivering trusted analysis of open source media around the world Vitaly has spent more than a decade reading Russian and Ukrainian media for a living the four questions we'll work through today are what did the Ukrainian investigators find and what does the modification of these drones tell us about how Russia is adapting its strike campaign how are the claims of this kind verified and how is radiation being used by both sides as an instrument of information warfare what social and cultural significance does the story carry in Ukraine and in Russia and finally what does this episode tell us about the value of media monitoring in an environment of information overload and deliberate disinformation Vitaly many thanks for joining Global Security briefing I would like to begin by asking you to take our audience through the investigation you worked on and explain why its findings matter in April Ukrainian investigators examining missile wreckage in Chernihiv region reportedly found evidence suggesting that the weapon may have contained radioactive material could you describe what they recovered at the site and what has since been established about the missile and its warhead so the Ukrainian security service the SBU they said they found radioactive wreckage of Russian drones and also radioactive missiles the word nuclear they didn't use and the first question in my mind was how on Earth they found out this kind of debris was radioactive because they don't normally walk about with a meter checking things for radioactivity now that is simple enough because these missiles parts of these missiles had radioactive warning signs on them so that prompted the Ukrainians to check them for radioactivity and they found out that the levels they registered were about 80 eight zero times higher than natural radiation there's a number of social media posts by the Ukrainian security service showing what they actually found it was basically bits of twisted metal bits of missiles bits of drones kind of shallow craters in what appear to be unpopulated areas and and the tone and the wording of these social media posts was slightly alarming I would say they kept saying look this is dangerous denote approach it there were pictures of people wearing hazmat suits so if you were not a specialist in these things the message you were likely to get is oh my God this is kind of nuclear warfare the Russians are sending nuclear drones to Ukraine stay away from them Russia appears to be mounting a Soviet era air-to-air missile and strike drone in order to threaten the aircraft and helicopters intercepting them what does that adaptation tell us about the state of Russian production and stockpiles so soon enough various online experts and real-life experts in Ukraine as well they found out what sort of weapon was attached to these Russian drones now the drones themselves they are ubiquitous Shahid or geron drones as they're known in Russia it's this modification that was new the modification that allowed these missiles to be attached to the drones the missiles aren't new at all they are R-60 missiles which are half a century old that technology is half a century old they were first developed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s later a modification appeared which allowed radioactive rods to be used in them now one of the first questions I had in my mind why would anyone use radioactive rods in missiles in air-to-air missiles particularly is this some kind of a dirty bomb what is going on now these rods contain depleted Uranium and and depleted Uranium is a not as radioactive as naturally occurring Uranium and B it's very very dense this means that a small quantity of the substance is really really heavy now if you're talking about Warfare if you're talking about air-to-air missiles that helps a lot particularly with this weapons fragmentation characteristics so you only need a small amount of space to pack something that is really heavy and therefore can pierce enemy aircraft so this R-60 missile was developed specifically for short range dog fights in the air the idea being that okay a Soviet plane fires this missile hits an enemy aircraft or explodes near an enemy aircraft and these small fragments of rods containing depleted Uranium they cause enormous damage to enemy aircraft so what the Ukrainians found was essentially a decades-old Soviet weapon adapted by Russia to fit cutting-edge technology Shahed drones to be used during Russian what the Ukrainians call massive attacks on Ukraine and these massive attacks they involve missiles they involve drones and these Shahed drones were supposed to take down Ukrainian aircraft scrambled to intercept both Russian drones and Russian missiles what it tells us is that out of necessity and choice Russia has been adapting this old technology to fit modern weapons with apparently a reasonable amount of success thank you Vitaly this is very interesting and I wanted to unpack a little bit the escalation scenarios because now there is a lot of conversation about how Russia might escalate how might this affect perceptions of escalation in the war even if the weapons are conventional well we need to be aware of the sorts of cultural and historical context in both Russia and Ukraine to understand the psychological impact of these of weapons being used, both Russians and Ukrainians, they will remember Chernobyl. And I'm old enough to remember the rumours