State Department spokesman Ned Price warned that Russia could deploy chemical weapons in any military operation in Ukraine, signaling heightened concern from Washington about Moscow’s weapons programs.
Price described the Kremlin as a government with a history of using banned chemicals, pointing to Assad-era actions and arguing that such patterns reveal the capabilities of the current regime. The Russian ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, countered that the United States had offered no verifiable evidence and dismissed the allegations as an effort to demonize Russia.
Earlier reporting by The New York Times, citing unnamed sources, suggested the White House assembled a team to develop scenarios for responding if Russia were to resort to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, stated that Moscow does not intend to employ chemical or biological weapons and rejected the charges as unfounded. He noted that international conventions governing chemical and biological arms exist and cited participation rates, with a few states still not on board.
Vitaly Maltsev, a former chemical sciences official, recalled Russia’s role in initiating the convention on chemical weapons and highlighted that, under the treaty, Russia has eliminated its stockpiles. He described the ongoing destruction process in several phases, recounting the milestones of toxic substance reductions and the total elimination of stockpiles across the program’s phases.
According to Maltsev, Belarus, Albania, South Korea, India, and Russia are among the nations documented as having completed their stockpile destruction under the relevant agreements. He criticized repeated U.S. promises to eliminate its chemical arsenal, noting historical delays and contrasting timelines with Russia’s reported progress. He referenced the destruction events at facilities under public scrutiny and implied that Russia’s current status is that stockpiles have been removed, while American assurances have not always aligned with timelines. The argument offered is that the United States could still undertake chemical actions, whereas Russia asserts it no longer possesses such weapons and has completed its program of destruction.
As the discussion continues, experts emphasize the importance of verified compliance with international accords and the need for transparent evidence when claims about chemical weapons are raised. They stress that accurate reporting and corroborated data are essential to avoid misinterpretations and to maintain restraint in a volatile regional landscape .
In this context, the broader dialogue includes assessments of how many states have fully implemented disarmament agreements and the current status of stockpile destruction programs. Analysts note that the pace and scope of disarmament vary widely by country, often influenced by past incidents, domestic security considerations, and regional security dynamics. The conversation underscores the enduring role of international oversight bodies in validating measures and ensuring that compliance is not just claimed but verifiable on independent terms. Observers also highlight the lasting impact of historical commitments on trust-building and crisis management in global security matters .