Self-all-powerful “fact-checkers” in the U.S. corporate press have spent two weeks mocking as disinformation and a false conspiracy theory the claim that Ukraine has biological weapons labs, either alone or with U.South. support. They never presented whatever evidence for their ruling — how could they possibly know? and how could they prove the negative? — simply nonetheless they invoked their characteristically authoritative, to a higher place-it-all tone of self-balls and self-arrogated right to decree the truth, definitively labelling such claims false.
Claims that Ukraine currently maintains dangerous biological weapons labs came from Russia as well as Mainland china. The Chinese Foreign Ministry this calendar month claimed:
“The US has 336 labs in 30 countries under its control, including 26 in Ukraine alone.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry
that “Russia obtained documents proving that Ukrainian biological laboratories located about Russian borders worked on development of components of biological weapons.”
Such assertions deserve the aforementioned level of skepticism as U.S. denials: namely, none of it should be believed to be true or simulated absent-minded evidence. Yet U.S. fact-checkers dutifully and reflexively sided with the U.South. Regime to declare such claims “disinformation” and to mock them as QAnon conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately for this propaganda racket masquerading equally neutral and high-minded fact-checking, the neocon official long in accuse of U.S. policy in Ukraine testified on Monday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
strongly suggested that such claims are, at least in role, truthful. Yesterday afternoon, Nether Secretarial assistant of State Victoria Nuland appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), hoping to debunk growing claims that there are chemical weapons labs in Ukraine, smugly asked Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemic or biological weapons?”
Rubio undoubtedly expected a apartment denial past Nuland, thus providing farther “proof” that such speculation is dastardly Fake News emanating from the Kremlin, the CCP and QAnon.
Instead, Nuland did something completely uncharacteristic for her, for neocons, and for senior U.S. strange policy officials: for some reason, she told a version of the truth.
Her answer visibly stunned Rubio, who — as soon as he realized the damage she was doing to the U.S. messaging campaign past telling the truth —
interrupted her and demanded that she instead affirm that if a biological attack were to occur, everyone should exist “100% sure” that it was Russia who did it.
Grateful for the life raft, Nuland told Rubio he was right.
But Rubio’s clean-up act came too late. When asked whether Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons,”
Nuland did not deny this: at all. She instead — with palpable pen-twirling discomfort and in halting speech, a glaring contrast to her normally cocky manner of speaking in obfuscatory State Department officialese — best-selling: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.”
Any promise to depict such “facilities” equally benign or bland was immediately destroyed past the warning she quickly added:
“we are at present in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain command of [those labs], so nosotros are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”
— [suspension by Sen. Rubio]:
Nuland’southward baroque admission that “Ukraine has biological research facilities” that are unsafe plenty to warrant concern that they could autumn into Russian hands ironically
constituted more than decisive prove of the existence of such programs in Ukraine than what was offered in 2002 and 2003 to corroborate U.South. allegations about Saddam’due south chemical and biological programs in Iraq. An actual confronting-interest confession from a top U.S. official under oath is conspicuously more significant than Colin Powell’s belongings up some examination tube with an unknown substance within while he pointed to grainy satellite images that nobody could decipher.
Information technology should go without proverb that the beingness of a Ukrainian biological “enquiry” plan does not justify an invasion by Russian federation, let alone an set on as comprehensive and devastating as the one unfolding: no more than the existence of a similar biological program under Saddam would have rendered the 2003 U.Southward. invasion of Republic of iraq justifiable. But Nuland’s confession does shed disquisitional light on several important issues and raises vital questions that deserve answers.
Whatsoever attempt to claim that Ukraine’due south biological facilities are just benign and standard medical labs is negated past Nuland’s explicitly grave concern that “Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of” those facilities and that
the U.S. Government therefore is, right this minute, “working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent whatever of those research materials from falling into the easily of Russian forces.”
Russia has its ain advanced medical labs. Later all, information technology was ane of the get-go countries to develop a COVID vaccine, one which
Lancet, on February 1, 2021, pronounced was ” safe and effective” (even though U.Due south. officials pressured multiple countries, including Brazil, not to have any Russian vaccine, while U.Southward. allies such as Commonwealth of australia refused for a total yr to recognize the Russian COVID vaccine for purposes of its vaccine mandate). The only reason to be “quite concerned” almost these “biological research facilities” falling into Russian easily is if they comprise sophisticated materials that Russian scientists have not yet adult on their ain and
which could be used for nefarious purposes —
, either avant-garde biological weapons or dual-apply “enquiry” that has the potential to be weaponized.
What is in those Ukrainian biological labs that make them then worrisome and dangerous? And has Ukraine, not exactly known for being a great power with advanced biological research, had the assist of any other countries in developing those unsafe substances? Is American help confined to what Nuland described at the hearing — “working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those inquiry materials from falling into the easily of Russian forces” —
or did the U.S. assistance extend to the construction and development of the “biological research facilities” themselves?
For all the dismissive language used over the last two weeks by cocky-described “fact-checkers,”
it is confirmed that the U.Southward. has worked with Ukraine, equally recently every bit concluding year, in the “development of a bio-risk direction culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures.”
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine
of its collaborative work with Ukraine
“to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens earlier they pose security or stability threats.”
This joint US/Ukraine biological inquiry is, of course, described by the State Department in the virtually unthreatening way possible. But that over again prompts the question of why the U.Southward. would be so gravely concerned virtually benign and common research falling into Russian easily. Information technology also seems very odd, to put it mildly, that Nuland chose to acknowledge and draw the “facilities”
in response to a clear, simple question from Sen. Rubio nigh whether Ukraine possesses chemical and biological weapons.