the Chernobyl disaster spawned for decades, rumours of a repeated nuclear accident that led to people, you know, shutting their windows, sealing their windows, telling their children to get inside quickly because a nuclear accident has happened. So when someone mentions these two incredibly feared phenomena, radioactivity and drones, in one sentence, a lot of people will get alarmed, very alarmed. Justifiably or not, that's a completely different question. So in terms of escalating things, my impression from reading statements by the Ukrainian Security Service, the SBU, was that they kind of left the door open to that kind of interpretation, this is an extremely dangerous weapon, it's radioactive, Russia is escalating, don't approach it. It was alarming. If you were to look at what specialists were saying, specialists such as Sergei Bezkresnov, also known as Flash, who is one of Ukraine's best-known and most prominent experts on drones, they said, well, look, the point of this weapon was not to spread radioactivity, it was to pierce armour, it was to pierce enemy aircraft. So that sort of calmed things down a bit. But there were posts on Ukrainian social media, which were like, oh my God, Russia is escalating. And when it comes to the, general idea of using radioactive weapons, it's something that both Russia and Ukraine used to accuse each other of doing extremely dangerous things, of escalating. For example, when there was talk of the UK supplying Ukraine with depleted uranium shells to be used in Challenger tanks, Russia was absolutely. absolutely outraged. Vladimir Putin said that the collective West has gone as far as starting to use weapons with the nuclear component. That's a quote, that's what he said. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, accused the UK of violating international humanitarian law. What they didn't say was that Russia has its own armour-piercing shells with depleted uranium, called Svinets, for example. So that's just one example of how the warring parties are using this, what they call the nuclear component, or more likely depleted uranium, to accuse each other of escalating things. But when it comes to how harmful depleted uranium is, it's not very harmful. It is generally safe to handle when used in armour, or as a stored weapon. Depleted uranium particles, they can enter the human body as dust, for example, when such munitions are damaged. However, to be very badly harmed by depleted uranium, you've got to chew it, lick it, inhale it in huge quantities. That is very unlikely to happen. One agency is saying that depleted uranium has the toxicity of lead, and it's chemical rather than radioactive. So the bottom line is that when facing depleted uranium, you've got to observe certain precautions. For example, the UN says that gloves need to be worn, you shouldn't really touch it. But it's very unlikely that you will develop severe symptoms bad for health after encountering a depleted uranium weapon. Thank you. It's really interesting to look at how depleted uranium is used in the war. And I think it's really interesting to look at how both Ukraine and Russia react on escalation scenarios involving the nuclear power. And I also wanted to ask you, obviously, you monitor Russian media daily, what can be learned about the Russian war effort from the way it is reported domestically? And what significance do you attach to the fact that Moscow has not commented publicly on these findings? Well, I'll start from the second part of your question. The Kremlin's traditional approach to anything that might raise uncomfortable questions about its behaviour is to quite simply ignore such questions. And that's how it's approached things like accusations of committing war crimes in Ukraine, either ignore them completely or deny them persistently and loudly, or ignore them completely. And that's why I think it's so overwhelming and widespread and readily available evidence that these war crimes are happening. So looking at Russia's general approach to this war in terms of the Kremlin's media strategy and what it tells us, I would say there are two biggest components to it. One is everything's going to plan. It's all right. There might be minor. Hiccups and obstacles and difficulties, but we are doing extremely well. The Russian Defence Ministry on a daily basis supplies a torrent of triumphalist reports listing place names of Ukrainian towns and villages allegedly captured by the Russian army. And these reports, I have to say, are not always true. So this component of Russia's media strategy is designed to maintain the momentum of general societal support for what's known as the special military operation in Russia. The second important part of the Kremlin's media strategy when it comes to the war against Ukraine is a relentless tone of aggression and unrepentance, which tells us that Russia's goals remain completely unchanged. I've been watching how Russia approaches Ukraine for, well, a couple of decades now, since before the initial invasion started in 2014. And if anything, the tone of aggression against Ukraine is becoming more and more unrepentant. There's not a single sign of Russia being prepared to compromise. Instead, what they're saying is no, no compromise. We will defeat Ukraine, we'll wash Ukraine, we will achieve the original objectives of the special military operation. And that is important when we hear reports of talks. And