The term used by many U.S. officials involved in accidental planning for at least a month for such an attack is “proportional”, meaning that the United States and its allies want to respond appropriately to potential war crimes.
On the contrary, some have suggested that the United States and its allies could impose further sanctions on Moscow or further strengthen Ukraine’s security with advanced weapons. Biden’s aides have speculated that the use of chemical weapons in European countries to stop Russia’s energy imports could be the ultimate motive, with funds burning Putin’s war machine and filling his country’s coffers.
Before doing so, the first step is to confirm the accusation of the Ukrainian military group that Russia stationed the chemical in Mariupol on Monday. The Azov Regiment, a leading fighting unit that has fought Russia in the Donbass since 2014 and is linked to neo-Nazi groups and white supremacists, claims that Russian troops dropped a chemical weapon from a drone and poisoned at least three. He said the affected soldiers did not face any catastrophic health effects. If true, this will be the first time chemical weapons have been used in war since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24.
U.S. and European officials have not yet proven the allegations. Experts say that if there are photos or videos, they can be used to make a preliminary assessment, while US or Western officials are collecting samples from the ground for more definitive verification. Ukraine may also call on the Netherlands-led Global Monitoring Commission to send a rapid response team to the site to investigate the chemical weapons embargo.
Officials warned Tuesday that such a confirmation would not be forthcoming. It may take some time to assess whether chemical weapons were used during the conflict in Syria in 2013.
“There is no independent verification in that area, so it will be a long time coming,” a European official told POLITICO. A senior U.S. defense official told reporters Tuesday that there were several “problems” in verifying the claims. “These are hard things to prove, even when you’re very close, we’re not.”
In addition, U.S. officials raised questions about the credibility of the Azov regiment, noting that the far-right group may be interested in provoking a major conflict. Ukrainian officials, who have accused Russia of committing atrocities, have also stated that they did not explicitly report the use of illegal weapons.
At the time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zhelensky did not confirm the use of chemical weapons during his Monday speech, but said he had taken the latest threat to use them as seriously as possible by pro-Russian separatists in Mariupol. But Anton Zherashchenko, an adviser to the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs, tweeted a few hours ago.Chemical weapons are used”Mariupol.
Netflix, a State Department spokesman, told CNN hours later that the United States was “trying to determine exactly what happened here” in Ukraine. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss added On Twitter “Any use of such weapons would be a serious escalation of this conflict, and we must hold Putin and his regime accountable.”
The United States has long warned that Russia could launch chemical weapons into Ukraine, prompting Putin to tell reporters in Europe last month that Putin’s administration would act quickly if troops went that far. “The nature of the response depends on the nature of the application,” he said, “which triggers a kind of response.”
It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the post. Publicly, Western authorities condemn the use of all chemical weapons. But personally they admit that there is a wide range of deaths in such weapons – in other words, there is a big difference between a chlorine bottle and a sari bomb dropped on a school. They point out that the more severe the consequences, the more likely they are to respond to the potential use of dangerous weapons.
What is clear is that some answers are immediately apparent to the international community verifying the accusation of the Azov regiment. “Any proven use of banned chemical weapons will have serious repercussions for Russia,” said Andrew Weber, the Pentagon’s top nuclear, biological and chemical weapons officer during the Obama administration.
The current moment echoes the “red line” of former President Barack Obama in Syria, in which he pledged that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would provoke a US response.
One year after Obama’s disgraceful remarks, Assad’s forces killed more than 1,400 people with sarin gas. In response, then-Vice President Biden promised a meeting of the U.S. Brigade that “those who use chemical weapons against unsafe men, women and children must be held accountable and held accountable.”
Eventually, the Obama administration reached an agreement with Russia to clear Syria of 600 metric tons of chemical reserves. At the time, Biden praised the White House for moving the world to act in the face of a “fundamental violation of human rights.” But as Syrian forces oversaw additional chemical attacks in 2017 and 2018, the merits of the deal soon became questionable.
In retaliation for those attacks, then-President Donald Trump recognized the attacks on Syrian targets.
“We can not allow such atrocities,” he said before the second reply.
Those strikes were mostly symbolic. In the first instance, the Trump administration fired missiles at a Syrian air base, from which planes dropped chemical weapons – but announced in advance to Russia to withdraw assets from targets. In doing so, it did not provoke a major global conflict, but it did not destroy Syria’s entire chemical weapons program.
Current executives insist the situation is now dramatically different and that Biden did not make such a red line announcement.
Attacking Russia is more dangerous than attacking Syrian government targets. With the world’s largest nuclear weapons and advanced Internet capabilities, Moscow can respond in a way that escalates the conflict outside Ukraine’s borders. Therefore, what is now being considered as a response to the confirmed chemical weapons attack are new sanctions, such as more arms exports to Ukraine or a cyber attack.
“We will choose the form and nature of our response based on the nature of Russia’s action, and we will work with our allies to do so. .