Putin's escalating use of chemical weapons should terrify us all
She was speaking in Brussels, and cited German and Dutch intelligence reports showing that Moscow has used chemical weapons at least 9,000 times since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine – and was now ramping up their use.
'As the intelligence services are saying this is intensifying, I think it's [Russia's use of chemical weapons] of great, great concern,' Kallas said. 'It shows that Russia wants to cause as much pain and suffering so that Ukraine would surrender. And, you know, it's really … unbearable.'
The intelligence services report and my own investigations have confirmed the use of chloropicrin, one of the first chemical weapons developed in WWI. This is a choking agent and designed as an incapacitant, but it has proved morbidly effective at killing the Ukraine defenders by flushing them out of trenches and foxholes to be killed in the open by artillery and direct fire. This is the only way Russian invaders have managed to make any progress in the last few months.
My concern is that with only 50 days for the Russians to make significant progress in this war, before the date Trump says he will impose devastating tariffs on Putin, they will escalate to far more deadly chemical weapons which could kill thousands.
There is credible, if unverified, evidence that Lewisite and possibly nerve agents have also been used by Russian forces. We know the Russians have a chemical weapons programme to develop Novichok nerve agents, the most deadly chemicals ever made on the planet, and used by the Russian secret service to try and assassinate double agent Sergei Skripal in my home city of Salisbury in 2018 – a year after the Russians declared to the UN they had destroyed all their chemical weapons.
If the Russians used Novichok, and why would they not, with the apparent indifference from the West and the UN to their use of other chemical weapons, they could kill thousands and possibly take huge tracts of Ukraine in the next 50 days.
This would likely be far more effective than a tactical nuclear strike, and without the massive and prolonged contamination issues associated with nuclear fallout which would make the land uninhabitable for years – even to Russians.
We urgently need an 'Obama' red line, or rather a solid 'Trump' red line, to ensure that Putin does not use his most deadly chemical weapons to try and take Ukraine this summer. The 'coalition of the willing' in Europe must also do the same to show a unified front to convince the Kremlin that a ceasefire and peace are their only viable options.
By ignoring the Obama red line in Syria in 2013, when Assad murdered over 1400 of his own people with the nerve agent Sarin, we enabled proliferation of these abhorrent weapons. Putin saw the West's indifference in 2013 and is presumably the reason he is using them now. They are morbidly brilliant, abhorrent and completely indiscriminate. But if you have no morals or scruples – and Putin has neither – you would use them all the time.
Trump can stop their use with a solid red line, and then we all must review the Chemical Weapons Convention and ensure that it is rigorously policed to remove all chemical weapons from the planet. This was what the convention was supposed to do in 1997 when most nations in the world, including the Russians, signed it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
6 minutes ago
- NBC News
Travelers to the U.S. must pay a new $250 ‘visa integrity fee' — what to know
Visitors to the United States will need to pay a 'visa integrity fee,' according to a provision of the Trump administration's recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The fee applies to all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas to enter, and cannot be waived. However travelers may also be able to get the fees reimbursed, according to the provision. Details about the new requirement are scant, which has resulted in 'significant challenges and unanswered questions regarding implementation,' a spokesperson from the U.S. Travel Association told CNBC Travel. However, here is what is known thus far. How much is the fee? The fee will be at least $250 during the U.S. fiscal year 2025, which runs from Oct. 1, 2024, to Sept. 30, 2025. However, the secretary of Homeland Security is free to set the fee higher, according to the provision. Thereafter, the visa integrity fee will be adjusted for inflation. Who must pay the new fee? The 'visa integrity fee' applies to all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas, which includes tourists, business travelers and international students. When is the fee paid? The fee is paid when the visa is issued, according to the provision. Thus, visitors whose visa requests are denied will not be charged. Does the fee replace other visa fees? No, the provision states that the new fee is 'in addition to' other fees, including regular visa fees. 'For example, an H-1B worker already paying a $205 application fee may now expect to pay a total of $455 once this fee is in place,' Steven A. Brown, a partner at the Houston-based immigration law firm Reddy Neumann Brown PC, wrote in a post on his firm's website. Additionally, the fee must be paid on top of a 'Form I-94 fee,' which the One Big Beautiful Bill Act increased from $6 to $24. That fee must be paid by anyone who is required to submit a Form I-94 arrival and departure record, which applies to most travelers. How can travelers get reimbursed? To get their money back, visa holders must comply with the conditions of the visa, which includes 'not accept[ing] unauthorized employment,' and not overstay the visa validity date by more than five days, according to the provision. Reimbursements will be made after the travel visa expires, it says. What isn't known The fee has not yet been implemented, according to Brown. It is not clear when it will begin. 