- The US and Ukraine denies it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhbNgBD4Vg https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/sbu-no-us-biologic...
- There was a collaboration signed between US DoD and Ukraine's ministry of health: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra... Its goal is to handle the pathogens dating from the Soviet era https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96323414/the-indianapolis-st...
- Ukraine is not alone with such collaboration with the US, e.g. Kazahstan and Georgia have similar projects too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ9cCqChMLs
- the labs themselves are not secret, their researchers publish frequently and they are under Ukrainian authority, no US scientist work there https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/sbu-no-us-biologic...
If you think about it the whole thing is totally illogical, why would the US build top secret labs outside American soil, in a country famous for corruption and whose neighbor is the USA's archenemy? Its like moving the Pentagon to Moscow.
That is a substantively different claim than them having biological weapons or researching/producing such weapons, no? I'm not sure I understand your confusion unless you are conflating the two?
And this is the whole point. This right here. Putin has made a very strong claim based on a kernel of truth. That kernel of truth is seized upon and amplified, which serves to amplify the original very strong yet fallacious claim.
- False Claim: Biolabs are being used by an American-supported Nazi regime to create a dangerous pathogen that will target Russians specifically with their DNA.
- Kernel of truth: Biolabs exist and have dangerous things in them. They are being funded by money that has Western sources.
- Laundered opinion: Biolabs are dangerous, we should do something about the biolabs.
- Amplified feedback: Everyone agrees the Nazi-run biolabs have deadly things in them! Here are western personalities that are also very concerned about the biolabs, so I think we're all in agreement. They are using these deadly things to produce WMDs that are going to kill us! We have to do something drastic to stop them from using these weapons against us!
So what happens after Putin makes these claims? Well then Tucker Carlson helpfully comes in and airs a program where he does not make the same exact claims Putin makes, but he does this schtick where he "just asks questions," where the questions he is asking are quite provocative and tacitly align with the Kremlin position. Then the rest of the right-wing chorus comes along and we're all talking about biolabs at different levels, but the whole conversation is being seeded by Putin. What he does then is loop back this chatter on Russian state media. He uses it to show that actually "a lot of people, even in the West" are talking about Ukrainian biolabs and that the whole thing is a legitimate concern.
Now there a may or may not be concerns about biolabs. I don't pretend to know much about biolabs, although it sure seems there are a lot of experts nowadays. But the point is whatever discussion we are having about biolabs is not organic, and we need to be highly attuned to that fact.
We also have to be attuned to the fact that people like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald were so wrong about Putin's intentions regarding Ukraine that they were shocked and flabbergasted when Putin actually crossed the border and began his slaughter. Matt Taibbi had to make a public apology based on how wrong he was. And the reason they were so wrong about this is because they have blinders on regarding Russia that have been erected over years, since at least 2016. These blinders prevented them from seeing the obvious: that Putin was amassing a huge force at Ukraine's borders in preparation for an invasion. Because what were they doing during this period? They were again, carrying Putin's water and parroting Putin's position that he was not going to invade at all. So really, I don't know how they have any credibility whatsoever at this point.
Just like, address the direct quote from Nuland.
> Now there a may or may not be concerns about biolabs.
There are concerns about biolabs. Nuland said exactly that. She even used the word "concern".
They are - I'm guessing from the context - unique enough that the Russians don't have labs like this, otherwise who cares if the Russians capture them? Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here?
> Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald were so wrong about Putin's intentions regarding Ukraine
OK. And? They've acknowledged this. If being wrong about a thing disqualifies all your future reporting, then I shouldn't believe anyone.
And if we're talking about people being wrong about Putin's intentions, go back and watch the media and Democratic politicians mock Romney when he suggested back in the 2012 Presidential Debates that Putin was a threat - but now I have to believe everything those people say but Greenwald and Taibbi are off limits?
Maybe they are working on antidotes to Russian bio weapons. That's research you don't want the Russians to have, and can't be classified as weapons.
