[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.

[mopsi]

Do you have any actual evidence? So far, you have offered only conjecture.

This seems to be a common trait among people who are into conspiracy theories: they take the mere fact that they can construct a remotely plausible scenario as proof that it is the truth and actually happened.