[81alum]

2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.







The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

Goose, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government dispersed sarin gas via rocket barrage on the town of Ghouta, just outside of Damascus.  The gas killed 1400 people.  It was so horrific that international pressure forced Syria to destroy its stockpile and finally sign onto the international treaties banning chemical warfare.



But that did not last long.  As the Syrian civil war dragged on and Russia intervened on the government's behalf in 2015, Syria began the use of chemical weapons again.  The crucial turning point was the battle for the largest city--Aleppo.  The Russian-backed government forces surrounded and sealed off the city, pummeled it with artillery and bombs and refused for months to let the starving population leave.  During this time helicopters dropped barrel bombs loaded with chlorine gas, block by block.  Chlorine worked well for their purposes since in the right conditions it settles low into basements and bunkers where people attempt to hide from shelling and bombs.  Surviving the chlorine means going up to the top of rubble heaps.  Surviving the shelling means going down into basements.  In this way the largest city in Syria, and one of the most beautiful and most historic, was turned into a circle of hell.  Human rights groups count 336 separate uses of poison gas in that war--including sarin gas, chlorine, and a few instances of sulpher mustard gas.



Syria got its poison gas capacity from the Soviet Union in the 1970s.  Following the destruction of its stockpile in 2013, it created a new supply with Russian help, and used Russian tactics and Russian aircraft in deploying it.



That's what I meant when I called Aleppo "Putin's Guernica."  Years before Hitler invaded Poland his forces intervened in the Spanish Civil War and tried out their tactics there.  Putin learned from Aleppo and appears to be applying its lessons now.  All that is lacking so far is the use of poison gas.  And Russia has more of it than any other country on earth.

Not really. In Syria the Russians had air supremacy. They could do what they wanted and take whatever time they wanted. No Russians were getting killed, nobody at home was complaining. The Russian economy wasn't being affected. Syria was going to take the heat for using gas on their own people, not Russia. It was also all inside Syria, so it could be argued it was nobody else's business. There was no danger anybody was going to attack Russia or Russian forces to stop it. No real risk to Russia, no Russian troops to slow down.



Also, your Guernica reference is IMHO misplaced. Guernica was not an attempt to force the citizens of that town to surrender or to flee. In fact, it was actually a tactical blunder according to those who were involved. While it was unique at that time, many, many worse civilian casualties have been caused intentionally in subsequent bombing raids in many wars. Additionally, no gas was used at Guernica FWIW. The raids on Aleppo clearly were intended to cause casualties and force a surrender, Guernica was not.

I am terribly dismayed by what is yet to come, and am beginning to wonder if it is realistic to believe that the war can be contained.

On this we agree. I don't think Putin wants NATO or the US to become directly involved, but he absolutely must win and win pretty quickly. Time is not his friend here. He also must trade off what actions he takes vs the probability of a wider war, just as NATO/US/EU must. Real dangerous situation, because it is real easy for either side to go too far. If Putin uses sarin or something similar, what will the US/NATO do? I don't know, and I don't want to find out. Hopefully Putin feels the same way.

I can see I muddled my point.

"Guernica" is to me simply the greatest symbol of Hitler's intervention in the Spanish Civil War, made famous by Picasso's depiction.  I did not mean to imply that the tactics used in the specific battle at Guernica had anything to do with Aleppo or Ukraine.  What I did mean to imply is that Hitler did experiment with tactics in the Spanish Civil War and made use of that experience when fighting his bigger battles later, much as Putin has learned from tactics undertaken with his foreign adventure in Syria. 

There is no denying that the strategic situation in Aleppo is different from the strategic situation in Ukraine, in the ways you accurately recount.  It remains to be seen, however, whether "time is not on Mr. Putin's side."  That would be true only if there is a palace coup or a popular uprising in Russia--and I certainly hope for that--but he is converting his authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one and totalitarian regimes can persist through incredible isolation and economic hardship--see North Korea. 

There is a similarity with Aleppo (and the earlier example of Grozny) in this regard: when the Russian side could not achieve its objectives in a war of movement, it adopted a deliberate strategy of siege warfare with the indiscriminate killing of civilians.  Basically, whole cities of civilians become hostages to be killed until the other side loses the will to fight.  The war in Ukraine seems to be entering this phase with the destruction of suburban housing, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, etc.

As for the specific use of chemical weapons, Chechens claimed Russia did use chemical weapons in two attacks in 1999, but not a lot more is known.  They clearly were used in Aleppo under Russian guidance.  Why wouldn't Putin use them in Ukraine?  At this point he is probably convinced that the West has done its worst--short of direct intervention.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians seems to be part of a strategy to demoralize the opponent rather than a battlefield tactic.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrain...2696a3448b

I am having a hard time seeing how we get to any kind of resolution to this conflict without descending into greater and greater acts of depravity.  And nuclear war is probably becoming a more viable option in his mind--perhaps starting with a couple of small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities.  I'm sure he would rather not spoil the land he wants to absorb into his empire, but if he thinks it is his best chance to avoid defeat--watch out.  Putin knows it worked for the United States against fanatical Japanese resistance.

