Chemical weapons, a threat to defeat the Mariupol resistance fighters?

The Ukrainian city of Mariupol is on the verge of falling to the Russians, after a brutal siege that has lasted for more than 40 days. Recent accusations of a chemical attack are raising fears in the Kremlin-coveted city. After more than 40 days spent defending the besieged city of Mariupol, the Ukrainian army’s 36th Marine Brigade posted an alarming message on Facebook on Monday (April 11th). “Today will likely be the last fight as ammo is running out,” she wrote. “Some [d’entre nous] will die, others will be captured. I beg you to remember the Marines.”On Wednesday, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that more than a thousand Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered to Russian forces in this port city in southeastern Ukraine. The door -Spokesman for the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense said, for his part, he had no information on this subject. Civilians have been attacked. Schools and hospitals have been bombed. Satellite images show a once-thriving city reduced to ruins. According to its mayor, Vadym Boychenko, 90% of Mariupol’s infrastructure has been destroyed and the death toll could exceed 20,000. Ukrainian army, indicated that u A Russian drone had dropped a “toxic substance” on troops and civilians in Mariupol, causing them respiratory failure and neurological problems. “The threat of chemical weapons is real, says Katarzyna Zysk, Russian expert in military strategy, interviewed by France 24. The civilian population and the government have good reason to be very afraid of it”. Avoid “unbearable humiliation” Use of chemical weapons was banned by the international community after World War I. A prohibition reinforced by agreements signed in 1972 and 1993 that prohibit their development, stockpiling or transfer. Therefore, Russia’s use of chemical weapons in Ukraine would be a war crime, however it could be ready to commit. “Russia is losing this war, this humiliation is unbearable and unacceptable for the Russian authorities”, continues Katarzyna Zysk. “Chemical weapons would help tactically win battles, but also exert psychological pressure on the Ukrainian government to stop resisting and to force it to accept Russia’s terms for ending the conflict.” of the chemical arsenal could also make it possible to bring an early end to the conflict in Mariupol. “It is militarily logical for Russia to seek to take Mariupol as quickly as possible, as this would free up a lot of forces for the planned offensive in the Donetsk region,” says Marc-Michael Blum, a chemical weapons expert and former laboratory director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), contacted by France 24. A chemical attack in broad daylight and on a large scale could provoke new indignation from the international community, already hostile to Russia. But a targeted and small-scale attack would be much more difficult to prove, especially in an inaccessible and cut off area like Mariupol. Michael Blum. According to him, “there is no chance” that people affected by a chemical attack will go to a hospital where samples can be taken. “It is more likely that they will be captured or killed by the Russians, adds the expert. There are therefore reasons to think that Russia is able to conceal the use of chemical weapons, because no one can prove that it did indeed happen.” However, Marc-Michael Blum is skeptical of the chemical attack reported by the Azov Regiment. A lack of evidenceFor his part, Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky said on Wednesday that it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions on the possible use of chemical weapons by Russian forces in Mariupol, noting that It was not possible to carry out a real investigation in the besieged port city. Indeed, proving that a chemical attack took place is a long and complicated process, similar to that of other war crimes. Samples must be taken and analyzed on the spot, at the same time as testimonies, videos, photographs and other documents must be collected. “It is only once you have proof of the use of a chemical weapon that you can go further and ask yourself which party used it. But the attribution step is even more difficult”, reveals Marc-Michael Blum. “The amount of truly credible information [en provenance de Marioupol] is still very limited.” The fact that Russia does not officially possess chemical weapons further complicates matters. Moscow signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, which entered into force in 1997, prohibiting signatories from stockpiling, develop or use chemical weapons.On September 27, 2017, the OPCW verified the complete elimination of chemical weapons stockpiles declared by Russia.Except that since then, several small-scale chemical attacks have been attributed to Russia due to the known presence of the Russian nerve agent Novichok. These include the attacks on Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2020 and the former Russian military officer and British intelligence double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, in 2018. Russia is also suspected of being involved in larger chemical attacks in Syria and Chechnya, but these suspicions could not be pro uveas. “We lack credible information indicating that Russia still has significant stocks, that is to say tons of chemical warfare agents, explains Marc-Michael Blum. But is this a possibility? great country and the authorities have a habit of trying to cheat by circumventing the conventions they have signed”. “Plausible deniability” and doubtFor its part, Moscow maintains that the use of chemical weapons in Syria has been staged by Western intelligence services or that it is the work of opposition forces. If Russian forces were to use chemical weapons in Ukraine, Katarzyna Zysk expects similar claims. “A few weeks ago Russian rhetoric surfaced about so-called ‘biolabs’ in Ukraine, which is basically to say that if a chemical attack happens, it could be Ukrainians,” she said. This creates doubt and the conditions for plausible deniability.” The concept of “plausible deniability” makes it possible to deny any direct intervention and to maintain the vagueness around the chain of command in order to escape all responsibility. Even before the start of the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, had declared, in December, that suppliers of the American army brought into Ukraine tanks “filled with unidentified chemical components” to “provoke” Russia. On March 9, Washington warned that Russia could use chemical weapons in Ukraine and attribute their use to the United States in order to justify its invasion of the country. “In the case of Mariupol, we can also observe the situation in which the other camp finds itself, adds Marc-Michael Blum. Ukraine is in a desperate situation, is there therefore an interest for Ukrainian parties account for a chemical attack that never happened?” The Azov Regiment, which reported the attack in Mariupol, is staunchly anti-Russian and was originally a neo-Nazi-leaning paramilitary militia, formed to fight against pro-Russian forces in the Donbass from 2014. Nevertheless, his announcement of a chemical attack provoked a rapid response from the British government. “If chemical weapons are used, then President Putin should know that all possible options are on the table as to how the West might react,” British Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said. Volodymyr Zelensky said he, too, took the opportunity on Wednesday to urge Western leaders to “act now” to prevent a future chemical attack from Russia. The United States had a more measured reaction. As Joe Biden has accused the Russian president of ‘genocide’ in Ukraine, the White House says the chemical weapons use claims have not been verified – although it has expressed concern that Vladimir Putin could take the leap. “It could be the fate of other cities” For six weeks, news from Mariupol has been dominated by tales of destruction. Ukraine has accused Russia of causing a humanitarian crisis in the city by blocking corridors that would have allowed the entry of essential supplies and medical aid or the flight of its inhabitants. Those who managed to escape described scenes “worse than in a horror movie”. of the Ukrainian population. “There is a strong psychological element, believes Katarzyna Zysk. The threat of chemical weapons is very frightening. attempt to break the morale of civilians and troops in Mariupol and the rest of Ukraine. On the other hand, such an attack would be a way for the Russian military to spread even more fear and quickly “clean up” the city. By doing so, she would win an important victory in the eyes of Vladimir Putin and would offer herself a strategic position allowing her to block the access of the Ukrainians to the Sea of ​​Azov. Both options seem to serve the interests of the Kremlin. The only certainty seems to be that Mariupol will soon fall, and the extent of the destruction sends a clear message to that effect. “Mariupol is a warning for the Ukrainian authorities, concludes Katarzyna Zysk. He says: ‘Look at what we are doing here, it could also be the fate of other cities'”. Article adapted from English – Find the original version here .