Is Russia using the poisonous chloropicrin against Ukrainian soldiers on the war front? The Americans made this strong accusation today, but have not yet provided any evidence for it. Experts call it “very likely” that the Russians are using the poison gas chloropicrin to drive Ukrainian soldiers out of their trenches.
The German chemist Ralf Trapp has been working for years as an advisor on chemical weapons control, previously also for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). He calls chloropicrin a very strong tear gas. People who come into contact with it suffer from severe irritation of the eyes and the respiratory tract. “It causes people to try to escape and run away from the area where they are exposed to the gas.”
According to the Americans, Moscow is violating the international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the use of chemical weapons in a conflict situation. The Kremlin today denies that Russian soldiers are using chemical weapons in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia have been accusing each other for some time.
Push through
“We have seen that the front has been at a standstill for a long time and by reaching for these types of weapons, the Russians may want to force a breakthrough,” says assistant professor of War Studies Anneleen van der Meer, who researches chemical weapons. “The gas also causes fear, such a weapon does something to you psychologically. You don’t know what you are ingesting and what the consequences are. You only experience suffocation and pain. As a result, the soldiers leave their post and the Russians can advance. “
For international law it does not matter which chemical weapons a country uses. But as soon as a chemical weapon is used in a conflict situation, it is a violation of the treaty.
A chemical weapon is a non-explosive chemical that disables, injures or kills people. A biological weapon is often based on living organisms such as viruses and bacteria.
As early as World War I, chloropicrin was used in artillery shells and bombs. Trapp thinks it is quite possible that Russia will use the gas in Ukraine. “There were soldiers on Russian television talking about it and saying that they are using the gas to drive Ukrainian soldiers out of their protective places. So it is plausible, but an independent investigation is needed to verify the facts.”
The OPCW could conduct such an independent investigation, Trapp says. That happened in Syria, for example. Even though the research was not in Syria itself, the organization was not given permission for this. An investigation team needed statements from those involved, samples and documents. “So it is possible in complicated situations, but it is of course not an easy task. And sending inspectors to a war zone is not something you do lightly,” says Trapp.
Political game
Van der Meer believes that the US is generally well established. “They know what they are talking about. They did not make these accusations overnight. They have of course collected evidence. And now we have reached the point where the US says: this far and no further.”
Russia has also signed the CWC Treaty, but a violation does not immediately carry a penalty. “It is always difficult to draw consequences from international law,” says Van der Meer. “That is why you now see a political game getting underway with the US imposing new sanctions.”
After US President Joe Biden said at the start of the Russian invasion that the use of chemical weapons in Ukraine would lead to “serious consequences”, the Americans have now announced new sanctions. These concern almost 300 new companies or individuals that directly or indirectly help the Russian arms industry, for example with parts for drones or missile systems. Twenty of those companies are in China and Hong Kong. According to the US, China is the most important supplier to the Russian arms industry.
Trapp does not find it surprising that Russia denies the use of the gas. “They did that before. Russia has always maintained that it has destroyed all its chemical weapons. But nerve agents have also been used, for example by Russian agents in assassination attempts, which raises questions about the extent to which we can believe the Russians one hundred percent.”
Trapp further emphasizes that this is not the worst type of gas. Only in very large quantities is chloropicrin fatal. “So it is not a nerve agent as was used in Syria.” The history of chemical warfare has taught the world that a country with well-trained, well-prepared and well-equipped troops can handle such situations, Trapp says. “And then the advantage of using this chemical weapon is not very great.”
