Use of chemical weapons by Putin in Ukraine could cross Nato red line, minister suggests

NATO could confront Russia if President Putin crosses a red line on chemical weapons, a minister has suggested.

James Heappey, the Armed Forces minister, implied that Nato may consider changing its approach if the Russian president were to deploy such armoury in his war on Ukraine.

“I don’t think it’s helpful to get into any firm commitment right now about where that red line sits,” Mr Heappey told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“But I think President Putin needs to be very clear [that] when other countries have used chemical weapons, it has caused an international response. I think he should reflect very urgently on what has happened to other countries where they have used this.”

However, Downing Street was swift to emphasise that Boris Johnson sees Nato as a “defensive alliance”.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said: “It’s obviously the case that we and our allies will continue to monitor the situation closely, considering the history of Russia and its proxies using chemical weapons and the false allegations the Russian government has been making about others developing them.”

It came as Britain and the US warned that Russia may use chemical or biological weapons as part of a “false flag” attack on Ukraine.

State-controlled media in Russia have been publishing unsubstantiated claims that Ukraine is developing biological or chemical weapons that Western intelligence agencies believe indicates that Moscow is laying the groundwork for plausible deniability in the event that it uses banned weapons to bolster its invasion.

Though it signed a treaty banning chemical weapons, the Soviet Union has amassed the largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world, including poison gases, paralytic nerve agents such as sarin, and biological agents such as anthrax bacteria.

Since its intervention in Syria in 2015, Russia has provided cover and military support for its government, which has carried chemical attacks on its civilians.

In August 2012, Barack Obama – then the US president – warned that their use by Bashar Al-assad’s government would be a “red line” for intervention by the US. However, America did not intervene and a year later Assad’s forces subjected the Damascus suburb of Ghouta to a sarin gas attack that killed at least 1,400 people, including women and children.

Ed Arnold, research fellow for European security at the Royal United Services Institute, said that the inability of the US to enforce their “red line” in Syria over chemical weapon use would “absolutely be in Putin’s mind”.

He said that British MPS were partly to blame for America’s failure to intervene in 2013, saying: “If the UK had backed the use of military intervention, if the Labour party had not blocked it and the Government had supported the US position, it would have been highly likely that Obama would have enforced his own red lines.” Several MPS who either abstained or voted against military intervention in Syria in 2013 told The Daily Telegraph that they now regret their decision with one saying “there are plenty of us who have blood on our hands as a result of that vote”.

Tom Harris, who was a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet at the time, said that voting against military action was his biggest regret in his 14 years in parliament.

He said: “Putin will have been repeatedly reminded of the West’s weakness when it came to standing up for Assad’s victims nearly a decade ago.”

However, Steve Baker, a Tory MP, said he remained proud that he had voted against military action in Syria, adding: “Chemical weapons are outrageous weapons of mass destruction.

“Anyone seeking to minimise culpability with reference to a House of Commons vote is making a grave mistake.”