By Matt Underwood 
Ukraine claims Russia has launched 10,000 chemical strikes since the invasion began, and that’s a seriously concerning number. It immediately brings to mind the horrors of chemical warfare, a violation of international laws and a throwback to the devastating tactics of World War I. It makes you wonder, is Russia just ignoring the lessons of history, or perhaps, the existing laws? It’s a frightening thought, and the implications are enormous.
Looking deeper into this claim, the details become even more troubling. While the Ukrainian reports are out there, the specifics about the attacks themselves seem to vary. Some reports suggest the use of tear gas-like agents, which, while not as deadly as nerve agents, are still illegal under international agreements. Think about it, deploying anything that incapacitates your opponent, even temporarily, gives you an advantage on the battlefield. And then there’s the worry of escalation. Using irritants might provoke the other side to resort to more dangerous chemical weapons, spiraling into a far more dangerous scenario.
Now, the lack of visual evidence, especially in the age of ubiquitous drone footage, does raise questions. We see countless drone videos capturing the brutal realities of the war, from targeting soldiers to destroying tanks. However, if these chemical attacks are so frequent, wouldn’t we expect to see more footage of them? The sheer volume of 10,000 attacks, which would average out to roughly 8 strikes per day over the course of the conflict, makes the absence of widespread visual proof somewhat perplexing. It’s reasonable to consider why there isn’t an abundance of these specific attacks being captured on camera, like other aspects of the fighting.
However, the lack of easily accessible video doesn’t necessarily disprove the claim entirely. There are reports, found in mainstream media outlets, describing the use of chemical agents. Often these are irritants deployed from drones, specifically targeting trenches and other areas where soldiers are concentrated. Furthermore, white phosphorus, a pyrophoric substance known for its devastating effects on both military and civilian targets, has also been cited, which is again a clear violation of international laws. Even if the chemicals being used are not the deadliest, their very use in warfare remains a serious issue, and the context of their use is especially problematic.
The argument that Ukraine has also committed acts that would be considered war crimes is also worth noting. The fact that both sides might be responsible doesn’t negate the seriousness of Russia’s alleged actions. It’s important to acknowledge the complexities of this conflict. The US and Europe are already involved, offering military aid and imposing sanctions. Some would argue that this isn’t enough, while others might suggest that more direct intervention could lead to even worse outcomes, potentially even a larger scale conflict or even a nuclear war.
The discussion also touches upon what constitutes “taking the threat seriously.” Sanctions and military aid are a form of acknowledging the situation. However, some believe the response is insufficient, perhaps because they view these measures as a means to prolong the conflict rather than end it decisively. The quantity of aid, some might argue, is simply keeping Ukraine in the fight without providing the necessary resources to achieve a decisive victory. The underlying issue becomes one of strategy and the willingness to commit the necessary resources.
In the end, the claim of 10,000 chemical strikes paints a grim picture of the conflict. The evidence, the legal ramifications, and the potential for escalation all warrant serious attention. Whether it’s tear gas or more dangerous weapons, the use of chemicals in war is a serious breach of international law. It’s essential to gather and analyze all available evidence, ensure accountability, and prevent the use of chemical weapons from becoming normalized in modern warfare. The situation demands careful consideration of the facts, avoiding knee-jerk reactions, and working to de-escalate the conflict and prevent further atrocities.