With a focus on biowarfare laboratory accusations as a recurring narrative used to undermine legitimacy and external support.
Hybrid warfare has become a common feature of contemporary conflict, combining military pressure with non-military tools designed to shape perceptions, constrain decision-making, and weaken societal resilience. It is not intended to replace conventional force, but rather to be used in conjunction with it. This, in turn, blurs the distinctions between war and peace, domestic and international contexts, and truth and manipulation. These dynamics can be observed in conflicts where sustained pressure is applied over time rather than through decisive battlefield outcomes.
In this assessment, I will discuss how Ukraine represents a clear case of a state facing continuous hybrid attacks across multiple domains. Alongside large-scale military operations, Ukraine has been targeted through information campaigns, cyber activity, and economic coercion, along with legal and diplomatic narratives aimed at undermining its legitimacy and external support. These efforts are not isolated incidents but part of an ongoing strategy that adapts to changing circumstances while relying on recurring themes.
One of the repeated themes is the accusations related to biological weapons laboratories. Claims that Ukraine hosts secret biowarfare facilities or cooperates in prohibited biological research have appeared repeatedly in information environments. These accusations are not primarily intended to demonstrate the existence of biological weapons. Instead, they function as a narrative tool that exploits fear, uncertainty, and legal ambiguity with the aim of diminishing trust in Ukrainian institutions and raising doubts among international audiences.
This paper also examines how Ukraine responds to sustained hybrid attacks, with particular attention to information operations and narrative warfare. It argues that while Ukraine has developed meaningful strategies to reduce the impact of hybrid pressure, these efforts face structural constraints, particularly in countering scientifically complex and emotionally charged narratives such as biowarfare laboratory accusations. This demonstrates how hybrid attacks operate in practice and how their effects can be mitigated without assuming full deterrence or narrative control.
Conceptual framework
Hybrid warfare refers to the coordinated use of military and non-military tools to apply sustained pressure while avoiding clear thresholds of escalation. Rather than aiming for rapid victory, hybrid strategies rely on ambiguity, persistence, and the cumulative effects of actions across multiple domains. The literature shows that these approaches are not new, but are adapted forms of earlier practices shaped by today’s political, legal, and information environments. Information operations occupy a central place within hybrid warfare. By shaping how events are interpreted, they influence decision-making by governments, institutions, and societies in general. Hybrid strategies exploit gaps between legal frameworks, institutional responsibilities, and public understanding, allowing narratives to circulate even when empirical verification is limited or contested. Narrative warfare builds on this concept by prioritizing uncertainty over persuasion. Instead of convincing audiences of a single account, narrative warfare aims to erode trust, fragment consensus, and complicate coordinated responses. Accusations related to biological weapons laboratories exemplify this approach. By referring to scientific complexity and international rules, these narratives blur the line between legitimate research and prohibited activity, which makes them hard to challenge and allows them to remain useful over time.
Hybrid warfare is particularly difficult to deter because actions are deliberately kept below clear thresholds of escalation. As discussed in the literature on deterrence in hybrid contexts, ambiguous signaling can encourage boundary testing rather than restraint, especially when responses are uncertain or delayed. This dynamic increases the value of narrative-based tools, which can be used repeatedly without triggering clear or immediate countermeasures.
Biowarfare laboratory accusations as a hybrid warfare narrative
In March 2022, there was a wave of accusations in international information spaces that Ukraine hosted or cooperated in biological weapons laboratories. These claims were amplified through official statements, press briefings (e.g., the Russian Ministry of Defense), and state-aligned media (e.g., Sputnik, TASS, and RIA Novosti). They were framed as urgent security concerns rather than speculative allegations. The timing and coordination of these statements contributed to rapid global circulation, due to heightened uncertainty and limited independent verification.
Although the initial claims received significant attention, no actual evidence was provided. Subsequent reporting and analysis showed that later iterations of the narrative largely recycled the same assertions, documents, and talking points introduced during this initial period. Rather than evolving through new information, the accusations persisted through repetition and reframing, reappearing when political or military developments made them strategically useful. The effectiveness of biowarfare-related accusations is based on the ability to exploit uncertainty rather than to persuade. Biological research is technically complex, largely inaccessible to public scrutiny, and governed by international norms that lack robust verification mechanisms. As a result, claims about biological weapons cannot be conclusively disproven in public discourse, allowing them to maintain communicative value even after extensive rebuttal.
These narratives frequently draw on selective references to international biological weapons norms. Instead of making direct legal claims, they imply non-compliance through suggestion, presenting transparency itself as suspicious. Legal ambiguity is thus transformed into a narrative resource rather than a constraint.
