Question of the day: is it true that the United States has delivered chemical weapons to Ukraine?

An interesting discussion about the statement of the Russian Defense Minister that the United States allegedly supplied chemical weapons to Ukraine unfolded on social networks. This purely propaganda move by the Russian authorities was commented on by political scientist Alexander Baunov:

“People heard Shoigu about the chemical weapons that the Americans brought to the Ukrainians in Avdiivka, and they asked in amazement if he had gone mad.

As if they forgot that one of the main instruments of Russian foreign policy and political rhetoric is trolling, built on the principle "Russia can afford everything that America allows itself".

One of the most memorable episodes in America's recent military-political history is when Secretary of State Colin Powell publicly, from the UN rostrum, accused Iraq of manufacturing and deploying chemical weapons. This was followed by an invasion.

This episode has remained in Russian memory as an example of the special cynicism of the Americans, to which it has long been drawn to respond in kind.

Consciously or unconsciously, Shoigu responded.

Whether or not the consequences are the same, we do not yet know. By the way, the consequences were not very good not only for Iraq, but also, more long-term, for America..."

Developing the topic, renowned political PR expert Andrey Sharomov recalled how Colin Powell also showed a test tube with an alleged chemical substance from the UN rostrum:

“Because the average person believes only vidos and memes. Video sequence and video content - decides. I have always Mr. Powell and his speech tingle the young generation of PR people and marketers so that we understand: economic (and political) marketing today lives on in short videos. There is a vidos - both meanings and values of a product / service / policy are sold.

(…) A mechanism for the formation of an image and mythological thinking, which is difficult to analyze, but easy to work with. No transcript affects the mythological layer of consciousness, even the sounding speech of the speaker does not form a proportional meaning in the consciousness of the audience - it remains in the memory fragmentarily and in the form of interpretation. But visual constructions work very simply and effectively, of course, audiovisual: Iraq has chemical weapons, here is a test tube (you don't even need to attribute it to Iraq - the brain itself inevitably forms such a bundle), it is necessary to save civilians of a peaceful civilization from horrific death in agony from chemical poisoning ... This is marketing, manipulation if you like. In my opinion, it is precisely that deliberate marketing: Powell's speeches and the actions of the Americans had the goal of collecting at least some kind of moral support from the world community. And therefore they “sold”, “marketed” the image of danger..."

Most surprising, however, is that in June 2004, Putin actually backed America’s position on Iraq, stating that Saddam Hussein’s regime was preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and the world. Here is what the RBC edition wrote then:

“The regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was preparing terrorist acts in the United States and beyond,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Astana today.

According to him, after the events of September 11, 2001. and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services had repeatedly received information that "the official bodies of the Saddam regime are preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and abroad".

Vladimir Putin noted that all the information received by the Russian special services was passed on to their American colleagues, and US President George W. Bush personally thanked the head of one of the Russian special services for the information provided, which he considered very important..."

So Shoigu's statement can be viewed in two ways: both as a purely propaganda move that has nothing to do with reality, and as a real fact. However, in the latter case, it remains unclear why the United States and Ukraine need this?