[JumpCrisscross]

> the "static system" actually is the way to get the Russian military (and the Ukrainian military) to work

Well, yes. They've been unable to launch combined-arms maneouvres. They failed to establish even air supremacy against decades-old NATO air defence kit. Russia has to fight the way it does because it's unable to fight more effectively.

The author's core point stands: we didn't outlaw chemical weapons because of any moral reasons, we outlawed them because the world's leading militaries don't need them. In cases where they have tactical value, lo and behold, they get used.

[pclmulqdq]

On that point we agree, that the world's leading militaries don't need them. However, they are a tool that increases the effectiveness of other militaries.

I disagree with him that the specific combined arms shock doctrine is what make those militaries the world's leading ones. Those militaries are leading because they have the best people, weapons, and training, and a combined arms shock doctrine fits with their culture.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they are a tool that increases the effectiveness of other militaries

Sure. Which is why the world's leading militaries banned them. OP said we banned chemical weapons "to avoid escalating to more dangerous chemical agents." There is simply no evidence we were that high minded.