Thread by @BretDevereaux

So why would Russia use WMDs (probably chemical, in this case)?

In a way, Putin resorting to chemical weapons would be an admission that the Russian Armed Forces is no longer capable of doing 'modern system' warfare...as we've all seen over the past 2 weeks. 1/

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1502531733488644096

We've actually discussed this at some length on the blog back in 2020: acoup.blog/2020/03/20/col…

The upshot is that 'modern system' (term via S. Biddle, Military Power (2004)) armies want to move quickly, disorient the enemy, maintain high tempo. 2/

Chemical weapons offer basically nothing to that. Other expensive modern-system armies can defend against them fairly easily and against less sophisticated armies, they gum up the battlefield and slow things down which isn't what your modern system army wants. 3/

Consequently, modern-system armies abandoned chemical weapons not because they were morally bad or horrible but because they were less effective than high explosives (delivered with ever increasing precision). 4/

But of course the Russian Armed Forces have spent the last two weeks demonstrating to the whole world that they aren't actually capable of *doing* the modern system. Combined arms failures, targeting failures with PGMs, logistics failures, all of it. 5/

Russia's military is increasingly showing itself - whatever its expensive systems - to be what I call a 'static system' military. And in the static system - which tries to win through attrition because it can't do maneuver - unfortunately, chemical weapons can make sense. 6/

In particular, while it is fairly easy and cheap for wealthy countries to protect their soldiers against chemical weapons, civilians (and the soldiers of poorer countries) often remain very vulnerable to them, lacking proper protective (NBC) equipment. 7/

Thus, as Russia settles down to a series of urban sieges (several that seem to me to be unlikely to succeed without substantial changes in battlefield conditions), incapable of taking cities 'by storm' the likelihood of WMD use rises. 8/

And that's bad!

The USA/NATO are already signalling that the use of chemical weapons would be an unacceptable escalation. I think it is one scenario where you might actually get some direct NATO intervention (e.g. NFZ/air campaign, which = war).

cnn.com/2022/03/11/pol… 9/

What I'd hope is Putin realizes the last time NATO said he'd pay "a severe price" and he tried to call bluff, NATO responded by cratering his entire economy and providing Ukraine with a free-flowing river of arms with which they are mauling his army.

They aren't kidding! 10/

I'd *hope* that would establish credibility.

I *fear* that Putin will reason from the experience in Syria: a lot of tough talk about chemical weapons, but in the end no one did anything meaningful. 11/

The problem with that logic is pretty obvious: people with power care a lot more about Ukraine than about Syria. I know it's not fair, it's not just, but it is true.

Consequently, the response to chemical use in Ukraine would be much stronger, I suspect. 12/

All of that said, Putin has backed himself into a corner, having staked all on a foolish war, conducted foolishly, for evil and foolish purposes.

Desperate leaders often seek bigger and bigger gambles to try to win back the pot. 13/

Consequently, while two weeks ago I'd say the chance of seeing WMDs used in this conflict was extremely low, now I am not so sure - Putin's foolishness has created the use-case for chemical weapons.

His next foolish step may create the conditions for a wider European war. end/