Investigations into whether Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine bring renewed focus to how the White House has been tiptoeing to set “red lines” should Moscow further violate international norms in its attack on Ukrainians.
President Biden, along with senior administration officials, has repeatedly warned for weeks that Russian President Vladimir Putin is capable of conducting a chemical weapons attack in Ukraine.
Experts, comparing the situation to Putin’s devastation in Syria, which resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, say the Russian president may feel emboldened to use such tactics in Ukraine if he believes heavy penalties will again not follow.
Ukrainian troops in Mariupol on Monday said they went into a respiratory arrest after Russian drones flew overhead, apparently dropping toxic fumes, raising the specter of a possible chemical weapons attack.
But US officials said on Tuesday they had no investigators on the ground and were therefore unable to confirm reports of potential chemical weapons being used in the southern coastal town, which has been the scene of intense attacks that have seen those in recent years Weeks hundreds of civilians were killed.
“We are unable to confirm anything. I don’t think Ukrainians are either,” Foreign Minister Antony Blinken told reporters on Tuesday.
But he added that the US has shared “credible” information with Ukraine and other allies that Russia may be mixing anti-riot agents like tear gas with chemical agents and using them as part of its siege of Mariupol.
“This is a real problem – it’s a problem we had before the aggression started. I’ve raised the possibility of these types of weapons being used and that’s something we’re very, very focused on,” Blinken said.
Biden and his top officials have warned that Putin’s staging of such an attack would incur a “heavy price” but have specifically avoided drawing red lines, a phrase that may evoke memories of criticism of former President Obama, that he failed to enforce military punishment; that he threatened in 2012 over the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
“We don’t like red lines here, so I’m not going to use that phrasing,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who served in the Obama administration, said March 14.
Biden took this notion furthest at a NATO press conference last month when he promised the US and the military alliance would respond – but offered no details on how – if Putin uses chemical weapons, adding: “The Art the response will depend on the type of use.”
The Chemical Weapons Prevention Organization said in a statement Tuesday it was concerned about “unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons,” it was closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine, and was ready to help with an investigation.
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser for the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that despite the government’s reluctance to use the phrase “red line,” the use of chemical weapons represents a “dramatic escalation” and violation of the one ” long-standing international red line on the use of force and weapons”.
This comes on top of other atrocities for which the US and allies blame Putin and Russian forces, including war crimes involving the targeted killing of civilians, torture, kidnapping and rape.
But Cancian said the ability to respond was limited given the extensive sanctions already put in place over the past six weeks.
“The problem is, there really isn’t much else they can do,” he said. “They sanctioned pretty much everyone. Aside from deploying troops on the ground in some way, there’s just not much else they can do. So that would put the US in a very difficult situation.”
“It’s up to the Ukrainians to respond in a way that we can help,” William Taylor, former ambassador to Ukraine and vice president of the Russia and Europe program at the US Institute for Peace, told The Hill.
“We should provide all the information we have on the military unit – there is one [Russian] Chemical weapons unit apparently in Mariupol preparing for this – if they haven’t already used those weapons, and that should be targeted.”
A core group of national security officials focused on Ukraine inside the White House, reportedly dubbed the Tiger Team, have prioritized outlining possible US and allied responses should Russian chemical weapons attacks be confirmed.
Biden reportedly raised these scenarios during his meeting with European leaders and NATO allies during his trip to Brussels last month.
This is on top of the administration supplying chemical weapons protective equipment to Ukraine. And the World Health Organization said it has provided guidance to 1,500 health workers in Ukraine in the event of a chemical attack.
Taylor said the government is right in remaining unclear about what it considers a red line, allowing more flexibility in possible responses and avoiding escalation between nuclear powers.
Still, Matthew Kroenig, director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Strategy Initiative, said Putin likely felt encouraged to try chemical weapons as a significant tool of war given his experience in Syria, which enabled President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to conduct chemical weapons attacks there.
“I’m afraid one of the lessons that Putin and Assad have learned from Syria is that using chemical weapons works,” he said.
“Putin is probably making a calculation that despite Biden’s warnings that he can do so, he will help him win the war and the West will not intervene in any meaningful way.”
Obama has been reluctant to take military action in Syria in the face of opposition from international allies and Congress.
And while the former Trump administration launched at least two military strikes against Syria, Assad and Putin have largely evaded responsibility for at least a handful of brutal attacks that have killed thousands, with horrific images of people dying and foaming in the streets mouth and stacked dead children on top of each other.
“The horror of chemical weapons was very clear in Syria…this witness makes very clear what is happening now in Mariupol,” Taylor said. “We know what the horrific implications are, and it increases awareness, increases outrage, increases the propriety that Russia has fallen into.”
But Taylor said the Biden administration likely assessed that a US military strike would exaggerate the risk of a major confrontation with Russia.
Zelensky praises Biden after saying Putin is committing genocide Energy & Environment – Amid high gas prices, Biden is relaxing regulation
Kroenig, who also served at the Pentagon during the Republican and Democrat administrations, agreed that the current White House “has made it fairly clear that the U.S. is not interfering militarily,” but that his assessment is a limited military strike against the sources of chemical weapons is attack could be carried out without risking a major escalation.
“I don’t think Putin wants a big war with the United States,” he said, warning against continuing to let the use of chemical weapons go unpunished.
“Ideally, we want the lesson to be that this hasn’t worked, this hasn’t helped Putin, and essentially it’s not a good idea to use these weapons in the future. You will fail, you will be punished for it, that’s not the key to success,” he said.