[ctrlp]

I have only bought into my readings in history. The events I credit are:

- The 1970s opening of China by Nixon and the documented policy goals contra the USSR.

- The waning years of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was weakened and falling apart leading to 1989 and the aftermath in Eastern Europe and Russia.

- The documented US policy of economic warfare against the remnant of the Soviet Union as written about by George Kennan and others that destroyed the Russian economy and handed key industries individual gangsters (the "oligarchs").

- The documented US policy of color revolutions in Ukraine to undermine democratically elected but "pro-Russian" leadership.

- The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.

- Using Ukraine as a poison pawn in a documented policy to provoke Russia into an "unwinnable" war intended to bankrupt the country, isolate it via sanctions, deplete Russia's military, and ultimately, depose achieve regime change to a more pliable Western allied Russian leadership (essentially to do to Russia what was done in Ukraine). The ultimate policy goal being to "balkanize" (weaken) the Russian Federation to achieve Western dominance over Russian policy and resources.

I'm not terribly concerned with whether this was sound policy or not. Or what corrupt "elites" do with their ill-gotten gains. I'm just interested in the facts of history. This doesn't say that Putin is blameless or even a "good leader". Takes that say something is 100% clearly one side's fault are just stupid. Germans may be the biggest dupes of all in this whole mess. I get that Russia has traditional regional enemies who want Europe and the US to make this about good vs evil, and Russia being a local thug antagonizing smaller countries "for no reasons whatsoever", but that's a story for children.

[watwut]

Duuuude, Ukraine does not need to be someones pawn to not want rule of a country like Russia. And Ukraine protests were all Ukrainians - because large mass of citizens wanted to be in a democratic pro European country.

NATO was enlarging, because countries begged to be members of a nato.

Russian citizens are super poor, living in a country with little to offer. Not wanting to be part of that is only natural, especially when you look like Europeans live.

[mopsi]

  - The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.

This is literally garbage-tier Russian propaganda that has no connection to reality. We can easily test it: name one foreign military installation in Ukraine. Just one.

You won't find any, because it's just not true. These claims circulate mainly on the social media, alongside conspiracy theories about the Earth being flat and vaccines causing autism. High-quality sources offer a completely different picture than the one you've gathered from low-quality sources.

[ctrlp]

Why were prominent US policy folks so concerned about the Ukraine biolabs? Why did the US invest hundreds of millions to build dozens of labs in Ukraine?

I'll tell you what I think.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US saw newly unemployed Soviet bioscientists as geopolitical risks under the assumption that they were actively engaged in bioweapons development under the Soviet Union and were now vulnerable to being picked up by new patrons hostile to US interests. Rather than allowing a bunch of bioweapons experts to become free agents, we built them a bunch of labs to keep them out of the hands of our enemies. What would they work on? Well, developing bioweapons is illegal, didn't you know? And the US observes all international law, didn't you know? So, instead of developing bioweapons, we'll have them develop biosafety! See how that works? But to develop biosafety we'll also need to build the unsafe things so we can build the vaccines and antidotes to the bad things. We'll never ever use those bad things, or God forbid, have bad opsec and allow them to escape one of these completely independent and in no way associated with military research labs. Never. Never. Never. That sounds like conspiracy theories. What made you even think that?

[mopsi]

You've fallen one of the dumbest conspiracy theories. There are no facts whatsoever to support it. Russia tried to label regular scientific research as "secret bioweapon labs" and even scientists from Russia published an open letter calling these claims outright lies. If by "prominent US policy folks" you mean Tulsi Gabbard, then yes, she too fell for it and was widely criticised for lacking basic critical thinking skills. Many right-wing social media channels repeat Russian propaganda word-for-word, so people following them may not even realize where all that actually originates from.

Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this:

  In March 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials falsely claimed that public health facilities in Ukraine were "secret U.S.-funded biolabs" purportedly developing biological weapons, which was debunked as disinformation by multiple media outlets, scientific groups, and international bodies.[5] The claim was amplified by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Chinese state media,[10] and was also promoted by followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory and subsequently supported by other far-right groups in the United States.[17] 

  Russian scientists, inside and outside Russia, have publicly accused the Russian government of lying about evidence for covert "bioweapons labs" in Ukraine, saying that documents presented by Russia's Defense Ministry describe pathogens collected for public health research.[18] The "bioweapons labs" claim has also been denied by the US, Ukraine, the United Nations,[12][19][4] and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.[3] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_bioweapons_conspiracy_...

