Did Russia use ‘chemical weapons’ in Ukraine?: WION Indian global news
The latest State Department accusations against Russia for supposedly using chemical weapons on the battlefield against Ukrainian forces were the starting point for my interview this morning with India’s premier English language global broadcaster WION. These charges are said to have been the basis for the latest round of sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States, with the Russian military units under accusation being the prime targets. The conversation went on from there to consideration of the likely effectiveness of the latest 61 billion financial and arms package from the United States.
Nothing is perfect in life. WION has identified me as speaking from Brussels, though in fact I am in St Petersburg and will remain here till 14 May. I misspoke when identifying the glider bombs being used by the Russians, which weigh in at 0.5, 1.5 and 3 tons.
Transcript below by a reader
Shivan Chanana: 0:00
The U.S. Department of State alleged that Russia had used chemical weapons against the Ukrainian army, and this was the reason to impose additional sanctions against Russia. Interestingly, last week Russia leveled similar charges against Ukraine at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW. Now, there was a conference which was held and now the question arises, who's using chemical weapons against the other? To discuss matters, we're joined by Dr Gilbert Doctorow, who is an author, historian, and political commentator joining us from Brussels. Dr Doctorow, always a pleasure speaking with you. Is this a tit-for-tat move, as Russia levels similar charges against Ukraine?
Gilbert Doctorow: 0:41
Entirely possible that is the case. The first victim of war is the truth. And what we have seen over the past couple of years has borne that truth out all the way. The Russians may very well have used chemical weapons, but I would suggest it was in response to what they reported and complained about for the Ukrainian side a week ago. Generally speaking, everything that comes out of Ukraine and a lot that comes out of Washington is attributing to the Russians what the Ukrainians are doing. So I would take this latest accusation by the State Department with great caution.
Shivan Chanana: 1:26
If chemical weapons are indeed being used on the battlefield by either side, where is this war inching towards? And we have been, you know ... the idea of a nuclear war, it's been way too romanticized at the moment. There have been too many threats around it. Are we really now moving towards it? Is this the first step that we're going to see?
Gilbert Doctorow: 1:48
No, I wouldn't consider these latest accusations or charges and counter charges as signifying any particular escalation. I think that the incidents that are at question here are of a very small nature and they are testing the water to see what can be done and how far you can go. I don't think that this is leading us into a new direction. The weapons already being used in this war are of great destructive power -- most recently, the Russians' use over the past few months of so-called dumb bombs, which have been smartened up and turned into glider bombs. These are [0.5-ton, 1.5-ton], even three-ton bombs with devastating impact, that can tear up large parts of a battlefield and kill most anyone within 20, 30, 40 meters range. So these weapons are weapons of great destructive power, have already been used, and the introduction of some chemical weapons here or there does not change the situation greatly.
Shivan Chanana: 2:59
Dr Doctorow, given your experience and your study of the region spanning over decades, I wanted to understand what consequence do American sanctions have, especially on a nation like Russia? We have seen the U.S. impose several rounds of sanctions in the past. Anything happens and they impose further sanctions. Are these sanctions of any consequence?
Gilbert Doctorow: 3:23
The most significant sanctions, which are of consequence, have been the financial sanctions. Removing Russia from the SWIFT system has had considerable impact on Russia's commercial relations with the world. It hasn't-- for a few months, there were setbacks in the trade. They were overcome, the workarounds were arrived at and Russia more or less is doing quite well in its commercial relations, particularly with the global south.
Otherwise the sanctions have either been counterproductive-- in the sense that they have caused much greater harm to the United States and particularly to Western Europe than they have to Russia-- or they have had nil effect. The latest sanctions that are discussed now in connection with the supposed use of chemical weapons will have nil effect. To sanction a country's military units for one or another abuse is an absurd proposition. You are at war with them or you're not at war with them. And what difference does it make if individuals are named and are unable to visit the United States or own property there? This is just pro forma. It is checking the box.
Shivan Chanana: 4:38
Doctor, the last time we spoke, you had mentioned very categorically that yes, the bill has been signed into law for the aid, the military aid towards Ukraine, but it's not going to happen immediately. Would you want to put some kind of a timeline to it? By when can American weapons finally make it to the Ukrainian front lines, because Ukraine is desperately waiting for them?
Gilbert Doctorow: 4:59
Well, some weapons will. Other weapons won't. They won't for months, if not for years. The United States and its European allies are simply unable to produce in quantity the artillery shells and the air defense systems that Ukraine desperately needs now if it is going to withstand the coming pummeling of a Russian offensive in full force. The Russians have been softening up the lines. They have been taking additional territory. They have been improving their positions, as they say, in a very understated way. And Ukraine, in the coming month or two, is really unable to resist the Russian moves that we see every day. How long it will take for Patriots to arrive? They don't have Patriots in the warehouse ready to ship out to Ukraine. They don't have artillery shells in the millions to assist Ukraine.
But the biggest issue has nothing to do with Western supply. It has to do with Ukraine's own manpower, which is in a shabby state, and they are unable to raise their battlefield numbers. Their various military units are depleted and therefore ineffective. That is nothing that shipment of further tanks or artillery pieces or ATACMS can rectify. So the Ukrainians are in a very difficult position. The United States is, and the British, the Germans are boasting that they're providing assistance, but it's of very limited military value in a situation that is dire.
Shivan Chanana: 6:52
So when it comes to the sanctions, at least the current ones will have no significance, at least not on Russia. And as far as the weapons are concerned, it's going to take a while for it to, for them to reach the Ukrainian front lines. And even if they do, as you mentioned, the manpower still continues to be a problem, as Ukraine is severely outmanned at the moment.
There are hints, or there are allegations of NATO forces and soldiers from other nations making their way to the Ukrainian, to Ukrainian soil, fighting for Ukraine. But, of course, none of that is in the open. So as far as what makes its way to the public eye is Ukrainian soldiers who are outmanned. Ukraine is outmanned at the moment, even if they get the weapons.
We are going to be tracking the Russia-Ukraine developments as they come in, as we have been doing all this while, right here on WION World is One. A big thank you to Dr Gilbert Doctorow, who is an author, historian, political commentator, joining us from Brussels with all your insights.
See