How the right embraced Russian disinformation about 'U.S. bioweapons labs' in Ukraine

originally posted by: JAY1980

I can see the need for a few lab's to study virology. But were talking more than 20 in just Ukraine alone. Doesn't that seem the least bit suspicious?

Well you being the expert on labs and all...lol

Why does 20 level 2 labs look suspicious. The 2009 project was to modernize and build 13 total, with one being level 3.

Let's not forget the warmonger Victoria Nuland is worried about Russian troops getting to these labs. If it was benign research she wouldn't be worried.

None of it was secret or suspicious until the Russians decided to upgrade them to level 4 bio-weapons labs in their propaganda to justify invading..geez

A recent level 4 lab cost 1.2 billion so how does 21 million fit across 13 labs?

a reply to: mcsnacks77

Can you source the agreement where it says that?

This is similar to other claims Russia has made regarding labs. Remember the claim they made about Georgian labs creating a pork virus to hurt the Russian pork trade? Only problem was the outbreak started years before the lab went up, so Georgia has time travel now too!

a reply to: mcsnacks77


The U.S. did NOT put them there.

We added safety and monitoring systems.

They are not bio weapon labs.



EVERYONE has bio labs.

It's only controversial at all because russia wanted to invade Ukraine and needed some kind of 'justification'.


Publicly.

a reply to: marg6043

Soo the government is really at it, trying to clean the darn internet from any links from the past to the biological weapons labs in the Ukraine funded by the US.

Google is already at it. With the Google Search results even if you look for things like regime changes, color revolutions or NGOs like NED google had already wiped clean of those things a while back.

You can bet that some platforms would try to clean any links or data of this.

This article from 3 years ago, when the it was questioned

I brought that link to the article because to show they tried to dehumanize anyone asking questions on such subjects.


Now they say it would be Russia's fault? if Russia ever wanted to use chemical weapons they would have already done so in Syria.

The same media doesn't question when NATO/US had used chemical weapons agaisnt Serbia during the early 2000s.
The capital city of Serbia according to those who even went there to travel can be felt to this day.

I'm not sure how to break this to everyone, but, right now, people don't give a damn about facts. Only about their side. It doesn't matter what you tell people. What you prove. What evidence you have. They ain't gonna believe it. Lack of evidence seems to be evidence to some these days.

So here we are. How do you move forward from a place like this? We shall see.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: vNex92

How does this justify the presence of those existing labs in Ukraine? a sovereign nation? and labs been close to Russian border?

Why would they not have labs in Ukraine. None of that has been a secret. The Russian spin is that the Ukrainian labs that the US has supported are actually US bio-weapon labs... Kind of a big difference there lol.

They have tried to spin that yarn before about Georgia/US

Russian disinformation and the Georgian 'lab of death'

article dated 12/11/2018

The Russian Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry and pro-Kremlin media claimed recently that untested drugs were given to Georgian citizens at the lab, resulting in a large number of deaths. The US has accused Russia of disinformation in order to distract attention away from incidents such as the Salisbury poisonings.

originally posted by: UpThenDown

They have tried to spin that yarn before about Georgia/US

Russian disinformation and the Georgian 'lab of death'

article dated 12/11/2018

The Russian Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry and pro-Kremlin media claimed recently that untested drugs were given to Georgian citizens at the lab, resulting in a large number of deaths. The US has accused Russia of disinformation in order to distract attention away from incidents such as the Salisbury poisonings.

Well now I guess they are telling the truth...lol

Don't look at our tanks in Ukraine LOOK AT THE LEVEL4 US BIO-WEAPONS LABS!!!

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
I'm not sure how to break this to everyone, but, right now, people don't give a damn about facts. Only about their side. It doesn't matter what you tell people. What you prove. What evidence you have. They ain't gonna believe it. Lack of evidence seems to be evidence to some these days.

So here we are. How do you move forward from a place like this? We shall see.

It's not easy to get " facts" in an atmosphere of a war of life and death.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

in the process of an unjust war of aggression killing women and kids

The Ukrainian side is always portrayed as innocent. But they dont show how they are using human shields or that the Ukrainian president announced of giving everyone weapons and arms to fight off the Russians?

who only want to hurt Biden will offer themselves to help Russia.

Because Biden admin had being truthful and hoenst for the past two years?

And there are useful idiots from the left too like Glen Greenwald.
Seriously? you are saying that Glen Greenwald is a useful for stating truths? he always right on Syria, let me guess are you going be jumping on the media bandwagon on Syria to now?