The accusations are also adapted to different audiences. For domestic audiences, they are often framed as evidence of external threats and justification for defensive action. For international audiences, they raise doubts about Ukrainian credibility and the risks associated with continued support. Thus, the strategic objective is not a widespread belief, but rather generating friction, hesitation, and mistrust across information environments. This pattern can be clearly seen in the circulation of biowarfare laboratory accusations in 2022, where the same core claims were framed differently across media environments.
Responses to biowarfare laboratory accusations
From the outset, Ukrainian responses to biowarfare laboratory accusations have focused on containment rather than direct and full narrative suppression. Because biological research is complex and hard to explain clearly, and because there is no easy way to prove or disprove such claims, responses focus on maintaining credibility, working through institutions, and relying on international confirmation rather than responding to each accusation directly. Recent research from the Swedish Defence University highlights how narratives about advanced biological and genetic threats often circulate despite limited technical feasibility. Their analysis shows that claims related to DNA, genomics, and biological manipulation gain traction in hybrid conflict precisely because they are difficult for non-specialists to assess, reinforcing uncertainty rather than conveying verifiable threats.
One response has been the use of official statements that clearly distinguish public health research from prohibited biological weapons activity. Ukrainian authorities have stressed transparency and cooperation with international institutions, relying on established rules and practices instead of responding to every individual allegation directly. A second element has been coordination with international partners and organizations. By relying on external actors for technical assessments, Ukraine reduces the risk that its responses are seen as self-serving. This also shifts the discussion from one-sided accusations to a broader international assessment, which helps limit the spread of suggestive claims.
These responses also face clear constraints. Scientific complexity limits accessibility for general audiences, and repeated accusations have continued to circulate regardless of clarifications. This highlights a central limitation of defensive information strategies in hybrid warfare, where rebuttal alone cannot fully neutralize ambiguity-driven narratives.
Limits and vulnerabilities in countering hybrid narratives
Ukrainian efforts to counter biowarfare laboratory accusations demonstrate the limits of defensive information strategies in hybrid warfare. Even coordinated and credible responses struggle to neutralize narratives that rely on ambiguity and emotional resonance rather than factual claims. One clear limitation is the complexity of scientific issues. Biological research cannot be easily explained in short or accessible formats, leaving space for misleading interpretations. This makes rebuttal less effective, especially in fast-moving information environments. Research on genetics and hybrid warfare shows that speculative biological threats are frequently discussed in information environments even when practical barriers remain high. This gap between technical reality and public perception creates opportunities for hybrid narratives to persist despite rebuttal and expert clarification.
A second vulnerability lies in audience asymmetry. While official responses are often aimed at international institutions and partners, narratives circulate widely in spaces where institutional credibility is weaker or distrusted. As a result, corrections may reach different and fewer audiences than the original claims.
Finally, repetition itself functions as a pressure mechanism. Even when allegations are challenged, their continued reappearance reinforces uncertainty and fatigue. This illustrates how hybrid narratives can remain effective without requiring acceptance, as their impact lies in distraction and doubt rather than persuasion.
The persistence of such narratives also has broader implications for international security governance. When biological or scientific accusations circulate without clear verification mechanisms, they place pressure on existing arms control and public health frameworks. This dynamic risks normalizing suspicion and erosion of trust, even among states that formally comply with international norms. In this sense, biowarfare-related narratives do not only target Ukraine, but also weaken confidence in the institutions designed to manage biological risk more broadly.
Overall, the Ukrainian case demonstrates that success in countering hybrid attacks should be understood in relative terms. Mitigation can reduce damage and preserve institutional trust, but it cannot eliminate hybrid pressure entirely. This underscores the need to view hybrid warfare as an enduring condition that requires sustained management rather than a problem with a definitive solution.
References:
Borger, J., Rankin, J., & Farrer, M. (2022). Russia makes claims of US-backed biological weapon plot at UN.
EUvsDisinfo. (2022). Key Narratives in Pro-Kremlin Disinformation.
Larsson, O. (2025). DNA as a power tool in hybrid warfare. https://www.fhs.se/en/swedish-defence-university/stories/2025-03-31-dna-as-a-power-tool-in-hybrid-warfare.html
Lentzos, F. (2025). A decade of chemical and biological disinformation, mapped.
Lorenz, W. (2017). The Evolution of Deterrence: From Cold War to Hybrid War.
Mazarr Dr., M. J. (2015). Mastering the Gray Zone: Understanding a Changing Era of Conflict. US Army War College Press.
Person, R., Kulalic, I., & Mayle, J. (2024). Back to the future: The persistent problems of hybrid war. International Affairs, 100(4), 1749–1761. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae131
Pilkington, E., & Gloria, O. (2022). What are Russia’s biological weapons claims and what’s actually happening?
SC/15095. (2022). Security Council Rejects Text to Investigate Complaint Concerning Non-Compliance of Biological Weapons Convention by Ukraine, United States.