Russian troops have been besieging Mariupol, a city only slightly smaller than Helsinki, for almost a month and a half.
Most of the inhabitants of the town on the shores of the Sea of Azov have been able to flee, but tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of civilians may still be trapped there.
Their conditions are appalling, as the city of nearly half a million people has virtually been destroyed to the ground.
– The situation in Mariupol remains serious, sums up a military professor, lieutenant colonel Janne Mäkitalo About the National Defense College.
The assessment of the situation is complicated by the fact that the confirmed information about the city is scarce and also partly contradictory.
– In the past, the Russians have said that they have cut off the city of Mariupol and thus been able to weaken the resistance. However, the Ukrainian government has denied that this has happened, says Mäkitalo.
According to Lieutenant Colonel Mäkitalo, Mariupol has been able to fight against Russian troops for a surprisingly long time. The situation was helped by the fact that the city was able to equip Russia for an attack for several months.
– Although Russia has used the weapons influence in the Mariupol region very heavily, it is always possible that munitions material has been preserved in the underground facilities, says Mäkitalo.
There may also be surviving civilians in the same premises, although Mäkitalo thinks that Mariupol looks like a “landscape of the moon”.
The preservation of Mariupol is significant for Ukraine, both militarily and mentally.
– If Mariupol is lost, it means the loss of Ukraine’s foothold in this region, says Mäkitalo, a professor of war.
– In Mariupol, with their heroic struggle, the Ukrainian forces have supported our awareness and our idea of the unity of the Ukrainian people and the performance of the armed forces, which has risen to almost mythical proportions, he continues.
If Russia were to take over Mariupol, it would gain land access to Crimea and it would also be easier to carry out the predicted new major attack on the eastern part of Ukraine in the Donbas region, Mäkitalo estimates.
Did Russia use chemical weapons?
Yesterday, Monday revealed information that Russia had used chemical weapons in Mariupol. The data are unconfirmed, but people in Mariupol are said to have had difficulty breathing and neurological symptoms.
Chemical weapons have been banned by an international agreement since 1997, and Russia has also signed the agreement. The countries involved are also committed to destroying their chemical weapons factories and stockpiles.
Russia has also stated that it has done so.
“But it’s based on their own statement,” says Verifin, director of the Helsinki Institute for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Paula Vanninen.
Chemical weapons are prohibited because they usually cause exceptionally painful death or illness. Civilians in particular are in no way able to defend themselves against them. The destruction is usually extensive.
Military professor, Lieutenant Colonel Janne Mäkitalo from the National Defense College needs convincing evidence before leaving anyone to use chemical weapons to convict.
– If Russia used chemical weapons, it would cross a moral line that it has not done before in this or other wars.
Janne Mäkitalo also sees no reason why Russia would use chemical weapons.
– Russia is not in a cornered position. Its national existence has not been jeopardized in any way.
Mäkitalo reminds that there may be both Russian soldiers and civilians in the territory of Ukraine. A chemical weapon is a silent, fast, and blind killer that does not discriminate in any way against its victims.
– The use of chemical weapons would also endanger our own citizens. Many have already forgotten that at the beginning of 2010, 17 percent of Ukraine’s 40 million people were Russian or had a Russian background, says Mäkitalo.
Samples reveal
It is possible to trace the use of chemical weapons, but not very quickly, says Paula Vanninen, director of the Verifin Institute for the Chemical Weapons Convention.
According to Vanninen, researchers from the OPCW should first go to Mariupol to take samples. At the moment, however, access is impossible.
– It would require a ceasefire, says Vanninen.
Vanninen says that if researchers get to Mariupol, they would start gathering evidence of the possible use of chemical weapons. Samples would be collected for analysis, which could be, for example, land, water, human clothing.
– Samples can also be taken from victims, such as a blood or urine sample or hair.
The required sample can also be obtained from the surface of the projectile or parts thereof.
The samples will be transported to The Hague, the Netherlands, where the OPCW is headquartered. The samples are then tested in at least two different laboratories. The answers from them will come in about two weeks.
The use of chemical weapons can also be inferred from human symptoms. At that time, doctors have to verify the matter, for example by interviewing victims or eyewitnesses.
– They are exactly the same evidence as the samples obtained on the spot, says Vanninen.
Paula Vanninen, director of the Verifin Institute for the Chemical Weapons Convention, believes that OPCW researchers will soon be ready to leave for Mariupol if a ceasefire is reached.
He does not anticipate the results.
– I can’t comment on that. It’s awful if it’s used, says Paula Vanninen, Verifin’s director.
Read more:
The latest information on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Read more here about why chemical weapons are banned and what they cause