In recent days, Ukrainian TV stations have been broadcasting messages explaining what to do in the event of a chemical weapons attack, a horrific prospect in an already gruesome war, but one that may also be unlikely.
US President Joe Biden has said there are “real concerns” Russia might resort to using the internationally banned munitions, as it looks to move past its struggles on the ground in its invasion of Ukraine. European nations have expressed similar worries, saying they wouldn’t put it past President Vladimir Putin to do so.
Still, “I don’t really expect it to happen. I mean why? What would be the use of chemical weapons?” Michael Kofman, a specialist on the Russian military at CNA, a Washington think-tank, said in a Sunday podcast. With little to gain militarily, he said, there would be enormous potential downsides.
“The biggest risk for Russia in using them is that they would build a very strong case for Nato intervention,” Kofman said. “That’s something they want to avoid.”
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation chief Jens Stoltenberg said recently the alliance had activated chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence elements as part of its defence plans. He also warned their deployment by Russia would change the nature of the conflict.
Having inherited a 40,000-ton chemical weapons stockpile from the former Soviet Union, the Russian government said in 2017 it had destroyed them all. The US is due to eradicate the last vestiges of its stock by 2023.
UK and German investigations have found that Russian operatives twice used Novichok, a nerve agent developed in the Soviet era, to attack opponents, in England in 2018 and within Russia in 2020. Russia denied involvement in both cases.
During Syria’s long civil war, one study counted 336 chemical weapons attacks using the nerve agent sarin, chlorine aerosols or so-called mustard gas. The vast majority, according to the report, were perpetrated by Syrian government forces, which have fought alongside Russia since it entered that conflict in 2015.
Chemical weapons are highly dependent upon environmental factors, such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, precipitation and the type of terrain they are used on.
— Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert
But what may have worked for President Bashar al-Assad against an enemy that included Islamic State and offshoots of Al-Qaeda — both globally recognised terrorist organisations — may be of less value to Putin in Ukraine.
Chemical weapons have a chequered history and are relatively rarely used, precisely because they come with big uncertainties and drawbacks, not least to the international reputation of the user.
Assad had almost no standing left by the time he began using chemical weapons in 2013. The international outcry should Russia be seen to have used the weapons in Ukraine would be immediate.
On the battlefield, chemical munitions are deeply problematic, according to Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert who served in the US Army Chemical Corps and later as adviser to the US president’s office on chemical and biological weapons preparedness.
“They are highly dependent upon environmental factors, such as wind speed, wind direction, temperature, precipitation and the type of terrain they are used on,” said Kaszeta, now at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute.
Nato officials say they are studying different potential scenarios, including a deniable false flag event that could involve an accident at a chemical plant, given the significant amounts of ammonia, chlorine and nitrates used in Ukraine’s industries.
The US State Department also has said Russia may be spreading false allegations that America had developed chemical and biological warfare laboratories in Ukraine “to try to justify further premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified attacks” in the country.
The fear is a false flag operation that would be used to bolster the narrative for Putin’s invasion or escalate the conflict more broadly. Chlorine and ammonia are most likely to be used as they are more easily blamed on Ukraine, says Kaszeta, adding they would “literally make a big stink, but are largely pointless as battlefield weapons”.
The Kremlin has dismissed US warnings it might use chemical weapons, calling it an “ephemeral threat” aimed at “distracting attention” from the alleged US labs in Ukraine.
Russia has a large inventory of conventional arms systems capable of killing populations and destroying cities at scale, most of which have already been used in Ukraine. They include incendiary phosphate weapons, cluster bombs, large airdropped bombs, thermobaric vacuum bombs and the world’s largest array of heavy artillery.
Kaszeta estimates that chemical weapons historically have proven more effective than conventional alternatives in just 5% of cases, compared with 10% in which their impact was roughly comparable, and 85% where they were of less military value.
“Friendly casualties are almost always a given and are bad for morale” with chemical weapons, Kaszeta said. “There’s anecdotal stories from World War 1 of soldiers leaving the line to find the artillery battery that fired a chemical attack, and shoot them.”
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
— Bloomberg
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.