Claims of chemical weapons use in Ukraine raise question of ‘what if?’

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 11/04/2022 (892 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It’s seen by many as a red line: The prospect of poisonous gas billowing over cities, hurting or killing soldiers and civilians alike.

Recent anecdotal reports in Ukraine of mysterious drones and strange symptoms remain unconfirmed — yet even the allegations and stated fears over the use of chemical weapons during Russia’s invasion have raised the question of “what if?”

The social media reports, denied by Moscow, are prompting some to ask what response there would be, if Russia were found to have employed such weapons at some point.

The legacy of the First World War, during which 1.3 million deaths were attributed to such indiscriminate and painful tactics, saw an international treaty ban the use of chemical weapons. The consequences of Russia using them, according to one expert, would be severe — the international community would need to respond strongly, lest the treaty be made meaningless.

Social media reports from Ukrainian fighters with the far-right-affiliated Azov Battalion include claims to have seen a suspicious drone. Ukraine’s deputy defence minister Hanna Maliar said they were investigating and that it was possible phosphorus munitions — which cause horrendous burns but are not classified as chemical weapons — had been used in Mariupol.

That city in the Donbas region has been razed in six weeks of pummelling by Russian forces. The mayor said more than 10,000 civilians are dead, their corpses “carpeted through the streets.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday night that Russian forces might use chemical weapons in the city, echoing similar, repeated warnings by western officials. Leaders inside and outside of the country said they were urgently investigating the unconfirmed claim by a Ukrainian regiment that a poisonous substance was dropped on fighters in Mariupol.

(Russia, for its part, has claimed that Ukraine and the U.S. are working together to build chemical weapons in Ukraine, which the two countries have denied.)

The United States has signalled that chemical weapons might result in direct American involvement in the conflict. That position was offered as early as March 11, when the U.S. delegation to the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons wrote an open letter to the 193 countries that have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention banning these weapons.

“If the Russian Federation carries out a chemical weapons attack in Ukraine, the reaction of the United States and the international community will be swift, united, and unequivocal,” the letter reads. “The Russian Federation must answer for any violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

That convention came together after the world witnessed the devastation caused by chemical weapons in major conflicts, especially First World War usage, such as the infamous April 22, 1915 chlorine-gas attack by German forces in Belgium, which caused painful burns and in some cases death by asphyxiation.

The horrible effects are one reason so many countries have agreed to ban the weapons outright, said Stefano Costanzi, a professor of chemistry at American University who also has expertise in international affairs. The Chemical Weapons Convention came into effect in 1997, and bans possession as well as use of chemical weapons: A complete prohibition.

It’s signed by every nation except Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan.

Costanzi said that doesn’t mean all chemicals are banned in warfare. There are chemicals that cause explosions in guns and bombs — that’s not considered beyond the pale in wartime.

“Chemical weapons are poisonous chemicals that exploit their toxicity to harm individuals,” Costanzi said. “States are entitled to use lethal force when engaged in war against another state and so what treaties are meant to regulate is what can be used.”

The international community formed the Chemical Weapons Convention to limit the use of chemical agents in warfare. The adoption of the convention in 1997 meant countries could no longer keep chemical weapons at all, let alone use them.

Per the convention, Russia reported that it had destroyed its stockpiles of chemical weapons by 2018. The U.S. has destroyed most of its stockpile and has promised to complete the process by the end of 2023.

Costanzi said that eliminating these kinds of weapons is a clear benefit to the entire international community: “They’re really regarded as cowardly weapons, weapons that are unfair, weapons that are for the most part untargeted weapons that kill indiscriminately.”

Dan Kaszeta, a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in the U.K. who has written a book on the history of such weapons, said it’s almost impossible to assess the validity of the reports from Mariupol from a distance — and while it is possible the Ukrainian troops were sickened by chemical agents, there may be more likely explanations.

“What we really have is people being dizzy. What we don’t have is signs and symptoms (and any kind of medical diagnostics) that narrow the investigative focus to chemicals, let alone a specific chemical warfare agent,” Kaszeta wrote on Twitter Tuesday.

Costanzi agreed that other factors — like smoke inhaled from burning buildings and industrial areas — could explain the symptoms of the troops. But he added that if it were to be confirmed that Russia is using chemical weapons, the West would have to respond.

He cited the example of Syria. After the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its citizens, Syria was not only suspended from the Chemical Weapons Convention, it also faced bombings of chemical weapons facilities by the U.S., U.K. and France.

“With Russia, the stakes are a bit different because here we are looking at a country that is a nuclear country. So that is something that you will have to consider when contemplating the response,” Costanzi said. “I would think that the response would be proportionate, but I think that there would have to be a response.

“Without a response to an attack like that, then the whole validity of the international treaty — it wouldn’t have any meaning anymore.”

International figures have been quick to respond to the reports from Ukraine with warnings for Russia. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said use of chemical weapons “would be a callous escalation in this conflict,” while Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne said it would be a “wholesale breach of international law.”

Truss said the U.K. was “working urgently” to investigate the report, while Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said in a statement that the U.S. could not confirm the drone report out of Mariupol.

Kirby noted, however, the administration’s persistent concerns “about Russia’s potential to use a variety of riot control agents, including tear gas mixed with chemical agents, in Ukraine.” Britain, meanwhile, has warned that Russia might use phosphorus bombs — whose use in civilian areas is banned under international law — in Mariupol.

Global Affairs Canada said it is working to independently verify the claims of chemical weapon use in Ukraine.

In the face of stiff resistance by Ukrainian forces bolstered by western weapons, Russian forces have increasingly relied on bombarding cities, flattening many urban areas and leaving thousands of people dead. In other areas, they have pulled back to regroup.

Their retreat from cities and towns around the capital, Kyiv, led to the discovery of large numbers of apparently massacred civilians, prompting widespread condemnation and accusations that Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine.

The war has also driven more than 10 million Ukrainians from their homes — including nearly two-thirds of all children.

Correction — April 13, 2022: The international community formed the Chemical Weapons Convention to limit the use of chemical agents in warfare. A previous version said the treaty was called the Geneva Convention.

With files from The Associated Press

Alex McKeen is a Vancouver-based reporter for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @alex_mckeen