[ctrlp]

Here is noted neocon and Ukraine hawk Victoria Nuland's testimony confirming the existence biolabs in Ukraine and expressing concern for their integrity:

"I only have a minute left. Let me ask you, does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons? Ms. NULAND. Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of. We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Rus- sian forces should they approach. Senator RUBIO. I am sure you are aware that the Russian propa- ganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they have uncovered a plot by the Ukrainians to release biological weapons in the country and with NATO’s coordination. If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack in- side of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100 percent it would be the Russians that would be behind it? Ms. NULAND. There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they are planning to do themselves."

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/03%2008%2022%20...

You are simply arguing my point but seemingly unable to understand it. The point is that "biolabs" in Ukraine are inevitably conducting bioweapons research by any other name. Surely you would by now acknowledge that the Wuhan biolab was also conducting research of this kind and has been revealed to be funded by USAID via EcoHealth Alliance. This was obvious back in 2020 if you already understood how these investments work. You're 100% wrong to say no facts support it, but leaving that aside, there are standards of evidence that may not amount to the "smoking gun" proof you seem to be calling for. I don't know why such a thing is so inconceivable to some people. History is replete with examples of states doing such things under the radar. In this case, there is "a preponderance of evidence" (yes, some of it "circumstantial evidence") that Wuhan Lab was conducting what used to be called "gain of function" research. (Go ahead and quibble over meaningless distinctions, I'll wait.) The stated goal is to develop vaccines for possible zoonotic diseases. But in fact what happens is that zoonotic diseases are postulated theoretically and developed in anticipation of their appearance in the wild. In fact, these Dr. Moreaus go beyond the physically likely and create all kinds of freaks and chimeras in the lab that are, surprisingly, tailor-made to harm humans. But of course, it's all for vaccine development and biosafety. Only an idiot would accept that explanation after reviewing the network of funding and secrecy surrounding these labs. "Russian scientists...have accused..." as if I can't find you American scientists at the highest level of government who have accused such trivial plausible or even likely explanations as conspiracy theory. Turns out some of those scientists were involved in cover-ups and personal financial gains off the research. You seem very ready to condemn Russian propaganda but equally eager to accept Western propaganda. Why not maintain an equal healthy skepticism of both?

[mopsi]

  The point is that "biolabs" in Ukraine are inevitably conducting bioweapons research by any other name.

Biological research != bioweapons.

At the very least, every country that grows food has biological laboratories to monitor the health of livestock and detect outbreaks of diseases like African swine fever. I don't see how this "inevitably" means they are conducting bioweapons research. It's like accusing every car repair workshop of secretly building tanks for the international black market of weapons. You need to provide something more substantial than mere conjecture before jumping to that conclusion.

The quoted testimony doesn't support your argument either: as the snippet points out, people were concerned that Russia could release existing dangerous samples or plant something to justify their propaganda, cause an outbreak of some horrible disease, and blame Ukrainians for it. "A classic Russian technique," as Nuland called it.

And before you jump from "dangerous samples" to "a-ha! bioweapons!", let me remind you that even something as mundane as the carcass of a sick pig can be dangerous. Careless truckers caused a massive swine fever outbreak near me when they didn't insulate the trucks well enough to prevent bodily fluids from dead pigs from dripping out onto rural roads that passed farms. Any lab worth its name must have plenty of things nobody would want to see meet the kind of dumbass Russian soldiers who ransacked Chernobyl's hazardous material warehouses for anything that appeared valuable.

[ctrlp]

My arguments are made in the context of the post cold war breakup of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. The Soviets had a program of bioweapons research. The same concerns about nuclear arms containment after 1989 applied to this program, including securing the scientists involved.

Why would the US invest $200M to build these labs in Ukraine of all places. The country is poor, corrupt, and unstable. Does that sound like the udeal place for a pathogen research lab? More like the circumstances surrounding Ukraine after the fall of the USSR chose Ukraine as the least bad option for containment and control over these programs.

My point is that defensive bioresearch is one side of a bioweapons program. You perhaps lack the scale and deployment capabilities but not the expertise with production and handling. More importantly, the specific strains of contagions the Soviets were developing before the fall are still in those labs. Presumably they would be backbones of ongoing research in Russia today. It is a vital US interest to study these pathogens. Losing access to the could be what Nuland was referring to.

[beveldropshadow]

Color revolution theory is Putin's paranoid delusion. The US frequently backfired tremendously in such endeavours, and that was when actively arming coups, not something as complicated and subtle as brainwashing a population towards revolution.