Maybe they're researching bird flu on live animals. Prohibiting the Russians to release them could be a goal.
Honestly, there are plenty of non-weapon explanations. You seem to be looking for a justification.
I'm glad you did because he's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
> There are concerns about biolabs. Nuland said exactly that. She even used the word "concern".
Greenwald did a great job directing you to the conclusion he wanted you to draw. Because even after, I assume, you've read his piece you still have the big question mark over your head, which is "what exactly is in the labs?" And that is the question that Putin wants on everyone's mind. That is the question he needs all over the internet. Because that question will also be on Russian minds, and Putin has filled in that blank with [WMDs designed to target Russians]. The bigger that question, the better Putin's lie works. Putin can't make that lie big on his own.
The counterintelligence term of art for Greenwald is that he's a "useful idiot" for Russia. Glenn Greenwald, as prolific a blogger he is, has no idea whatsoever about what's in those labs. But he's very sure that the utterance of the word "concern" has blown open the whole scheme. It's incredible to me that the whole piece you linked, over 2000 words, hinges on that one word. And now your opinion also hinges on that word.
Actually for all the talk about what's in the labs, it really does not matter. What matters is that everyone has a question about the labs, because when Russia attempts a false flag chemical weapon or biological attack, they will use the question on everyone's mind as a justification. It's called "muddying the waters" or as Steve Bannon put it "flooding the zone with shit". You and me sitting here on HN talking about biolabs is all part of manufacturing that justification.
> Am I just ignorant about non-weapons biolabs here?
Yes and so am I. So are 90% of us talking about the issue here. We have no business talking about biolabs. And yet it seems like all of the experts of biolabs are here on HN to tell us all of the nuance they've learned over the.... last few weeks since Putin wanted us all to be talking about Ukrainian biolabs.
> If being wrong about a thing disqualifies all your future reporting
It's about why they were wrong (100k troops on the border, tanks, equipment, and the US government saying that Russia is about to invade, yet they trusted Putin's word until the moment bombs started falling, when everyone else saw the obvious far in advance). They have blinders when it comes to Russia. They call Russian collusion a "hoax" (which again is also Putin's position) to this day even though Republican Senate investigators confirmed everything. Greenwald and Taibbi are consistently wrong regarding Russia and have been over a number of years.
What we witnessed last month during the build-up of the invasion was the resolution of two-competing worldviews constructed over a number of years. One worldview held that Putin is a master tactician, and a savvy genius who out-maneuvers the West consistently. The other worldview held that Putin is a psychopathic dictator, who is not a master tactician or even a good politician, but a thug and a tyrant. Predictions were made last month from these two competing camps and then they met reality; the reality that won was that Putin is a psychopath. So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. How much of what they've argued had the wrong priors leading to faulty conclusions?
> go back and watch the media and Democratic politicians mock Romney when he suggested back in the 2012 Presidential Debates
Yes, maybe you shouldn't listen to those people either. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats, it's about wrong vs. right and who has a track record of being right about this topic. Perhaps we should all actually be listening to Mitt Romney a lot more!
Actually, the people who spent the last half-decade telling me that Putin was "playing chess" are the exact same people who are now telling me he's unhinged and mentally ill and that we need to send F-16s to Poland.
But really, the specifics don't matter to me.
Biolabs or not, doesn't matter. Putin is a genius with a legitimate beef or he's a nutjob with a brain tumor and short-man syndrome, doesn't matter. imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable.
It's probably good I'm in an armchair. But from where I'm sitting, the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question.
I was an adult during the Iraq War. I'm cynical, and that clouds my judgement.
This is called "appeasement", and when you practice it with aggressively expansionist dictators, all it gets you is lots of land conquered by them and people killed before you actually admit that they need to be stopped.
I just don't see a viable endgame short of an internal Russian revolution that takes out Putin. Until then, the only truly defendable border stops at NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO.
Yes, the situation is tragic.
I have to point out that this is also a Kremlin talking point, the idea that we should just let Russia have Ukraine because otherwise Russia will nuke the world, is literal Russian propaganda.
