On Sunday, Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) announced a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). If passed, the AUMF will allow President Joe Biden to deploy American troops to defend Ukraine if Russia uses chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
The Congressman issued a press release saying the legislation would establish important red lines and echoed Biden’s plea that “Putin must be stopped.”
“I’m introducing this AUMF as a clear redline so the Administration can take appropriate action should Russia use chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons. We must stand up for humanity and we must stand with our allies,” Kinzinger announced.
“As the President of the United States has said, Putin must be stopped. Accordingly, the Commander in Chief to the world’s greatest military should have the authority and means to take the necessary actions to do so.”
The bill titled “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces to defend the territorial integrity of United States allies,” allows the President to determine if Russia has used WMDs. The AUMF terminates once the “President certifies to Congress that the territorial integrity of Ukraine has been restored.”
Similar to the 2002 AUMF, the legislation gives the President nearly a blank check to wage war. The bill does not include oversight on the determination of WMD use or sunset date (expiration).
Lots of discussion lately about what action by Putin, if any, would trigger a U.S. troop response in Ukraine.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) says that should happen if Putin deploys chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons — and he’s releasing an AUMF this morning modeled on that. pic.twitter.com/IBLKel8UJi
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) May 1, 2022
Kinzinger announced the bill on Meet the Press, telling host Margret Brennan, “I don’t think we need to be using force in Ukraine right now. I just introduced an AUMF giving the president basically congressional leverage for permission to use it if WMDs, nuclear, biological or chemical are used in Ukraine.”
In a speech just days before voting for the 2002 AUMF, then-Senator Joe Biden likewise downplayed the risk President George W. Bush would use the authority to go to war in Iraq. “I will vote for this because we should be compelling Iraq to make good on its obligations to the United Nations…Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.”
READ MORE: Neo-Nazi Battalion Just Claimed Russia Used Chemical Weapons in Ukraine, Potentially Dragging US into War
For the last several weeks, the White House, Joe Biden and others have been talking about the ostensible threat of Russian chemical weapons deployment in Ukraine. Like so many of the previous predictions, the threat of chemical weapons use came in the form of vague mentions of “intelligence,” sources.
“I’m not going to speak about the intelligence,” Biden said last month during a press conference, adding “But Russia would pay a severe price if they use chemical weapons.”
A week later, Biden once again made the claim that Russia was going to wage a chemical attack and if and when that happened, the US and NATO would respond “in kind.”
“We will respond if he uses it,” Biden said, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “The nature of the response depends on the nature of the use.”
The claims of Putin deploying chemical weapons come on the heels of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s claim that the U.S. was working with Ukraine to develop chemical and biological weapons.
These claims are unconfirmed. However, as we reported, it has been confirmed that the US is providing large sums of money for the Ukraine to “study” extremely dangerous pathogens.
On the United States’ US Embassy website for Ukraine, the Department of Defense states clearly that it collaborates with partner countries, including Ukraine “to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases.”
Moreover, according a Fact Sheet from the DOD’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program – Biological Threat Reduction Program Activities in Ukraine, the US provides millions in funding to these facilities.
The United States, through BTRP, has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites. BTRP has improved Ukraine’s biological safety, security and surveillance for both human and animal health.
Despite the fact that the Ukrainian and U.S. governments partnered in August 2005 to “prevent the proliferation of dangerous pathogens and related expertise and to minimize potential biological threats,” according to the treaty, “fact checkers” are attacking anyone who asks questions as “conspiracy theorists.”
The prediction of a chemical weapons attack by Russia, along with the promised “severe” response by US and NATO is an extremely dangerous move by the Biden administration.
Putin has zero incentive to use chemical weapons on civilians in Ukraine. Not only would his own people very likely turn against him for such a move, he and his advisors know that anything close to a chemical weapons attack would provoke a response from the US and NATO — potentially sparking a war inside Russia and catastrophic nuclear war globally.
While Russia lacks the incentive to wages such an attack, the White House’s promise of a “severe response” to an attack does, however, provide an incentive for insidious forces inside Ukraine to stage a fake chemical attack. If unethical forces inside Ukraine could stage an attack and convince the world it was Putin who carried it out, they would immediately receive the backing of NATO and US.
Fast forward to this week, and on Monday, the Azov Battalion — whose credibility is derived from years of neo-Nazi activities with a month of praise and whitewashing in the Western media — has made the claim which could drag NATO into the war.
Reports that Russian forces may have used chemical agents in an attack on the people of Mariupol. We are working urgently with partners to verify details.
Any use of such weapons would be a callous escalation in this conflict and we will hold Putin and his regime to account.
— Liz Truss (@trussliz) April 11, 2022
The Express in the UK — without any confirmation — ran the headline, ‘Chemical weapon’ horror as Putin drops ‘poisonous substance’ on city – ‘People suffering’. When we read the article, we find that the claim was made by the infamous Azov Battalion.
Russian forces have dropped a “poisonous substance of unknown origin” from a drone on military and civilian targets in the besieged port city, Mariupol, according to the city’s Azov Battalion. People are reportedly suffering respiratory failure and neurological problems as a result. The Regiment’s report states: “The victims have respiratory failure, vestibulo-atactic syndrome. The consequences of using an unknown substance are being clarified.”
As this outlet has reported for the last six weeks, Vladimir Putin is a war criminal whose actions have taken the lives of thousands of civilians in Ukraine, including many women and children. There is no shortage of evidence of these crimes which makes one wonder, why fake stories continue to emerge.
Even Mariupol’s city council negated the above statement by the Azov Battalion, stating on Telegram that it was not even possible to examine the area where the alleged chemical attack took place. They added “that the city’s civilian population had minimal contact with the unspecified poison but that Ukrainian soldiers had come into closer contact with it and were now being observed for possible symptoms” — not “respiratory failure and neurological problems.”
If chemical weapons were indeed used, it was likely “phosphorous” munitions. And, if Russia did indeed use white phosphorous, this is unacceptable.
The chemical was banned internationally after the 1980 Protocol on Incendiary Weapons restricted the “use of incendiary weapons as a means or method of warfare during armed conflict.”
The US is extremely familiar with the substance as they have a history of using it against civilians in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria. However, when the US-led forces used these substances, there was no outrage in the media and instead, a pulpit was given to the military to explain why they needed to use it.