Could Russia use chemical weapons in Ukraine?
Russia is one of 193 countries that have signed an international treaty banning the production, storage and use of chemical weapons – and Moscow denies having or using such weapons. However, Russian agents used a deadly nerve agent, novichok, in Salisbury in 2018, killing a woman. It was used again by agents to poison opposition leader Alexei Navalny in August 2020. Investigative journalists believe Russia maintains a secret chemical weapons program, while its ally Syria is accused of repeatedly using a series of chemical weapons. of long-term political war there. Western leaders worry that Russia’s failure to achieve a quick victory in Ukraine means it could consider escalating the weapons it uses to avoid bloody civil war, favoring the defenders. Helicopters that dropped chlorine gas on residential areas of Aleppo in November and December 2016 led to the end of the rebel resistance in the Syrian city after four years of fighting. “These weapons are morbidly effective and can break the will of civilians to resist,” said chemical weapons expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon.
How did Biden answer questions about the possibility of Russia using chemical weapons?
“We would answer,” Biden said in his first response. “We would respond if he used it. The nature of the response will depend on the nature of the use. “ The second answer was less clear. “It simply came to our notice then. “Whether you ask whether NATO will pass or not, we would make that decision at that moment.” It was clear from the context that a “response in kind” was intended to mean that it would be a deliberate reaction to what was thought to have taken place. Military action was by no means certain – although Biden was careful not to rule it out.
What could a NATO response look like?
Biden’s response clearly depended on what any attack would look like. De Bretton-Gordon argues that there are two possible types of Russian attack: an attack with chlorine or ammonia, which the Kremlin could try to disguise as an industrial accident, and the use of chemical weapons specifically designed to kill, such as sarin, which was used in Syria in 2017, or novichok. “In the first case, I’m not sure there would be a kinetic [military] NATO response – the Allies would probably like to supply Ukraine with more and better weapons and additional information if they can. “But if Russia used agents designed only for use in war, NATO would probably have to respond militarily, as it did in Syria,” said de Bretton-Gordon, also a former commander of NATO’s chemical weapons force. The United States has participated in two series of raids in Syria. Rocket strikes occurred in April 2017, following the sarin gas attack. Air and missile strikes followed in April 2018, with the help of France and the United Kingdom, following the use of chlorine gas in Damascus. Each time they were designated as Syrian chemical weapons sites, they were targeted. However, any attack by NATO forces, or a subset of Western countries, would be highly unlikely to strike directly at chemical sites in Russia, for fear of starting a general war, which NATO members agree they want to avoid. The reality of Russia’s ability to counterattack to the West may well make a military response impossible.
Are there any civilian alternatives?
Potentially, though no one knows what Russia’s red lines are. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy made an immediate appeal to the NATO summit on Thursday for more high-quality weapons, fighter jets, tanks, missile artillery and air defense systems. Western nations could step up military aid. A second option would be to further tighten financial sanctions, using the illegality of chemical weapons as an excuse. The options will include sanctions on other Russian banks and a complete ban by the EU and the UK on oil and gas imports, although this would be an economically difficult decision for some countries. Western leaders say they want to maintain “a little ambiguity” in any response, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Thursday. But the reality is that serious discussions will only take place after any chemical weapons attack.
