WORLD: A desperate situation in Moscow seems to have resulted in a desperate measure, writes Tom Clonan
Russian Special Forces troops used classic urban warfare tactics to bring the Moscow siege to a dramatic conclusion on Saturday.
The operation was initiated by Special Forces officers at the scene and involved the conventional tactic of fire and manoeuvre to storm the building.
High explosives were used to enter the building along with a number of simultaneous assaults on various entry points and doorways. Conventional weapons including assault rifles, sub-machine guns and pistols were then used by the Russians in close-quarter combat at the scene.
In many respects, the storming of the theatre on Melnikov Street was a textbook operation. It deviated from the norm, however, in one significant aspect. The use of a non-conventional weapon in the form of a chemical agent to incapacitate captors and hostages alike marks the Moscow siege apart from previous crises.
The Russians were faced with a nightmare scenario.
The Chechens had threatened that if attacked, they would immediately detonate explosive devices placed throughout the building. This desperate situation seems to have warranted a desperate measure. The pumping of a mystery gas into the theatre by the Russians would appear to have been a gamble motivated by the necessity to instantly incapacitate the Chechens and prevent the wholesale slaughter of hostages. Given the unpredictable performance of chemical agents, even in confined spaces, this was a calculated risk.
Chemical weapons consist of blood, blister, nerve and incapacitating agents. Lethal nerve agents such as sarin and tabun cause death by interfering with muscle function leading to seizures and death. Incapacitating agents are a non-lethal class of chemical weapon which targets the nervous system in order to cause dysfunction and injury. Such agents would consist of substances including propanedinitrile or tear gas and LSD.
These substances are normally dispersed in aerosol form. Substances such as LSD would act on contact with the skin. Agents such as tear gas or CS gas operate on contact with sensitive membranes such as the conjunctiva in the eye to cause burning and irritation.
There is a strong suggestion that the Russians used a form of sleeping gas or anaesthetic agent in the Moscow assault.
Such an agent would act on the nervous system to facilitate chemical changes in the brain leading to a depression of sensory transmission and unconsciousness. In a high dose, the respiratory and vasomotor centres of the brain would be affected leading to cardio-respiratory collapse and death.
The Russians were faced with the requirement to have a fast-acting weapon that would have an instant effect on the Chechens. This would have necessitated a very high concentration of chemical agent. At this point, the Russians have not identified the gas used in the attack. However, based on official statements, eyewitness accounts and anecdotal evidence, it would appear to be the case that an anaesthetic agent was used.
Photos of Chechen captors apparently shot as they slept and reports of the particular symptoms being experienced by surviving hostages would also support such a theory.
Whatever incapacitating agent chosen by the Russians, the deployment of such weapons are always problematic. Even low-impact chemical weapons such as CS gas can prove lethal. This was highlighted in a tragic way in the West Bank last September.
Exactly one month before the Moscow theatre assault, a 14- month-old Palestinian girl, Gharam Manaa, died of respiratory failure after exposure to tear gas fired by Israeli troops in a disturbance in Hebron. The use of a far more potent agent in the confines of the Moscow theatre, exposing as it did a large number of hostages to the weapon, was bound to cause serious injury and death.
This is precisely the type of dilemma posed for authorities worldwide when faced with suicidal terrorists or combatants. The requirement for maximum force is multiplied with an escalation in casualties on all sides.
In confronting the Chechens in Moscow, Vladimir Putin was faced with an unenviable task. His handling of the Kursk disaster in 2000 generated perceptions of him as an indecisive and unfeeling leader. In overseeing the swift resolution of the Moscow theatre crisis, Putin has banished any lingering suggestion of indecision.
To exorcise the accusation of a lack of concern for Russian loss of life, Putin must immediately reveal to medical personnel the exact nature of the gas used in the attack. For many of the surviving hostages and their families, such a gesture may be their only hope of effective treatment and survival.
Dr Tom Clonan is a retired Army officer with experience in the Middle East and former Yugoslavia. He is a fellow of the US-based Inter University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society. He currently lectures in the School of Media, DIT.