[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.

[mopsi]

  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?

If you are studying drug-resistant tuberculosis or HIV, both of which have high rates in Ukraine, then yes, absolutely, such country is a key place for studying transmission patterns and treatment strategies. Ukraine has a particularly long history of tuberculosis research. Many of the earliest resorts in Crimea were originally established for tuberculosis treatment, and visited by wealthy patrons from all over Eastern Europe and Russia. Russian literary classics from the 19th and early 20th century often reference this.

Ukraine is also one of the largest grain producers in the world, which makes them a top destination for research in grain diseases, disease-resistant varieties and pest control. Due to Chernobyl's legacy, they unfortunately excel in cancer research too, and the US has funded many long-term studies related to the nuclear disaster.

Speculating "what if they're actually developing bioweapons" is not much of an argument unless you can back it up with actual evidence.

[ctrlp]

My arguments don't preclude "legitimate research." Nor do I claim there is only a single reductive reason for something. I'm struck by recent revelations about the Wuhan lab and the kinds of research that are conducted via less vigilant regulatory environments. That coupled with the legacy of a Soviet bioweapons program that included Ukraine labs makes me think less charitably than you do. But, as you say. It's probably completely above board. It's Ukraine, after all, the epitome of law and order.

[mopsi]

Ukraine has a significant legacy in other areas too. The Yuzhmash factory in Dnipro used to manufacture some of the best Soviet nuclear missiles, but that alone does not mean that Ukraine still has a nuclear weapons program. Instead, they are now a subcontractor for commercial space rockets. Their parts have been used by SpaceX and others.

Most of the USSR's legacy was completely dismantled across the former Soviet Union. People were fired, facilities were closed and demolished, and machinery was sold for scrap metal, because everything was ridiculously outdated and couldn't compete on the global market. Places like Yuzhmash that survived by successfully pivoting to something commercially viable are a fairly rare exception. In farming equipment, for example, the USSR was so far behind that almost nothing survived, and Ukrainian farmers nowadays use John Deers and New Hollands and Claases and Deutz-Fahrs.

So, there's nothing surprising about the dismantling of the Soviet bioweapons program. It was a tiny and insignificant part of the far greater disruptions that the country went through. That's why the US got involved at all - to ensure an organized shutdown, because the domestic authorities were busy with massive poverty, crime and other far more pressing issues.

[ctrlp]

Yes, as you say, an organized shutdown. That is my belief as well. I also believe that national security considerations were a factor and dominance of Ukraine was a policy goal of the West to permanently sever Russia from its Eastern European confederates. This was not secret strategy. It's what any sensible policy would include given the chaos. Power abhors a vacuum. I don't see the controversy. I suppose you would also claim that research at Wuhan has nothing whatsoever to do with bioweapons research. Or perhaps that its research program was independently funded, not by the US government.