For anyone interested in understanding Putin's obsession with ghosts of color, see this excellent video essay: https://youtu.be/7OFyn_KSy80

[panick21_]

> - The documented US policy of economic warfare against the remnant of the Soviet Union as written about by George Kennan and others that destroyed the Russian economy and handed key industries individual gangsters (the "oligarchs").

They had the same policies in Russia as in other parts of the former Soviet Union. And in many places the much attacked 'Schock Thearapy' actually worked, see the Baltics, Poland and so on.

The simple fact is, the oligarchs were strong in Russia. They barley had any legal system, they had 10x more former KGB members then judges. To blame the US for Oligarchs is utterly ridiculous.

Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union was not conquered Germany or Japan. And the actual influence of the US was far more limited then some people (including Russian) claim.

And the whole reason, the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place, was because the oligarchs didn't want to defend it and were happy to get rid of it because then they could buy German cars and French wine easier.

> - The documented US policy of color revolutions in Ukraine to undermine democratically elected but "pro-Russian" leadership.

You seem to be one of those that only looks as states as acting. This is simply not the case. People act. Just because a leader is democratically elected, doesn't mean people can't go to the streets and demand they leave. And that includes people who initially voted for them. You are just repeating absurd Russian propaganda that all anti-Russian protest and organization are a CIA plot.

The idea that the CIA has these magical powers where the can just create popular revolution out of nowhere is nonsense, its only believed by dictators and maybe the CIA itself.

The reason for the colored revolutions are quite simply that Russian gansters/oligarchs try to control and dominate those states and victimize its population, against the democratic will of the people. See this in action right now in Georgia.

This isn't history, you are just repeating Russian propaganda talking points. Because I mean for sure, the only reason somebody could be against 'GREAT RUSSIA' is that they are a paid spy. Do you also believe this was the reasons for the popular revolutions against the Soviet Union?

> - The placing of bioweapons labs and other military installations in Ukraine, intentionally provoking Putin and creating internal pressure on Putin vis a vis Russia's own military hawks.

Oh so now Putin is the poor victim of internal pressure? You got to be kidding me. Putin invaded Ukraine because he wanted to. Recreating the Russian empire was Putins goal from the beginning. The only difference was that early on he hoped to do it with Western buy in and that they would care that Russia builds a 'Sphere of Incidence'.

And if the US and others were as strategic about trying to create a war, why was the response to Crimea in 2014 so limited?

This position again, just pure Russian and Putin propaganda with no basis in reality. Bioweapons, you got to be brain-dead to believe that. You are deep-deep down the Russian conspiracy rabbit-hole.

> - Using Ukraine as a poison pawn in a documented policy to provoke Russia into an "unwinnable" war

And yet most in the US government thought that Russia would win quickly and lost cause was put forward as an argument why giving them weapons is pointless.

And please, show me these official documents that claim this.

> isolate it via sanctions

Why then were they so hesitant to sanction Russia over Crimea and Syria? If this was US strategy, they could have done far more far earlier.

The claim that there was this grand strategy by US to destroy Russia is nonsense, its simply not factual. Maybe some element and people in the US thought so. But there is and was an even larger trend that hoped to eventually align Russia with Europe against China in the future. You are basically cherry picking every possible thing on one side of the argument, while ignoring all the others. US policy has been far from consistent on this and they never had an explicit policy of trying to balkanize Russia. Please show me primary first hand evidence that this was policy at any point.

Your story is what happening in the head of Russian conspiracy theorists, but it has no bases in actual history.

This is basically the whole Rome only thought defensive wars and conquered most of the known world. Always be the play the victim even if you are clearly the perpetrator. Some people might buy it.

> I'm just interested in the facts of history.

The 'facts' brought to you by the Russian propaganda machine maybe and while ignoring many other facts at. the same time.

> I get that Russia has traditional regional enemies who want Europe and the US to make this about good vs evil, and Russia being a local thug antagonizing smaller countries "for no reasons whatsoever", but that's a story for children.

No its actual called simply real politics and its not a children story. Sometimes leadership of countries are simply not nice, they are self interested and they don't give a shit about the people who will be harmed by what they are doing.

Russia is 'strong' and threw its history it beat up on its weaker Neighbors, why the fuck do you think Russia is so big?

