Yesterday’s White House press conference had a strange quality. Jen Psaki, the White House Press Secretary and friendly muppet, was asked about Jen’s tweet alleging Russia might use chemical weapons against Ukraine.
It is absurd. It’s the kind of disinformation operation we’ve seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine and in other countries, which have been debunked, and an example of the types of false pretexts we have been warning the Russians would invent.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 9, 2022
It’s Russia that has a long and well-documented track record of using chemical weapons, including in attempted assassinations and poisoning of Putin’s political enemies like Alexey Navalny.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 9, 2022
Russia also has a history of accusing Western countries of violating human rights that Russia does not commit. Russia accused the U.S. falsely of having deployed chemical weapons contractors in Ukraine, as it did back on December 11.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 9, 2022
Russia’s false claims have been supported by China. Therefore, it is important to be vigilant for Russia’s use of chemical and biological weapons in Ukraine. It’s a clear pattern.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) March 9, 2022
Personally, I don’t believe our intelligence services are bright or competent enough to predict an imminent chemical attack. It was part of a public relations campaign to make people believe that Russia was about invading Ukraine. If Russia did eventually invade, then they could say, “look, we told you it was about to happen,” and if no invasion took place, they could say, “we stopped Putin from invading by releasing his top-secret plans.” Still, it is a considerable leap from bogus predictions of an invasion to accusing a country with pretensions to civilization of planning to use a chemical weapon.
You can see the video above and answer your question.
Q Yes, ma’am. We are grateful. Thank you. I was following up on yesterday’s tweet about Russia using chemical and biological weapons against Ukraine.
What is the evidence to back that up beyond what you said in the tweet that it’s a “pattern” from Russia? Do you think there is more to it than they just sharing a similar pattern?
MS. PSAKI: Well, they have a large biological and chemical weapons program, so it’s a pattern. However, they have the capability.
While I’m not going to get into specific intelligence, we look at all of those factors. And we also know, and one of the reasons — one of the — the main issue that prompted my Twitter thread yesterday was that Russia has a history also of inventing outright lies like this, which is the suggestion that the United States has a chemical and biological weapons program, or Ukraine does, that they’re operating. Russia is the one — is the country that has a chemical and biological weapons program.
So the objective was to make clear the inaccuracy of the information, the misinformation they’re trying to put out, and make clear to the world that they not only have the capacity, they have a history of using chemical and biological weapons, and that, in this moment, we should have our eyes open for that possibility.
Q Would use of chemical or biological weapons be a red line for the President in terms of direct U.S. involvement in the war over there?
MS. PSAKI: We are directly involved. Security assistance is provided by us for a total of a billion dollars. That is why we are the biggest provider. We are providing humanita- —
Q With the military troops.
MS. PSAKI: With the U.S. military going and engaging in Ukraine and fighting a war against Russia? We don’t have any intention to do that.
Later in the briefing, another reporter “circled back,” or we could say Psircled back, to the chemical attack question. Another video was queued up to answer the question.
Q Jen, you said earlier to one of my colleagues that nothing that Russia has done so far in terms of this invasion has gone unanswered, when you were being asked about bio and chemical weapons. None of the answers we gave Russia have stopped them from increasing their invasion. Consider an alternative strategy to explain to Russia what the consequences would be if Russia were to launch a chemical or bio weapons attack inside Ukraine.
MS. PSAKI: Like what?
Q I’m asking you. In other words, why not communicate — you won’t say if it’s a “red line,” right? Because you won’t say it’s not our intention right now. Let me begin. Does Russia have a line where it is possible for the U.S. to intervene in Ukraine if necessary?
MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to get into red lines from here, Peter. What I would tell you is that when I said we have not let anything go unanswered, what I mean is that we have amped up a range of military and security assistance, a historic amount to Ukraine, including a range of defensive weapons, which we’ve expedited the delivery. Even in the last 10 days, we’ve delivered about $240 million of that.
And also, we’ve provided a range of humanitarian assistance. And we have basically crushed the Russian economy, which — where the — where the stock market is not even open. So it’s inaccurate to suggest it’s gone unanswered. The world is now stronger because we have done all the right things.
Q And I’m not saying that’s gone unanswered. You say it’s gone answered; we’ve witnessed the answer in the form of sanctions. I’m saying, given the potential that you’ve indicated that Russia could use a bio or chemical weapons strike there, why wouldn’t the U.S. communicate to them something that is not an answer, but instead preemptive, to communicate the consequence if they are to take what would be a horrific — this war to a horrific new level?
MS. PSAKI: The President’s first and most important objective is the national security and interest of the United States and being clear and direct with the American people. The President has communicated clearly and directly with American citizens. He has not stated that he will send U.S. forces to Ukraine to oppose Russia in order to launch another war. This would be an escalatory move; it would not be in our national security interest and not the interests NATO.
What we have conveyed is Russia’s capabilities, their capacities, and their pattern of using chemical and biological weapons.
Q And so, what does he say then — that’s the message to the American people: his responsibility to them, of course, is before any other. What is he going to say about Vladimir Putin? What do you tell Vladimir Putin and the Russian leaders if they are contemplating that?
MS. PSAKI: We have been very clear, and our actions have been the evidence of this, that there will be significant consequences for every escalatory step that is taken by President Putin and the Russian government.
I find this a bizarre sequence of events. The White House Press Secretary should never accuse any country of plotting a chemical attack, unless there is solid evidence. This is especially true if the country being accused is in the middle an unprovoked attack where the United States supplies arms to one or more belligerents. If the White House is preparing for an attack and has made the announcement public, it means that appropriate warnings were sent by diplomatic channels. The purpose of the press secretary’s statement should be to prepare Americans for what comes next.
Psaki’s refusal to firmly state that any consequences would be forthcoming should Russia use chemical weapons in Ukraine leads to one of two conclusions.
First, and most likely, is that Psaki was engaged in Twitter-trolling when she made the allegation to attempt to divert attention from Russia’s claims about biological warfare labs in Ukraine funded by the United States. Second, the Biden White House continues to sh** itself at the thought of offending Putin because the White House relied upon Putin to mediate our discussions with Iran. The White House knows that a chemical attack could be possible, and it hopes this issue will go away. Psaki’s tweet, in this theory, was an attempt to warn off Russia. This is the worst Twitter trolling we’ve ever seen, and Russia may have just been given permission to use chemical weaponry.
It is alarming because it is impossible to believe that Russia won’t use chemical weapons against Ukraine in the event of a prolonged war. Putin clearly has his line of sight. He demanded the demobilization of the Ukrainian Army, removal of Zelensky’s government, official recognition by Ukraine of Russia’s theft of Crimea, as well as recognition by the Ukrainian government of Donetsk/Luhansk independence.
President #PutinThese are the points. @OlafScholz #Russia’s conditions for dialogue: neutral & non-nuclear #Ukraine, its demilitarisation & denazification, recognition of sovereignty of #DPR & #LPR within administrative borders of Donetsk & Lugansk regions, and 🇷🇺sovereignty over #Crimea. pic.twitter.com/hDOpkKuGih
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 5, 2022
Any less is a victory for Zelensky’s political campaign and a defeat for Putin. Putin will need to employ all means to win if his military operation does not progress. If that entails using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons, I don’t see any reason to assume he won’t use them.
About Post Author
