By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The international community, including Russia, has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits chemical weapons use and production. Amidst intensified Russian attacks on Ukraine, concerns are growing in the EU. While the U.S. has announced support for sanctions and weapon purchases for Ukraine, the timeline and financial burden-sharing remain points of contention for European officials.
Read the original article here
Russia’s increasing use of chemical weapons in Ukraine is, as the EU diplomat stated, “unbearable.” That’s the headline, the core sentiment, but it opens up a Pandora’s Box of questions and frustrations, doesn’t it? Hearing this, it’s hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu. We’ve heard condemnations before. We’ve heard expressions of concern, of the gravity of the situation. But the underlying frustration simmers: are words enough? When does a line get crossed that demands action, not just pronouncements? Because, let’s face it, Russia’s behavior in this conflict has been, from the very beginning, anything but clean. They’ve shown little regard for international norms or the consequences of their actions.
What does this “unbearable” situation actually entail? What are these chemical weapons, specifically? That’s the crucial detail that often seems to get lost in the rhetoric. If it’s not something like nerve or mustard agents, which cause obvious and dramatic immediate physical effects, what is it? The input hints at the possibility of less lethal, yet still devastating, agents that incapacitate, forcing soldiers out of their positions, making them vulnerable. The intention isn’t necessarily to kill immediately but to achieve a tactical advantage, making the fight uneven. The Chemical Weapons Convention strictly prohibits the use of any substance against combatants that leverages its chemical properties.
So, what does “unbearable” really mean in this context? It isn’t simply about the pain and suffering caused. It’s about the deliberate violation of international law, the erosion of basic decency in warfare. It’s about the deliberate targeting of people through chemical means. However, there is no doubt that it is, on some level, a measurement of effectiveness. “Unbearable” suggests that the use of these weapons has had a significant impact, that they are achieving their desired effect of weakening Ukrainian defenses, demoralizing troops, and potentially even influencing the overall course of the war. If it weren’t effective, would they continue?
The core of the problem lies in the disconnect between the words and the actions. We get these declarations of how “unbearable” the situation is, but there’s a sense that the West is hesitant to take concrete steps that would decisively alter the situation. Perhaps this hesitance stems from a fear of escalation, but it leaves Russia to continue its behavior with apparent impunity. The input suggests that the time for mere statements has long passed.
The use of chemical weapons, whatever they may be, indicates a deeper, more concerning trend. If Russia feels it’s running low on conventional arms and manpower, and thinks it has little left to lose, the temptation to rely on chemical agents, for all their potential impact, becomes even greater. This is a worrying signal.
It brings up the uncomfortable history of the “red lines” that have seemingly been crossed without provoking a proportionate response. Remember those? And yet, it’s still business as usual. The input suggests that even the most egregious actions may not be enough to provoke meaningful change.
Reports about what these chemical weapons are, including the possibility of incapacitating agents or other less-than-lethal but still debilitating substances, are a reminder that there’s a spectrum of chemical warfare tactics. It also highlights the very real possibility of substances that might be less immediately visible but inflict their own form of damage and are meant to directly affect a people.
There’s also the unsettling possibility of even more sinister methods being used. The input mentions the use of drugs, possibly to negate pain and fear in soldiers. We’re hearing stories of troops fighting on even after suffering horrific injuries. The implications of this, if true, are deeply disturbing, both in terms of the ethical boundaries being crossed and the potential impact on those soldiers, both now and in the future.
So the problem isn’t simply Russia’s use of chemical weapons; it is the ongoing unwillingness of the West to take substantial action to stop it. It’s a problem of accountability and the erosion of standards of conduct. “Peace in our time” sounds good, but is nothing more than words. And with this being the case, the situation in Ukraine, from every perspective, will only get more “unbearable.”