'I believe it would need a regulation, or at least a notice in the Federal Register, regarding implementation on collection,' said Brown. It is also unclear how travelers will pay the fee, the U.S. Travel Association told CNBC. 'The bill directs the DHS Secretary to charge the fee, but DHS does not own the visa application, issuance or renewal process — so where and when would DHS collect the fee?' the spokesperson said. In response to CNBC's enquires, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said: 'The visa integrity fee requires cross-agency coordination before implementation.' More questions surround how and when the reimbursement process kicks in. Since many visas are valid for several years, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office said it expects 'a small number of people would seek reimbursement.' Moreover, 'CBO expects that the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period.' Brown said he is advising clients to treat the fee as nonrefundable. 'If you get it back, great. But it is usually difficult to get money back from the government,' he said. 'I would rather them view it as a 'bonus' if they get the refund.' The purpose of the fee 'President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill provides the necessary policies and resources to restore integrity in our nation's immigration system,' a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told CNBC. Data shows most visa holders comply with their visa terms. For the fiscal years between 2016 and 2022, between 1%-2% of nonimmigrant visitors overstayed their visas in the United States, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service. However, an estimated 42% of the approximately 11 million unauthorized population living in the United States entered the country legally, but overstayed their period of admission, the data shows. Effect on incoming travelers Brown said the visa integrity fee will likely impact B visa holders — or leisure and business travelers — and international students more than other types of travelers. 'For B visa holders, they may not want to add an additional $250 per person to their trip costs,' he said. The new fee, plus the I-94 fee, come as the United States prepares to host several major events in 2026, including the 'America 250' celebration, in honor of the country's 250th anniversary, and parts of the FIFA World Cup. These hurdles are compounded by problems at Brand USA, the destination marketing organization that promotes inbound travel into the United States, which saw the One Big Beautiful Bill Act slash its funding from $100 million to $20 million. The cuts came after the U.S. Commerce Department fired nearly half of Brand USA's board members in April. In a statement, Fred Dixon, the organization's president and CEO, said it is 'disappointed' with the cuts yet hopeful that the funds will be restored for the fiscal year 2026. 'We remain focused on growing legitimate international inbound travel and the vital boost it provides to the U.S. economy,' he said. Ahead of the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, U.S. Travel Association President and CEO Geoff Freeman praised the bill's contributions to U.S. infrastructure, air traffic control and border security.
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Boris Johnson: I'm sad about lack of British interest in Ukraine
Boris Johnson has said he is 'quite sad' about a lack of British interest in Ukraine, adding that speaking up for it was his number one priority. At an event for Ukrainian veterans at the country's London embassy this week, the former prime minister told The Telegraph: 'The interest in Ukraine and the appetite is so low nowadays. I find it quite sad. 'I mean, it sort of comes and goes, but it's number one for me. Number one.' Asked about how he evaluated his successors as Tory leader and prime minister on Ukraine, Mr Johnson said: 'Britain continues to be very important in this. But if you talk to some of my Ukrainian friends, they'll say that perhaps we're not in quite the leadership, the thought leadership, role that we were.' 'There are a lot of domestic issues that are very difficult right now, and you can see why they're distracted, but I think this is a big opportunity for Britain.' On a potential return to frontline politics, Mr Johnson added: 'I don't see any immediate way I can be particularly useful in British politics right now. But I think I can continue to talk about Ukraine.' Mr Johnson met Ukrainian veterans at the embassy event, organised by DTEK, the largest private investor in Ukraine's energy sector. He was greeted with applause by the group, some of whom had been tortured after capture. Asking about the soldiers' itinerary on their visit to Britain he said: 'I invited you to my pub in Somerset, but understandably that was too far.' One of the trip's organisers told him 'there is also a cultural programme' for the soldiers to learn about Britain, to which the former PM responded 'that's the pub', provoking laughter from the crowd. He is calling for European governments to seize the $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in Europe and send them to Ukraine, describing this as 'a down payment from Russia to Ukraine on the reparations that Russia will inevitably have to pay one day for what it has done'. Mr Johnson claimed Donald Trump, the US president, was in favour of such a move, despite concerns that it could spook international investors. 