Russia-Ukraine War: How likely is Putin will use chemical weapon?

It’s safe to say that three weeks into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, things aren’t going as planned — and the country has yet to achieve objectives that were supposed to be completed in the first few days.

The longer Russia’s advance is stalled, the more likely it will consider drastic action, which could include the use of weapons of mass destruction.

As unlikely as it is, it is not impossible. Under what conditions could weapons of mass destruction be used?

Chemical weapons

A chemical weapon is the most likely weapon of mass destruction to be used. Russia used to have the world’s largest stockpile of chemical weapons, which included nerve agents like Sarin and VX, mustard gas, and the toxic gas phosgene.

Although Russia claims to have destroyed its arsenal by 2017, the use of the nerve agent Novichok during assassination attempts in 2018 and 2020 shows it still has chemical weapons, though the quantities and types (other than Novichok) are unknown.

Despite the obvious logical inconsistency, US and allied officials suspect Russia is planning (or considering) a “false flag” operation involving the use of chemical weapons in order to establish a belated justification for the invasion of Ukraine.

Latest Defence Intelligence update on the situation in Ukraine – 14 March 2022

Find out more about the UK government's response: https://t.co/wg3FhtrkiY

🇺🇦 #StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/cJikRzwVpQ

Advertisement

— Ministry of Defence 🇬🇧 (@DefenceHQ) March 14, 2022

In this situation, Russia could launch a chemical-weapons attack and blame Ukrainian forces, or it could attack a small portion of its own forces with chemical weapons to “justify” a retaliatory strike.

Alternatively, it may discover a stockpile of “Ukrainian” chemical weapons and use this as a post-hoc justification for the invasion, similar to how the US used the claim of alleged weapons of mass destruction to justify its invasion of Iraq in the second Gulf War.

While this is all speculation for the time being, it shows how the threat of chemical weapons hangs over the Ukraine invasion.

If chemical weapons were used, the consequences would be horrific, not only in terms of loss of life, but also in terms of the affected areas becoming uninhabitable.

Many chemical weapons are still present in the environment. In the case of some (particularly nerve agents), a single touch on the skin is sufficient to cause death in seconds or minutes. It would be extremely difficult and dangerous to decontaminate affected areas.

For the time being, we haven’t seen Russian soldiers outfitted with the protective gear required to operate in a chemical-hazardous environment. This suggests that the use of chemical weapons is not imminent.

Tactical nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic, are another source of mass destruction in this context. Russia is thought to have the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with a total of 4,477 nuclear weapons (of which 1,912 are thought to be tactical nuclear weapons).

Tactical nuclear weapons are designed to be used on the battlefield, whereas strategic nuclear weapons are designed to be used to destroy strategic targets such as cities.

In practise, the only significant difference between them is the delivery system. Tactical nuclear weapons are delivered by artillery, short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, or tactical aircraft.

Given their focus, they may have lower explosive yields than strategic weapons, but this is not always the case. Most modern tactical nuclear warheads have far more explosive power than the nuclear bombs dropped by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

Tactical nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would be capable of blowing wide, deep holes in opposing lines. As such, they could facilitate a breach of Ukrainian defences or provide a means of destroying critical targets such as airfields or key staging areas.

It would be difficult to detect preparations for such an attack. Many of Russia’s weapon systems are “dual-capable,” which means they can deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons.

While the use of nuclear weapons is unlikely, Russian President Vladimir Putin has increased the alert level of his nuclear forces and issued poorly veiled threats referencing Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to NATO intervention in the conflict.

However, the risk of Russia using nuclear weapons may increase if Putin is further backed up against a wall and Russia believes its progress is being stymied. This is extremely unlikely, but not out of the question.

What is unknown is how the West would react if nuclear weapons were used. While there would be justifiable outrage, it may well deter the West from further involvement in order to avoid a full-fledged nuclear conflict.

This would be truly uncharted territory. Nuclear weapons have never been used when multiple nations have them.

Russia’s ‘de-escalation’ doctrine

If the conflict escalates and NATO becomes involved, the worst-case scenario is a strategic nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia. In this scenario, both sides would seek total annihilation of the other, focusing on cities and other key strategic targets.

If NATO and Russia engaged in a conventional conflict (which Russia would almost certainly lose), Russia would immediately seek to “de-escalate” the conflict in accordance with its nuclear doctrine.

While this may appear to be a good idea on paper, it is far from it in practise. This strategy actually refers to the phrase “escalate to de-escalate.” Russia would seek a rapid escalation, even if it meant using nuclear weapons, in order to force NATO to back down.

While this is concerning, it is also logical. NATO, Russia believes, is willing to risk conventional conflict but not nuclear war. As a result, an immediate nuclear escalation could cause NATO to pause.

If this were to happen, Russia would most likely not target cities or large troop concentrations (as this would risk galvanising support among NATO populations for retaliation).Instead, Russia would either conduct a final warning shot (for example, by detonating a nuclear weapon over the ocean) or hit multiple strategic targets while minimising NATO and civilian casualties. Important airfields, ports, road and rail junctions, munitions dumps, and fuel storage facilities are just a few examples.

NATO intervention may prove disastrous

Of course, the Russian government denies that this strategy would be used. It insists that nuclear weapons would only be used to defend Russia, and not as a pre-emptive strike.

Various statements by Russian defence officials over the years, however, suggest a doctrine of de-escalation and pre-emptive nuclear threats. The US has openly stated that de-escalation is Russia’s guiding nuclear doctrine.

Events may occur that could easily escalate the situation, in which case the risk of a full nuclear exchange is high.