I'm tempted to use quote marks around the phrase peace negotiations spearheaded by the United States. Whenever we hear sounds from the Trump administration that Vladimir Putin is ready, or in fact, keen to end this war, all we have to do is look at the Russian media reporting of this war to see quite clearly and unambiguously that Russia's objectives haven't changed one bit. They're still not willing to compromise. They're still encouraging the public to keep on supporting the special military operation, to keep on fighting until Russia's victory. So I would say that these two parts, Russia's media campaign about Ukraine or against Ukraine, are not just of an academic interest, they have very practical implications as well. And when it comes to Ukraine, you have rightly pointed out that radiation carries the memory of Chernobyl and more recently, the strike on the new safe confinement in February 2025. How does that context shape the way the news is received and reported in Ukraine? The SBU has warned civilians, for instance, not to handle drone wreckage. What are the Ukrainian regional and local media reporting about how a society are adjusting to that risk? For obvious reasons of Chernobyl, Ukrainians are very sensitive to this kind of topic, nuclear radioactive. Of course, it triggers very, very painful memories of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. and they keep being revived and very frequently, not just by reports of, well, let's be honest, mildly radioactive drones, but reports that have to do with the Zaporizhia nuclear power station. It's the biggest nuclear power station in Europe, and it's currently occupied by Russian forces. And there's plentiful and very, very often alarmist reporting, both from Russia and Ukraine, about that power station. Ukrainians are saying that Russian forces use the Zaporizhia nuclear power station essentially as a shield. They have stationed their military equipment there, and they are firing missiles at Ukrainian-controlled settlements across the Dnieper River, towns like Nikopol and Marhanec. And this line of Ukrainian media reporting suggests that because these attacks originate from the Zaporizhia nuclear power station, the idea is that Ukraine should be deterred from retaliating for fear of causing a nuclear accident. So that's Ukrainian reporting. Russia has consistently and very loudly been accusing Ukraine of deliberately attacking the Zaporizhia nuclear power station in order to cause a nuclear accident. The fact is that this is a fairly recently constructed nuclear power station, which is reasonably robust and built to withstand potential attacks. So if a drone hits a building on the site of the Zaporizhia nuclear power station, it's very unlikely that it would trigger a massive nuclear accident. But if you tune in to some Russian TV reporting about it, you'd think that the world is teetering on the brink of a nuclear catastrophe because Ukraine keeps attacking. You mentioned competing information narratives, and I wanted to ask you about verification, which is especially important in this case because the word radioactive can easily create alarm and be exploited as part of the disinformation campaigns. How does BBC monitoring verify a claim of this kind? What criteria must be met before you would describe a finding as an established fact rather than an allegation? Well, I think the first thing we need to do is to verify a fact. And the second thing we need to do is to verify a fact. And the third thing we need to do is to verify a fact. And verify a fact. And it verify a fact. And it started with reporting by the SBU, the Ukrainian Security Service. And in our experience, the SBU generally, in the vast majority of cases, reports verifiably correct, verifiably true incidents. And very often, these reports are accompanied by visual evidence, which is really important. So that's a very important starting point. We tend to trust the source because we haven't caught it lying very openly and outrageously before. Then there are trustworthy experts and commentators who can offer a more impartial opinion of what's going on. Because quite obviously, the SBU has an axe to grind. After all, they're a state agency involved in the war. Of course, they would be interested in portraying Russia and what Russia does in a really, really bad light. So various experts from Ukraine and from outside of Ukraine, they have looked at pictures posted by the SBU and they concluded that they are not modified. And of course, BBC Monitoring has our own tools for checking visuals, for tracking images, for monitoring information, and so on. And of course, BBC Monitoring has our own tools for checking visuals, for monitoring information, and so on. And of course, BBC Monitoring has our own tools for checking visuals, for checking visuals, for checking visuals, for signs of manipulation and alteration, particularly using AI tools. And also, because we're at monitoring, we have decades of experience of looking in places where most other peoples don't normally look. It gives us the opportunity to reach a bit deeper. In this particular case, I looked at various online Russian aviation forums where people who seem to be fighter jet pilots and members of the Russian military, particularly Russian aviation, where they were discussing the R-60 missile for years and years and years before this war started. So that allowed me to get the right