The media is right on Ukraine as they were always right on Syria? the same media that kept claiming that the Ukrainian soldiers died bravely on snake island?

Only for them to emerge unharmed? and when that happened the media tried to to deflect away?

a reply to: Xtrozero

Muh blame Russia if something happens in the world look the other way...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Umbrella Agreement of 2005

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
I'm not sure how to break this to everyone, but, right now, people don't give a damn about facts. Only about their side. It doesn't matter what you tell people. What you prove. What evidence you have. They ain't gonna believe it. Lack of evidence seems to be evidence to some these days.

So here we are. How do you move forward from a place like this? We shall see.

I don't disagree with this, but I will add that the present trend of utterly rejecting the fact that modern western mainstream media is absolutely propaganda and the illusion of an American "free press" is now nonsense is frustrating.

a reply to: mcsnacks77

You can't say something without sourcing it. Quote what in the agreement you refer to.

originally posted by: mcsnacks77
a reply to: PatriotGames4u

...

Do you think the US would admit to them being Bio-labs because that would make them in direct violation of the United Nations Convention, which makes it criminal to manufacture deadly viruses, bacteria and toxins.

Wrong.

The Convention states:

"States Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention undertook “never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:

microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;

weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.”

Small amounts intended for research are permitted. What's prohibited are large amounts that have no particular research value and the delivery systems that would be required to use those agents in a military setting.

www.un.org...

a reply to: vNex92

So them using human shields after the invasion is why they got invaded? Makes sense.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

The justification for Russia was the constant US and EU lying which is well documented here:

Washington, D.C., March 16, 2018 – Declassified documents from U.S. and Russian archives show that U.S. officials led Russian President Boris Yeltsin to believe in 1993 that the Partnership for Peace was the alternative to NATO expansion, rather than a precursor to it, while simultaneously planning for expansion after Yeltsin’s re-election bid in 1996 and telling the Russians repeatedly that the future European security system would include, not exclude, Russia.
The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 8) shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; and Yeltsin responding, “this is genius!”
Christopher later claimed in his memoir that Yeltsin misunderstood – the real message that the Partnership for Peace would in fact “lead to gradual expansion of NATO”;[1] but the actual American-written cable reporting the conversation supports subsequent Russian complaints about being misled.[2]
Christopher wondered afterwards (according to his memoir, pp. 280-281) whether the Russian foreign minister, Andrei Kozyrev, had deliberately failed to alert Yeltsin about the inevitability of NATO expansion, or whether Yeltsin was just relieved that NATO expansion would not be immediate – or whether Yeltsin was just having “a bad day.” But Christopher had told Kozyrev himself earlier that day, according to the U.S. declassified cable (Document 7), that there would be “no predetermined new members” in NATO, and “we’re emphasizing the Partnership for Peace” is “open to all.”
The Strobe Talbott account of the October 22nd meeting with Yeltsin is more detailed and nuanced than Christopher’s, but also leaves the impression that Yeltsin heard only what he wanted to hear, somehow not letting the Americans explain that the real message was “PFP today, enlargement tomorrow.”[3] “Yeltsin welcomed us looking like a stunned bull” and delivered a “long, barely coherent boast” before interrupting Christopher’s presentation on NATO and PFP (“Without letting Chris finish…”). Christopher’s actual words to Yeltsin, at the end of the meeting, were that the U.S. would be “looking at the question of membership as a longer term eventuality.”
Documents from the Russian side show opposition to NATO expansion across the political spectrum, dating back to a Yeltsin supporters’ meeting with NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner in the summer of 1991 (he assured them expansion would not happen), and forward to the large majority of Duma deputies from every political party joining the anti-NATO caucus in 1996. As the U.S. chargé d’affaires in Moscow, James Collins, warned Secretary of State Christopher just before his trip to meet Yeltsin in October 1993 (Document 6), the NATO issue “is neuralgic to the Russians. They expect to end up on the wrong side of a new division of Europe if any decision is made quickly. No matter how nuanced, if NATO adopts a policy which envisions expansion into Central and Eastern Europe without holding the door open to Russia, it would be universally interpreted in Moscow as directed against Russia and Russian alone – or ‘neo-containment’….”
Yeltsin’s letter to Clinton on September 15, 1993, (Document 4) expressed “uneasiness” over the discussion of “quantitative expansion” and strongly advocated “a pan-European security system” instead of NATO. Yeltsin warned, “Not only the opposition, but moderate circles as well [in Russia], would no doubt perceive this as a sort of neo-isolation of our country in diametric opposition to its natural admission into Euro-Atlantic space.” Yeltsin also argued “the spirit” of the German unification treaty “precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East” (citing the provisions preventing non-German NATO troops from being stationed on the former East German territory). This paragraph was the only one in the Yeltsin letter highlighted for Strobe Talbott by a staff expert on Russia/Ukraine, Steve Pifer.
The declassified U.S. record includes new evidence on internal American thinking, such as a specific calendar for expansion in one early September 1993 document from the State Department (see Document 2), up to and including the ultimate admission of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia to NATO in 2005, after the Central and Eastern Europeans and the Baltics. But Yeltsin’s September 15 letter contributed to intense debates on the American side, including the Defense Department rejection of the State Department’s calendar, leading to the Partnership for Peace idea rather than explicit NATO expansion in the fall of 1993. One October 5, 1993, document (Document 5) summarized the debate as between the “State approach to NATO expansion” or the Office of the Secretary of Defense approach, “partnership for peace with general link to membership,” and the latter became Christopher’s presentation to Yeltsin on October 22: partnership for all, not membership for some.
In January 1994, President Clinton told Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was “the real thing now.” On the way to Moscow, Clinton delivered the famous “not whether but when” speech in Prague, which would be seized on by NATO expansion proponents in the Clinton administration to win the internal debate.[4] The declassified memcons of Clinton’s Prague meetings with the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia show the American president arguing for the Partnership for Peace as a “track that will lead to NATO membership” and that “does not draw another line dividing Europe a few hundred miles to the east.” (See Document 11) Clinton candidly admitted to Vaclav Havel “there is no consensus now among NATO allies to extend formal security guarantees” because of uncertainty about which countries could contribute, and because “the reaction in Russia could be the reverse of what we want.”
Polish President Lech Walesa told Clinton (Document 12):” Czech President Vaclav Havel immediately responded, “it was neither possible nor desirable to isolate Russia.”
The Americans kept trying to reassure Yeltsin. Quotations from President Clinton’s face-to-face conversations with Yeltsin in 1994, particularly September 27, 1994, at the White House, show Clinton “emphasizing inclusion, not exclusion ….

