[hiram112]

The line coming out of the US gov't no longer even makes sense, IMO.

They've claimed, like you, that the labs were just general biolabs you'd find at any university, and anything related to WMD is just Russian "disinformation."

But they've also claimed that these labs were old Soviet-era weapons research labs the DOD was helping to close down.

So which is it?

If they're closing down old weapons labs, why'd it take 17 years? If they're not weapons labs, why are they so afraid (as Nuland from State Dep't claimed) of the Russians seizing or destroying them?

If they're just research labs for the good of humanity, the gov't needs to explain to us taxpayers why they continue building up infrastructure and subsidizing research and jobs in foreign countries with money borrowed from China and / or printed up, which is now exacerbating inflation. How many underemployed PHDs in the US could be doing some research here at home with the hundreds of millions of dollars we've just handed out to Ukraine?

[landemva]

' explain to us taxpayers why they continue building up infrastructure and subsidizing research and jobs in foreign countries with money borrowed from China and / or printed up '

This is a good example of why government spending should be constrained. Fiat currency allows crazy spending and financing endless war. In the medium and long term this harms everyone. In the short term, bio-researchers get grants and toys to play with, and war profiteers get to make more munitions.

It takes 17 years to shut down Frankenstein labs because it costs government nothing to print funds.

[Paradigma11]

"So which is it?" Most likely a complicated mix of many things.

Why would the ukrainians destroy the soviet labs just to build new ones?

It does seem prudent to destroy dangerous substances that might get involved in combat situations. There is also the possibility of false flag operations.