kind of context, that this missile wasn't specifically developed to attack Ukraine now, and cause a nuclear accident of some sort. No. People have been saying for a long time that this is a weapon that the Soviets developed and used decades ago. And of course, we were able to have a look at old Soviet paperwork to do with the R-60s. So at the end of the day, what we've got is a pretty broad picture of what's happening now and how it's rooted in the past. And I'll say it again, it's really important to have this kind of context, because without it, all these claims we've been hearing from state actors, it's really difficult to ascertain whether they are true or not, quite simply. As your listeners will know, there's so much disinformation that surrounds this war. It's absolutely vital to get to the bottom of what's going on. So far, what we know is that there's been a lot of disinformation around this war. And what we know is that the isotope ratio has not been published, and the material is being examined within a criminal investigation rather than by an independent international laboratory. How significant is this gap, and how might Moscow exploit it? Russia will exploit anything to paint Ukraine black. And the examples of Russia's approach to this that I have found, they fall broadly into the Russian general approach of, either it's not true, but if it's true, it's okay, it doesn't matter. So one example I want to give you is by this prominent Russian pro-war blogger called Voyenkor Kachanok, or Yuri Kachanok. And when writing about these Ukrainian reports of radioactive drones found in Ukraine, he started off by saying, "Well, okay, you see pictures of Ukrainians, members of the Ukraine Security Service, measuring radioactivity coming from those drones. But have those meters been properly calibrated? What are they showing? Maybe the readings are fake." And then he went on to say, "Well, if it's true what they're showing, it's still okay. It still doesn't matter. These depleted uranium rods were used not as a dirty bomb, but to shoot down enemy aircraft." Which is, of course, correct. And the conclusion that he reaches is that this is part of some kind of Ukrainian-inspired media campaign designed to stir alarmism and panic. Don't believe Ukrainians. So this illustrates pretty nicely the Russian approach of, "It's not necessarily true, but if it's true, it doesn't matter." This story circulated internationally within hours, well before any independent assessment was possible. What does media monitoring contribute at that stage? At that initial stage, media monitoring was just the starting point. We at BBC Monitoring are extremely wary of being blindly led by official sources. And in this case, you don't just approach a drone and then publish radioactivity meters. These reports, more likely than not, they come from official sources which are hardly independent. So if we're dealing with something really earth-shattering, really important, we make the right sorts of attribution by saying that this official state agency is making this claim. But then we think it's our job to get to the bottom of this. And so, what we're trying to do is we're trying to get to the bottom of this claim and verify whether it's true or not. And in this day and age, what helps is that if a story or a claim is important enough there will be others looking at it as well so what you get is a collective hive mind if you like looking at something that interests you as well and with the decades of experience that we have accumulated I like to say generally we know which sources to trust and that helps us to verify what's true and what's not and in this case there was a lot of commentary both from within Ukraine and from outside Ukraine about what sort of weapon this was well this guy Sergei Biskresnov the Ukrainian drone expert who went on to become an advisor to the Ukrainian defense minister now I believe he's an advisor to President Zelensky he went on the record himself to say well look this isn't a dirty bomb this isn't a nuclear bomb this kind of weapon containing depleted uranium rods is designed to pierce armor no more and no less so that helped calm things down a bit and also it shows a fundamental really important difference in how the media function in Russia in Ukraine in Russia it's so tightly controlled you are not going to hear anything that's unsanctioned that you're not supposed to hear on the most important channels of communication and television is still the most important channel of communication in Russia most Russians still get their news from television if you dig a bit deeper and look at what's being said by the so-called vayan korey or mill bloggers or zed bloggers supporting the war. You'll have a slightly wider variety of opinion, but while questioning how this war is being prosecuted, they never question why it's happening at all. So any variety of opinion you hear there, it's still be within the confines of, we still support what Vladimir Putin is doing. I also wanted to ask you what monitoring or documentation mechanisms could be established to track future incidents and build an evidence as a record, because you have pointed out many times how important it is to monitor and to have access to relevant and accurate sources. So I would like to hear your take about this. Know your sources. That is key. Over the past decade or so, we went from a situation when media