'This is an idea that is attractive to Donald Trump. He would like to do it, but the Europeans need to step up,' he added. It comes after Mr Johnson had said the best way for the Tories to counter Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, was to ignore him. He repeated that call on Friday, saying: 'If you've got a problem with a political doppelganger, don't talk about them. That's my strong advice. What voters want to hear is what we're doing, what we Tories are offering for them, whether they're 16 or 102. They want to know what the Tory plans are.' The most recent survey of voting intention by YouGov put Reform on 26 per cent, Labour on 24 per cent, and the Conservatives on 17. Speaking days after Sir Keir Starmer announced plans to give the vote to 16-year-olds, Mr Johnson said there was 'no reason why they shouldn't be persuaded to vote Tory at all'. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, has said she would focus on rebuilding the trust of voters before developing a comprehensive set of policies for the party's next election manifesto. Earlier this year she launched the Policy Renewal Programme and ditched the Conservatives' previous commitment to Net Zero by 2050 – a key pledge of Mr Johnson's Government. On the news this week of the Afghanistan data leak under the Conservatives, Mr Johnson said it was 'absolutely right' to protect Afghans at risk of repercussions from the Taliban. 'I knew nothing about this,' he said of the leak and subsequent super-injunction. 'I think it is, in principle, absolutely right to protect those who have helped our country, at great risk to their own lives and the lives of their families. I think it's absolutely right to try to do that.' Of the unprecedented super-injunction, which prevented journalists from reporting on the story or acknowledging the existence of the gagging order itself, Mr Johnson added: 'My first instinct would have been to use the D-notice process, but I don't know what the legal advice was.'
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
US threatens Mexican airline flights over cargo, competition issues
WASHINGTON, July 19 (Reuters) - The Trump administration said on Saturday it is taking a series of actions against Mexico over the Mexican government's decisions to rescind some flight slots for U.S. carriers and force U.S. cargo carriers to relocate operations in Mexico City. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement the department could disapprove flight requests from Mexico if the government fails to address U.S. concerns over decisions made in 2022 and 2023. The department is also proposing to withdraw antitrust immunity from the Delta Air Lines (DAL.N), opens new tab joint venture with Aeromexico to address competitive issues in the market. Mexico is the most popular international destination among U.S. airline travelers. Delta said if the U.S. Department of Transportation withdraws approval it "would cause significant harm to consumers traveling between the U.S. and Mexico, as well as U.S. jobs, communities, and transborder competition." The Transportation Department said Mexico has not been in compliance with a bilateral air agreement since 2022 when it abruptly rescinded slots and then forced U.S. all-cargo carriers to relocate operations in 2023. Mexico's Transport Ministry and major Mexican airlines, including Aeromexico, could not be immediately reached for comment. Duffy said Mexico was expected to complete construction to alleviate congestion at Mexico City's Benito Juarez International Airport (MEX), but that has yet to materialize three years later. "By restricting slots and mandating that all-cargo operations move out of MEX, Mexico has broken its promise, disrupted the market, and left American businesses holding the bag for millions in increased costs," the department said. The USDOT also said it could take action against European countries over limitations at airports. "We are monitoring European States to ensure that they apply the Balanced Approach process for noise abatement at their airports and do not implement unjustified operational restrictions," the department said. The Transportation Department issued a pair of orders requiring Mexican airlines to file schedules with the department for all their U.S. operations by July 29 and requiring prior U.S. approval before operating any large passenger or cargo aircraft charter flights to or from the United States. "Mexico has altered the playing field significantly for airlines in ways that reduce competition and allow predominant competitors to gain an unfair advantage in the U.S.-Mexico market," the department said. "Mexico's actions harm airlines seeking to enter the market, existing competitor airlines, consumers of air travel and products relying on time-sensitive air cargo shipments traded between the two countries, and other stakeholders in the American economy.' If the U.S. rescinds antitrust approval for Delta and Aeromexico, they would be required to discontinue cooperation on common pricing, capacity management, and revenue sharing, but Delta would also be able to retain its equity stake in Aeromexico, maintain all of its existing flying in the U.S.-Mexico market unimpeded and continue a partnership.
