President Biden, along with senior government officials, have repeatedly warned in recent weeks that Russian President Vladimir Putin is capable of carrying out a chemical weapons attack in Ukraine. Experts, comparing the situation with Putin’s catastrophe in Syria, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, say the Russian president may have the courage to use such tactics in Ukraine if he believes they will not be severely punished again. Ukrainian troops in Mariupol said Monday they had suffered respiratory failure after Russian drones flew overhead and appeared to drop some sort of noxious fumes, raising the specter of a possible chemical weapons attack. However, U.S. officials said Tuesday that they had no researchers on the ground and therefore could not confirm reports of possible chemical weapons being used in the southern coastal city, which has been the scene of intense raids that have killed hundreds of civilians in recent days. weeks . “We are not in a position to confirm anything. “I do not think the Ukrainians are either,” Foreign Minister Anthony Blinken told reporters on Tuesday. But he added that the United States had shared “credible” information with Ukraine and other allies that Russia could mix riot control agents, such as tear gas, with chemical agents, and deploy them as part of its siege of Mariupol. “This is a real concern – it is a concern we had before the aggression started. “I stressed the possibility of using these types of weapons and it is something we are very, very focused on,” Blinken said. Biden and senior officials have warned that such an attack by Putin would come at a “heavy price”, but have specifically avoided drawing red lines, a phrase that could elicit critical acclaim against former President Obama. impose military punishment. that he had threatened to use chemical weapons in Syria in 2012. “We do not like the red lines around here, so I am not going to use that phrase,” said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who served in the Obama administration on March 14. Biden, who would go deeper into the idea, was at a NATO press conference last month when he promised that the United States and the military alliance would respond – but did not elaborate on how – if Putin used chemical weapons, adding: “The nature of the response will depend on the nature of the use.” The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons said in a statement on Tuesday that it was concerned about “unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons” and was closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine and was ready to assist in an investigation. Mark Cancian, senior adviser on the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that despite the government’s reluctance to use the term “red line”, the use of chemical weapons would mean a “dramatic escalation” and violation of a ” long-term international red line on the use of force and weapons “. This is in addition to other atrocities that the United States and its allies say Putin and Russian forces are responsible for committing, including war crimes aimed at killing civilians, torturing, kidnapping and raping. However, Cancian said the response options are limited given the wide range of sanctions already in place over the past six weeks. “The problem is that they really can’t do much more,” he said. “They have imposed sanctions on almost everyone. Other than using troops on the ground somehow, they just can’t do much more. “It would put the United States in a very difficult situation.” “It’s up to the Ukrainians to respond in a way that we can help,” William Taylor, a former ambassador to Ukraine and vice president of the Russia-Europe program at the US Institute of Peace, told The Hill. “We have to provide all the information we have about the military unit – there is one [Russian] “A chemical weapons unit is apparently being set up in Mariupol – if it has not already used these weapons, it should be targeted.” A key group of national security officials focused on Ukraine inside the White House, known as the Tiger Group, has given priority to outlining possible responses from the United States and its allies in the event that Russian chemical weapons attacks are confirmed. Biden reportedly cited these scenarios during a trip to Brussels last month during a meeting with European leaders and NATO allies. This is in addition to the fact that the administration delivers to Ukraine protective equipment against chemical weapons. And the World Health Organization said it had instructed 1,500 health workers in Ukraine in the event of a chemical attack. Taylor said the government was right to remain ambivalent about what it saw as a red line, allowing more flexibility in possible reactions and avoiding escalation between nuclear weapons forces. However, Matthew Kroenig, director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Strategy Initiative, said Putin was likely encouraged to try chemical weapons as an important tool of war, given his experience in Syria that has allowed President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to carry out attacks. with chemical weapons. there. “I am afraid that one of the lessons from Syria that Putin and Assad have learned is that the use of chemical weapons works,” he said. “Putin is probably calculating that despite Biden warnings that he can do that, it will help him win the war and the West will not intervene significantly.” Obama has avoided launching military action in Syria in response to the chemical weapons attack due to opposition from international allies and Congress. And while the former Trump administration has dealt at least two military strikes against Syria, Assad and Putin have largely escaped responsibility for at least a handful of brutal attacks that have killed thousands, with horrific images of people dying on the streets, foaming at the mouth. mouth. and dead children stacked on top of each other. “The horror of chemical weapons was very clear in Syria; this witness makes it very clear what is happening now in Mariupol,” Taylor said. “We know the horrible consequences there and it raises awareness, intensifies anger, intensifies the tolerance into which Russia has fallen.” But Taylor said the Biden administration had probably estimated that a U.S. military strike would greatly increase the risk of a major confrontation with Russia. Zelensky praises Biden after saying Putin committed genocide Energy and Environment – Facing high gas prices, Biden relaxes regulations Kroenig, who also served in the Pentagon during the Republican and Democratic administrations, agreed that the current White House was “very clear that the United States is not militarily involved,” but that his assessment is a limited military strike against sources of chemical weapons. The attack could take place without risking much escalation. “I do not think Putin wants a big war with the United States,” he said, warning that impunity would not be allowed to continue with the use of chemical weapons. “Ideally, we want the lesson to be that this did not work, this did not help Putin, and in fact, it is not a good idea to use these weapons in the future. “You will fail, you will be punished for it, it is not the key to success,” he said.