> the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question.
It's not "whenever anyone" asks a question, it's specifically when people who have steeped themselves in conservative media are saying the same things that the Kremlin is saying, almost in lock step. I understand you don't want to hear that your words are aligned with Russian propaganda, but that's what I see happening right now. The sentiments you are typing to me are the same sentiments I have seen for weeks coming from the Kremlin. My belief is that this is not organic.
I'm not calling you a Russian agent or anything, because I think I laid out clearly in my original post how you're getting to these conclusions. Obviously you read Greenwald, but are you also consuming the American conservative media that is being re-broadcast without censor on Russian state TV, because it's that on-message with typical Russian State TV broadcasts? If you are that would explain a lot.
And as far as the specifics of Putin's psyche not mattering to you, well I think it does. Because if you believe that Ukraine should surrender and that would be the best for everyone and avoid WWIII, you're tacitly making a judgement about Putin's psyche; you believe that if he gets Ukraine he would stop invading other countries. Because why wouldn't he, he's not crazy, right? Or maybe he is and he won't stop at Ukraine. If that's the case, surrendering Ukraine would not only not avoid WWIII, it would make it more likely because Russia would be emboldened and enriched. How you feel about that question speaks to how you feel about Putin, and what I understand from your comments to me, is that he's rationally attacking Ukraine for legitimate reasons that will be assuaged by ceding the country to him. Which, I for one, don't agree with.
Sigh.
Putin has nukes. Comparing him to say, Hitler - and wondering "what if back then we had acted earlier" - ignores this very important point. The present calculation is wildly different.
Look. I don't want to appease Putin. He is a bad guy. But he has nukes. Every possible outcome is far from optimal.
If that position happens to intersect with "Russian propaganda", so be it.
> he won't stop at Ukraine
Putin will not invade an actual NATO country. I have to believe that anyone arguing otherwise is just out of their mind. Maybe I'm being naive, but I really just don't see it happening.
> Obviously you read Greenwald, but are you also consuming the American conservative media
I'm a paying subscriber to the NYT and that's where I get most of my facts and "real news."
Yes, I roll my eyes at the opinion section and at the typical NYT commenter, but I consider their regular reporting to be about as close to the facts as you can get. However, yannow, the NYT was also telling us Iraq had WMD, so I don't just knee-jerk believe everything they publish.
I don't watch TV. When I go home and they're watching Fox News, I'm rolling my eyes there too. If anything, I'm a contrarian because we've been burned so many times when putting blind trust in the media.
> what I understand from your comments to me, is that he's rationally attacking Ukraine for legitimate reasons that will be assuaged by ceding the country to him
I would prefer Putin to not attack Ukraine. That said, there is a reason why Ukraine isn't in NATO - because it is not defendable. Why? Because Russia has nukes. That's how I read this. Whether Putin is acting rationally or not is irrelevant.
War drums are being beat but this time there are thousands of nukes pointed at us. What would you have us do?
EDIT:
> you're tacitly making a judgement about Putin's psyche; you believe that if he gets Ukraine he would stop invading other countries. Because why wouldn't he, he's not crazy, right? Or maybe he is and he won't stop at Ukraine.
You're also doing the same thing - assuming that Putin is insane enough to invade NATO but also not insane enough to launch a nuke. Which seems far less likely than Putin being "insane" enough to take Ukraine and stop once he hits NATO.
> Yes and so am I. So are 90% of us talking about the issue here. We have no business talking about biolabs. And yet it seems like all of the experts of biolabs are here on HN to tell us all of the nuance they've learned over the.... last few weeks since Putin wanted us all to be talking about Ukrainian biolabs.
Winner winner chicken dinner!!
> Ukraine has biological research facilities
and:
> we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach
If nothing dangerous is being done there, who cares if the Russians get a hold of them? I'm asking in good faith, because her attitude suggests these aren't just run of the mill labs.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/victoria-nuland-ukraine-has...