By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Proekt investigation reveals that the State Research Institute of Military Medicine of the Russian Ministry of Defense has been conducting artillery munitions tests on human volunteers to determine shell effectiveness against enemy personnel. Since 2015, this institute has been the sole Ministry of Defense entity authorized for such human research, utilizing simulated combat environments and monitoring volunteers’ physiological responses. Beyond munitions, the institute also tests performance-enhancing drugs and protective gear, and is implicated in Russia’s chemical weapons program. The institute’s director has also been linked to Russian intelligence operations, further suggesting its role in clandestine activities.
Read the original article here
An alarming report has surfaced, suggesting that a prominent Russian military research institution has been engaging in deeply disturbing experiments. The State Research Institute of Military Medicine of the Russian Ministry of Defense, often referred to as GNIII VM MO, is alleged to have conducted tests of artillery munitions directly on human subjects. This groundbreaking investigation, brought to light by the outlet Proekt, paints a grim picture of the lengths to which such research might extend.
These unsettling studies reportedly involve military volunteers, whose participation is framed as essential for determining the precise characteristics of artillery shells required for the effective destruction or incapacitation of enemy forces. The notion of “volunteers” in such a context, however, raises significant ethical questions, especially when considering the stark alternatives often faced by military personnel.
Adding to the gravity of these findings, reports from a Military Journal and statements attributed to the institute’s director, Sergei Chepur, indicate that since 2015, this facility has held a unique authorization within the Ministry of Defense to carry out research that involves human participants. This exclusivity highlights the specialized and perhaps sensitive nature of the work being undertaken.
The investigation details a dedicated testing ground, equipped with experimental sites meticulously designed to simulate fortifications and military hardware. During these trials, researchers are said to have closely monitored the volunteers’ cardiovascular and nervous systems. Furthermore, biological samples were collected to analyze how functional bodily impairments might correlate with the distance from which 122 mm and 300 mm caliber cannons fired their projectiles.
To bolster these experimental operations, a scientific clinical center was reportedly established at the institute in 2018. This facility is described as having 100 beds and housing departments for intensive care, therapy, and surgery. In its inaugural year, the center is said to have documented over 300 observations of personnel involved in the testing of not only weapons but also medications and vaccines, hinting at a broad scope of research.
Beyond artillery munitions, the institute is implicated in evaluating performance-enhancing drugs, protective gear designed for extreme environments, and innovative military equipment. Significantly, the report also identifies the institute as a key player in Russia’s chemical weapons program, a dimension that further escalates concerns about the nature of its research.
Adding another layer of disquieting association, Proekt claims that Director Chepur provided consultations to GRU officers connected to the 2018 poisoning attempt of former intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the United Kingdom. The use of the military-grade nerve agent Novichok in that incident not only triggered a global diplomatic crisis but also serves as a potent reminder of Russia’s clandestine operations abroad. These findings collectively suggest that the facility’s research extends far beyond conventional medical advancements, potentially serving as a critical support hub for some of Russia’s most sensitive and high-profile intelligence endeavors.
The allegations of human testing by the Institute of Military Medicine also arrive against a backdrop of broader concerns regarding systemic abuse within Russia’s armed forces. Earlier reports have surfaced, presenting graphic footage that purportedly depicts Russian commanders engaging in the torture of their own troops and forcing wounded soldiers back into active combat. These disturbing accounts describe scenes of servicemen being subjected to beatings, electrocution, and being left naked and tied to trees in freezing temperatures after refusing orders. In some of the most severe instances, soldiers were allegedly chained by the neck or forced to subsist on muddy water due to a complete lack of supplies, illustrating a deeply troubling reliance on violence and coercion to maintain manpower, particularly in the context of ongoing military operations.
The ethical implications of using human subjects in such experiments are profound, particularly when considering the historical parallels that arise. The reported actions bear a striking resemblance to the abhorrent practices of Unit 731 during World War II, a unit infamous for its brutal human experimentation. This comparison, while chilling, underscores the severity of the allegations and the potential for grave human rights violations. The notion of “volunteers” in these military tests also invites scrutiny, with some questioning the true voluntariness of individuals facing dire circumstances, such as being sent to active war zones, and how such pressures might influence their decisions to participate in experimental trials. The inherent power imbalance and potential for coercion in military settings make the concept of truly informed consent in these situations highly questionable, leading to the term “voluntold” being used to describe the likely reality for many involved.