a reply to: 1947boomer
I understand the document. And I understand researchable amounts allowed.
But who says what they had was a small researchable amount?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

According to the laws and regulations of the United States of America, such information shall be treated as "sensitive information of a foreign government", and shall be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by the laws and · regulations of the United States of America. Any such information transmitted by the Ministry of Health of Ukraine to the U.S. Department of Defense must be accompanied by a written declaration from the Government of Ukraine which states
that it is withholding such information from public disclosure and that the information is provided to the Government of the United States of America on the condition that it not be released to the public without the approval of the Government of Ukraine. Information marked or designated by the U.S. Department of Defense as "sensitive" should be withheld from public disclosure by the Government of Ukraine.
In this written declaration, the Government of Ukraine shall specify the date until which the information provided should be withheld from public disclosure by the Government of the United States of America. That date may be extended by the U.S. Department of Defense, to the extent permitted by the laws and regulations of the United States of America, in accordance with a request by the Government of Ukraine.

originally posted by: peaceinoutz
Russia, in the process of an unjust war of aggression killing women and kids, will not be able to distract attention from their crimes with this phony story. But they’ll try and useful idiots from the right, who only want to hurt Biden will offer themselves to help Russia. And there are useful idiots from the left too like Glen Greenwald.
Here’s a FOX News reporter, who hardly can be accused of being a lefty, straitening one of the useful idiots out
www.washingtonpost.com...

This isn’t about right or left or grudge politics, but good and evil. And some folks, even when children are dying just can’t keep things out of politics.

Shame on them, though they have no shame

Which comes through the Washington Post from The Daily Beast .
Always check the story history .

Yet , you use an article like that to debate links straight to history and government records .

a reply to: 1947boomer

And the Ukrainian Government “was shown something, but what we saw did not suit us", said a spokesman for Ukraine. “In 2013, we sent an official letter to the US government to terminate this agreement.” What happened next, you yourself know: a coup d’etat, Maidan, which, in fact, was organised by the Americans. Now these laboratories continue to work in Ukraine thanks to Victoria Nuland.