monitoring was considered as something secondary, and there was a lot of skepticism about media monitoring when it comes to evidence of war crimes or straight news reporting. And now, I think in pretty much all cases, to find out what is really going on, you've got to engage in media monitoring. You wake up, you check your social media platform, or if you have a choice, you are media monitoring. That's where it begins. And your news consumption almost entirely is based on monitoring sources. For us at BBC Monitoring, knowing these sources is absolutely vital. And I tend to see the whole spectrum of reporting of pretty much any subject, the war between Russia and Ukraine included, as an iceberg, if something really important is being reported somewhere deep down, somewhere right at the bottom of this iceberg, deep in the ocean, someone at the tip of that iceberg, above the water, will notice it, will study it, will bring it to your attention, and you will be made aware of it. And normally, or very often, that tip-off will come with an indication of how true or not this report is. So from that point of view, if anyone wants to follow anything, I would say it's absolutely vital to spend a lot of time building up a base of your sources, learning who to trust. Of course, it's tempting to follow the people you love. You like the people who you agree with, but if you are engaged in the business of news and analysis, like we are at BBC Monitoring, you have to follow the whole spectrum of sources, not necessarily those who you agree with, but looking at some official reporting, even if it's untrue, even if it's blatant propaganda, that allows you to understand their intention. And looking at what Russia is doing, understanding Russian intentions is really important these days, now that we have a lot of speculation about how Russia could possibly escalate things, about how Russia may or may not possibly be prepared to compromise, looking at official reporting from Russian state TV, for example, that informs our understanding of the opinion, which is at the moment that Russia is not prepared to compromise at all. And to sum up our discussion, I would like to ask you, which aspect of this story do you consider having been most widely misunderstood? And what will you be watching for over the coming months? You mentioned official reporting coming out of the Kremlin, but is there anything else that our listeners should focus on? The most misunderstood aspect of this story is the fact that Russia is not prepared to compromise at all. The most misunderstood aspect of this story involving radioactive drones is that they are essentially a nuclear weapon. Well, they're not. And the fact is that some media sources, be it media outlets or influencers or media personalities, of course, they are keen to exploit that kind of alarmism. to get more views, more clicks, more money, whatever. So I would encourage your listeners to be always aware of the fact that if you hear something or if you see something being reported, it's being reported for a reason in many cases. And that reason could be less than above board. So for us at BBC Monitoring, knowing your sources. Observing information hygiene, if you like, that is key. If you know that a source is likely to be spinning things, approach it with those hazmat suits that the SBU used when approaching radioactive drones. They need to be approached in many cases, especially if you're a professional dealing with news and analysis. You really need to know what they're saying. But you've got to wear some. Protective clothing. And by that, I mean you've got to be aware that they may be spinning things and approach that reporting accordingly. Of course, if you build up a database of sources, it's not like set in stone and that's how it's going to be forever. Sources change. They change hands. They change behaviour. They die. New sources burst onto the scene. So it's a never-ending process. And I'm sure our listeners will agree that we are at an extremely crucial, difficult, tragic juncture in human history. And in order to be able to find out what the truth is, you've got to know your sources. You've got to get to the bottom of what truth is. Despite what Russians. Even media would like you to believe, which is nothing is true. Everything is permitted. There are no alternative facts. Truth is out there. And I would argue that it's our moral responsibility to find out what the truth is, report it, spread it, separate it from falsehoods. In order to make this horror stop. In order to stop the horror of war, in order to stop people from being killed. Thank you very much, Vitaly. It's a real pleasure to have you on Global Security Briefing. Thank you. This brings us to the end of today's episode on Russia's radioactive drones and what this wreckage tells us. I would like to thank this week's guest Vitaly Shevchenko of BBC Monitoring. Global Security Briefing is available on all major podcast platforms. Please like and subscribe. For further information about the Global Security Briefing, please visit our website at www.globalsecuritybriefing.com. For further information about the work of International Security Studies team at RUSI, please follow us on X at ISS_RUSI. And also find out more about the team's research on regional security issues around the world. world on the RUSI website. But for now, it's a goodbye from me, Natia Siskoria at RUSI in London.