What is a story for children is your story, one where these weak neighbors anytime they disagree with Russia are instantly called puppets of the Ottoman, the British, the Germans or the US. As Russia has done for all of its history. Stalin famous position was that small states don't exist, they are either Soviet puppets or British puppets. And Putin is using this exact same logic. And you seem to do so too.

Generally a pretty good checkup on who is 'good' and who is 'bad', I suggest you look at who sent an army over border and started instantly victimizing the population. But you are above such simple moral judgment. You understand that the US was sponsoring a "Transgender Theater" in Kharkiv or whatever and that of course was all part of the CIA pyops against Russia, so they had to go in and slaughter 100000s of people.

Congratulation you rationalized yourself into supporting the largest offensive war in European history since WW2 and you claim the clear and obvious aggressor isn't actually bad.

> "for no reasons whatsoever"

Yeah this is like if I say to you 'your dumb' and then you pull out a gun shoot me in the head, and before court you say 'I had good reason to shoot'.

> Takes that say something is 100% clearly one side's fault are just stupid.

Again whenever people say '100%' of course its never true. But your line of argument is not about if its 90% or 95%. The arguments you are putting forward are exactly the arguments that people use that want to justify Russia and sometimes even claim Ukraine was to blame outright.

[ctrlp]

You seem quite animated and zealous about the topic and I certainly don't want to antagonize you. I don't recognize my own positions in your portrait. You seem very passionate about it and I suppose you have particular interests in the region. Very well, but I don't and can look at the situation from afar and it just looks like typical great power politics. Every great power employs propaganda, not just Russia. And every state is subject to foreign influence. Every leader is subject to internal pressures. You seem to subscribe to a position that Putin is some kind of Stalin with absolute power. I don't see that. In fact, even Stalin wasn't Stalin. It's a fantasy to think one person can operate as leader of any great power with impunity.

I don't claim that all Western foreign policy is unified. There are ascendant factions at different moments. For the moment the China hawks are back in the driver's seat of US foreign policy and the Atlanticists are out of power for now. But Ukraine policy has been driven (very effectively) by that faction of neoconservatives for over a decade. Get a subscription to Foreign Affairs if you want the consensus opinion of State, DoD, CIA. It matters little that there are diverse opinions, only which opinions drive policy.

I don't think "only states act". Rather, the populace is a player that can be leveraged by those controlling state power. Much of the recent foreign aid debacle is about shedding some light on how these slush funds operate to both launder bribes and to fund foreign influence operations. I don't think Russia is the only power that tries to project influence abroad. Every state tries to do so for its own interests.

That said, there is rarely unity in the population. The US had a recent "people in the streets" moment and two things are both true about that. First, many, many people (perhaps a majority) did not agree with "popular opinion" so called. Not just with the more radical expressions of it but the overall framework. Second, much of the "organic" appearance of those protests were in fact astroturfed. I know several "community organizers" who were active in "getting people out in the streets" and they are currently lamenting their dried up funding. It's mostly fake. The masses will not spontaneously gather for more than a moment without organized activism keeping them on message. So, please. It is a fantasy.

It's also a fantasy that leadership is ever nice. Sovereign politics are in a state of nature. That is, a war of all against all. If some have elected to cooperate, it is because it is in their interest to do so, not because their leadership is "nice". Those are bedtime stories.

Your "primary first hand evidence" demand is a bit lazy but you can find general neoconservative policy (btw all consensus US foreign policy is neoconservative) explained in the Project for a New American Century or by carefully reading policy papers published by RAND on the topic. Or as mentioned Foreign Affairs magazine as a popularizer and influence on public opinion.

I doubt you'll take the time to upgrade your mental software but for any other readers, here are some sources that specifically deal with US post cold war policy in eastern Europe, including Ukraine and Russia.

1992 Defense Planning Guide (the Wolfowitz Papers) or read about it on Wikipedia for some choice quotes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

1994 speech by Bill Clinton "A whole Europe and Free" outlines plans for NATO expansion.

1995 State Department report on NATO Enlargement.

1995 National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement

2002 National Security Strategy document by Condoleeza Rice and Wolfowitz.

Orchestrated color revolutions as a tactic of regime change are implied as tools of democracy by influential neocon Natan Sharansky in his book The Case for Democracy from 2004. NED and USAID we're created to as cold war influence weapons abroad. The OG Orange color revolution in Ukraine wa in 2004, iirc. But that's just a coincidence, right?

Anyway, go read some stuff or don't. I can't hope to help someone so prejudiced. But maybe someone else can benefit from this exchange.