A month since the confounding
invasion of Ukraine and with no significant breakthrough discernible yet, the
possibility of the use of chemical weapons by Russia might not weigh as heavily
on its neighbor state as it did a few weeks ago. However, the threat of nuclear
strikes by Russia is not entirely absent in this war.
اضافة اعلان
US President Joe Biden said that while
Russia has made unproven accusations that Ukraine has biological and chemical
weapons, Putin is explicitly contemplating using such weapons against Ukraine.
Washington’s allies and the UN said that Russia had no evidence backing its
claims against Ukraine.
Two of Biden’s statements in particular
deserve greater attention. In one he said, “He’s already used chemical weapons
in the past, and we should be careful of what’s about to come”. Does this imply
that Putin’s claim is a prelude to his next aggressive act: deploying chemical
weapons to cause further annihilation of Ukraine and possibly trigger World War
III?
While Russia ratified the
Chemical Weapon Convention in 1997 and declared the destruction of its
stockpiles, it is still widely suspected to have supplies of chemical weapons.
Amongst these are blister, choking, and nerve agents used in the past,
including alleged use of Sarin and Chorine gas in Syria.
Granted, the US also has a
well-documented history of using chemical weapons: in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971,
white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents in 2004, and lending
relentless support to Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons against
Iranians and Kurds in 1988. However in the case of Ukraine, what matters are actions
that could precipitate an international crisis — a direct conflict between
Western powers and Russia.
The exchange of accusations and
blame between Washington and Moscow has escalated as Russia’s defense ministry accused
Ukraine of laying the groundwork for a chemical attack against Ukrainians with
the intention of pinning the blame on Russia.
UN High Representative for
Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu denied the presence of any biological
weapons program in Ukraine, as well as Russia’s claim that Ukrainian labs are
being supported by the US with the objective of creating ethno-specific
bio-agents.
Biden’s second statement, however
ambiguous, is also worth reflecting on: “Russia will pay a ‘severe price’ if
they use chemicals [in Ukraine].” Biden and allies did not explicitly reveal
what measures NATO would take if Putin were to use chemical weapons. “The
nature of the response would depend on the nature of the use,” Biden said
during his visit to Brussels.
Neither would French President
Emmanuel Macron reveal NATO’s specific response to Russia’s actions: “Strategic
ambiguity and discretion are more effective” than red lines, he said. However,
such alleged preparedness for certain acts can be misconstrued and may even
backfire, given Putin’s single-minded resolve to bring Ukraine to its
knees.
Facing staunch resistance in
Ukraine and, as a result, deciding to withdraw from the northern areas of the
country, the possibility of the use of chemical weapons by Russia cannot be downplayed
or outright refuted.
This war is not a test of who is
right, but of who is the mightiest. Russia, which could not care less about
devastation and carnage, seems determined to prove it is. A spokesperson for
President Vladimir Putin said that Russia would only resort to nuclear weapons if
its existence were threatened.
The tactical analysis that seasoned diplomats and military strategists have been brandishing in the media should avoid attempting to predict unattainable scenarios, especially in this war.
NATO Secretary-General Jens
Stoltenberg was quick to say that NATO members might agree to send additional
assistance to Ukraine, including military equipment to bolster Kyiv’s defense against chemical, biological, radiological,
and nuclear threats.
NATO members face a dilemma: war
against nuclear-armed Russia (the key energy supplier to Europe) and supporting
Ukraine, being careful to avoid crossing Russian red lines amidst high
uncertainty as to what really counts.
In critical conflicts like this
one involving Russia, it is a mistake to predict the future course of events. The
tactical analysis that seasoned diplomats and military strategists have been
brandishing in the media should avoid attempting to predict unattainable
scenarios, especially in this war.
A military response of NATO
members must not rely on ill-advised assumptions. Biden and allies should
facilitate dialogue, through backdoor diplomacy if necessary, to eventually
restore Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The writer is a freelance journalist and geopolitical expert based
in India.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