If these labs are merely designed to detect a cure for cancer or create safe measures against pathogens, why, in Nuland’s listen, would it accept anything to practice with a biological and chemical weapons program in Ukraine?
The indisputable reality is that — despite long-standing international conventions banning development of biological weapons — all large, powerful countries conduct research that, at the very least, has the capacity to be converted into biological weapons. The work conducted under the guise of “defensive enquiry” can, and sometimes is, easily converted into the banned weapons themselves. Recall that, according to the FBI,
the 2001 anthrax attacks that terrorized the nation came from a U.S. Army Research scientist, Dr. Bruce Ivins, working at the U.S. Ground forces’s communicable diseases research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. The merits was that the Army was “merely” conducting defensive research to find vaccines and other protections against weaponized anthrax, merely to do so, the Army had to
highly weaponized anthrax strains, which Ivins then unleashed as a weapon.
A 2011 PBS
plan on those anthrax attacks explained: “in October 2001, Northern Arizona Academy microbiologist Dr. Paul Keim identified that the anthrax used in the attack letters was the Ames strain, a development he described equally ‘spooky’ because
that particular strain was developed in U.Southward. government laboratories.” Speaking to
in 2011, Dr. Keim explained why it was then alarming to discover that the U.Southward. Army had been cultivating such highly lethal and unsafe strains in its lab, on U.S. soil:
We were surprised it was the Ames strain. And information technology was chilling at the same time, because the Ames strain is a laboratory strain that had been developed past the U.S. Army equally a vaccine-challenge strain. We knew that it was highly virulent. In fact, that’south why the Army used information technology, because it represented a more stiff challenge to vaccines that were being developed by the U.S. Army. It wasn’t just some random type of anthrax that y’all find in nature; it was a laboratory strain, and that was very significant to us, because that was the kickoff hint that this might really be a bioterrorism effect.
This lesson nearly the severe dangers of and then-called dual-use research into biological weapons was re-learned over the terminal 2 years as a effect of the COVID pandemic. While the origins of that virus take non yet been proven with dispositive evidence (though remember, fact-checkers declared early on that it was definitively established that information technology came from species-jumping and that any suggestion of a lab leak was a “conspiracy theory,” only for the Biden White Firm in mid-2021 to admit they did not know the origins and ordered an investigation to make up one’s mind whether it came from a lab leak), what is certain is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was manipulating various coronavirus strains to brand them more contagious and lethal. The justification was that doing so is necessary to written report how vaccines could be adult, but regardless of intent, cultivating dangerous biological strains has the capacity to kill huge numbers of people. All of this illustrates that
research that is classified every bit “defensive” tin easily be converted, deliberately or otherwise, into extremely destructive biological weapons.
At the very least, Nuland’s surprising revelation reveals, yet once again,
just how heavily involved the U.South. Government is and for years has been in Ukraine, on the part of Russia’s border which U.S. officials and scholars from across the spectrum take spent decades warning is the most sensitive and vulnerable for Moscow. It was Nuland herself, while working for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry’s State Department nether President Obama, who was heavily involved in what some phone call the 2014 revolution and others telephone call the “coup” that resulted in a change of government in Ukraine from a Moscow-friendly regime to one far more favorable to the EU and the West. All of this took place as the Ukrainian energy company Burisma paid $50,000 per calendar month not to the son of a Ukrainian official just to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter: a reflection of who wielded real power inside Ukraine.
Nuland not only worked for both the Obama and Biden State Departments to run Ukraine policy (and, in many ways, Ukraine itself), but she also was Vice President Dick Cheney’s deputy national security adviser and then President Bush’s Ambassador to NATO.
She comes from ane of America’s
most prestigious neocon majestic families;
her husband, Robert Kagan, was a co-founder of the notorious neocon war-mongering group Project for the New American Century, which
regime modify in Republic of iraq long before ix/11. It was Kagan, forth with liberal icon Bill Kristol, who (next to electric current editor-in-chief of
Jeffrey Goldberg), was most responsible for the lie that Saddam was working hand-in-paw with Al Qaeda, a lie that played a key role in convincing Americans to believe that Saddam was personally involved in the planning of 9/xi.
That a neocon like Nuland is admired and empowered regardless of the outcome of elections illustrates how unified and in lockstep the establishment wings of both parties are when information technology comes to questions of state of war, militarism and foreign policy. Indeed, Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, was signaling that neocons would likely support Hillary Clinton for president — doing so in 2014, long before anyone imagined Trump as her opponent — based on the recognition that the Democratic Party was at present more hospitable to neocon ideology than the GOP, where Ron Paul and then Trump’s neo-isolationism was growing.
You can vote against neocons all you lot want, simply they never go away.
The fact that a member of i of the virtually powerful neocon families in the U.S. has been running Ukraine policy for the U.S. for years — having gone from Dick Cheney to Hillary Clinton and Obama and at present to Biden — underscores how fiddling dissent there is in Washington on such questions. It is Nuland’due south all-encompassing feel in wielding power in Washington that makes her confession yesterday so startling: it is the sort of affair people similar her lie near and conceal, not admit. But now that she did admit it, information technology is crucial that this revelation not be cached and forgotten.
To back up the independent journalism Greenwald is doing, please subscribe to his Substack, obtain a gift subscription for others and/or share the commodity