[81alum]

2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.







The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

Goose, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government dispersed sarin gas via rocket barrage on the town of Ghouta, just outside of Damascus.  The gas killed 1400 people.  It was so horrific that international pressure forced Syria to destroy its stockpile and finally sign onto the international treaties banning chemical warfare.



But that did not last long.  As the Syrian civil war dragged on and Russia intervened on the government's behalf in 2015, Syria began the use of chemical weapons again.  The crucial turning point was the battle for the largest city--Aleppo.  The Russian-backed government forces surrounded and sealed off the city, pummeled it with artillery and bombs and refused for months to let the starving population leave.  During this time helicopters dropped barrel bombs loaded with chlorine gas, block by block.  Chlorine worked well for their purposes since in the right conditions it settles low into basements and bunkers where people attempt to hide from shelling and bombs.  Surviving the chlorine means going up to the top of rubble heaps.  Surviving the shelling means going down into basements.  In this way the largest city in Syria, and one of the most beautiful and most historic, was turned into a circle of hell.  Human rights groups count 336 separate uses of poison gas in that war--including sarin gas, chlorine, and a few instances of sulpher mustard gas.



Syria got its poison gas capacity from the Soviet Union in the 1970s.  Following the destruction of its stockpile in 2013, it created a new supply with Russian help, and used Russian tactics and Russian aircraft in deploying it.



That's what I meant when I called Aleppo "Putin's Guernica."  Years before Hitler invaded Poland his forces intervened in the Spanish Civil War and tried out their tactics there.  Putin learned from Aleppo and appears to be applying its lessons now.  All that is lacking so far is the use of poison gas.  And Russia has more of it than any other country on earth.

Not really. In Syria the Russians had air supremacy. They could do what they wanted and take whatever time they wanted. No Russians were getting killed, nobody at home was complaining. The Russian economy wasn't being affected. Syria was going to take the heat for using gas on their own people, not Russia. It was also all inside Syria, so it could be argued it was nobody else's business. There was no danger anybody was going to attack Russia or Russian forces to stop it. No real risk to Russia, no Russian troops to slow down.



Also, your Guernica reference is IMHO misplaced. Guernica was not an attempt to force the citizens of that town to surrender or to flee. In fact, it was actually a tactical blunder according to those who were involved. While it was unique at that time, many, many worse civilian casualties have been caused intentionally in subsequent bombing raids in many wars. Additionally, no gas was used at Guernica FWIW. The raids on Aleppo clearly were intended to cause casualties and force a surrender, Guernica was not.

I am terribly dismayed by what is yet to come, and am beginning to wonder if it is realistic to believe that the war can be contained.

On this we agree. I don't think Putin wants NATO or the US to become directly involved, but he absolutely must win and win pretty quickly. Time is not his friend here. He also must trade off what actions he takes vs the probability of a wider war, just as NATO/US/EU must. Real dangerous situation, because it is real easy for either side to go too far. If Putin uses sarin or something similar, what will the US/NATO do? I don't know, and I don't want to find out. Hopefully Putin feels the same way.

I can see I muddled my point.

"Guernica" is to me simply the greatest symbol of Hitler's intervention in the Spanish Civil War, made famous by Picasso's depiction.  I did not mean to imply that the tactics used in the specific battle at Guernica had anything to do with Aleppo or Ukraine.  What I did mean to imply is that Hitler did experiment with tactics in the Spanish Civil War and made use of that experience when fighting his bigger battles later, much as Putin has learned from tactics undertaken with his foreign adventure in Syria. 

There is no denying that the strategic situation in Aleppo is different from the strategic situation in Ukraine, in the ways you accurately recount.  It remains to be seen, however, whether "time is not on Mr. Putin's side."  That would be true only if there is a palace coup or a popular uprising in Russia--and I certainly hope for that--but he is converting his authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one and totalitarian regimes can persist through incredible isolation and economic hardship--see North Korea. 

There is a similarity with Aleppo (and the earlier example of Grozny) in this regard: when the Russian side could not achieve its objectives in a war of movement, it adopted a deliberate strategy of siege warfare with the indiscriminate killing of civilians.  Basically, whole cities of civilians become hostages to be killed until the other side loses the will to fight.  The war in Ukraine seems to be entering this phase with the destruction of suburban housing, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, etc.

As for the specific use of chemical weapons, Chechens claimed Russia did use chemical weapons in two attacks in 1999, but not a lot more is known.  They clearly were used in Aleppo under Russian guidance.  Why wouldn't Putin use them in Ukraine?  At this point he is probably convinced that the West has done its worst--short of direct intervention.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians seems to be part of a strategy to demoralize the opponent rather than a battlefield tactic.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrain...2696a3448b

I am having a hard time seeing how we get to any kind of resolution to this conflict without descending into greater and greater acts of depravity.  And nuclear war is probably becoming a more viable option in his mind--perhaps starting with a couple of small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities.  I'm sure he would rather not spoil the land he wants to absorb into his empire, but if he thinks it is his best chance to avoid defeat--watch out.  Putin knows it worked for the United States against fanatical Japanese resistance.