Out of the Darkness and into the Light

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Anthony.

LeMay and Lemnitzer were pretty altruistic.  They only wanted war in Vietnam and Cuba.

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I'm sure why you're treating the presence of American-financed labs in the Ukraine as possible, but unconfirmed. Did you read the Snopes article and follow the initial 'debunking' link that it provided? The second paragraph of the Snopes article says this.

As part of the Snopes expose of Russian propaganda, they send us to this debunking link.

https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/does-the-us-have-a-secret-germ-warfare-lab-on-russias-doorstep/

And it then notes the following.

So the labs are there, they're funded by the Department of Defense, and they have a lot of lethal bacteria and viruses collected there for research.

According to this the labs were also funded by the EU and the WHO.

https://www.bbc.com/news/60711705

 

3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

The distinction between the US and Russian explanations for this, are that the Russians feel that the Pentagon built a bio lab containing lethal viruses on their border for nefarious reasons, and the US government says its purpose is benevolent.

The Biological Threat Reduction Program has been around for over 30 years, according to this:

https://globalbiodefense.com/2021/10/17/looking-back-at-the-biological-threat-reduction-program-through-the-decades/

<q>

The first request for biological weapons assistance came from the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program’s original partner country, Russia, in 1998. Prior to that, the Soviet Union signed and ratified the Biological Weapons and Toxins Convention in 1972, and it entered into force in 1975. However, the Soviet Union continued offensive BW development in secret. The clandestine biological weapons stockpiles, labs, sites, scientists, and state-sponsored programs presented a major proliferation threat once the Soviet Union collapsed. The Biological Threat Reduction Program spent its first ten years focused solely on partnerships to address these and other proliferation threats in Former Soviet Union (FSU) partner countries.

</q>

3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Does the Pentagon have many other projects on the go at the moment that are funded for altruistic reasons just to help out the world? I guess If this is one, maybe there are others.

How many projects involve the Pentagon, the European Union, and the World Health Organization?

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

The distinction between the US and Russian explanations for this, are that the Russians feel that the Pentagon built a bio lab containing lethal viruses on their border for nefarious reasons, and the US government says its purpose is benevolent.

 

Okay,  since the labs are known to exist and since it is known that they get funding from the Defense Department, I naturally agree that there's some possibility that their purpose is to develop bio-weapons.

But the Snopes article shows that the purpose of the Ukraine-owned labs is not nefarious and has been publicly known since the beginning of the DOD funding in 2005. Quoting from the article:

 

Quote

Conspiracy theories are often fashioned from a small morsel of truth. In this case, the rumors are a distortion of the fact that the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the Department of Defense of the United States of America entered into an agreement in 2005, while Republican U.S. President George W. Bush was in office, to "stem the threat of bio-terrorism by placing safeguards on deadly pathogens dating from a Soviet-era biological weapons program," according to a contemporaneous news article in the Chicago Tribune. While the U.S. Defense Department's Biological Threat Reduction Program provided some funding to upgrade biolabs in the Ukraine, these facilities are operated by the Ukrainian government under guidelines set under Ukrainian law.

 

[Anthony Thorne]

I doubt the Russians were confused about any of the above. The Nunn-Lugar threat reduction program - the safeguard activities tackling old Soviet weapons programs that seem to be a precursor to the biological weapons agreement -  popped up while I was reading stuff for my COUP IN DALLAS essay something like two years ago when documentation showed how several Defense Science Board members were involved. (Ashton Carter, who I'm not a fan of, even wrote a very funny chapter about his travels with William Perry to Russia to work on it in one of his books). I stumbled across it all randomly so I'm sure they've never been too confused about it.

Seeing documentation that the lab's stated purpose was not nefarious would never be enough to calm the Russians, simply as the US government, Pentagon and intelligence agencies have a history of setting up organisations or groups for one purpose and then using it for another. How many front groups and activities did the CIA start up in their fight against Communism? More than a few. Don't mind us, we're not doing anything sneaky here, we promise. Oh, okay.

Final link in Sandy's good post above - the facilities are operated by the Ukrainian government. Would they be against a bio-weapons program targeted at the Soviets, or for it? If they were against developing weapons to use against Russia then good for them.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Anthony Thorne

[Anthony Thorne]

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

How many projects involve the Pentagon, the European Union, and the World Health Organization?

Who knows? I can see those EU and WHO members bossing their Pentagon counterparts around though.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Who knows? I can see those EU and WHO members bossing their Pentagon counterparts around though.

Here’s the 2005 agreement between the USA and Ukraine.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukraine-Weapons.pdf

AGREEMENT 
between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Health of Ukraine Concerning Cooperation in the Area of Prevention of Proliferation of Technology, Pathogens and Expertise that could be Used in the Development of Biological Weapons.</q>

What is the specific evidence that these labs were converted to produce biological weapons rather than prevent them?

[Sandy Larsen]

I can understand why it would be advantageous to have missile launch sites in countries neighboring your enemy. But I don't see any advantage to having biological weapons research labs near them. This would serve only to make your enemy nervous. Why not develop them elsewhere and transport the final product to its designation?

 

[Anthony Thorne]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Here’s the 2005 agreement between the USA and Ukraine.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukraine-Weapons.pdf

AGREEMENT 
between the Department of Defense of the United States of America and the Ministry of Health of Ukraine Concerning Cooperation in the Area of Prevention of Proliferation of Technology, Pathogens and Expertise that could be Used in the Development of Biological Weapons.</q>

What is the specific evidence that these labs were converted to produce biological weapons rather than prevent them?

If they were producing biological weapons - on the sly - would it have been written up in the public agreement, or would it be left out of the public agreement?

Equally, I'm not sure why you're asking me personally to produce evidence that the US was doing those things at the labs, as I've never asserted there was definite proof that they were doing so. But so far we have the public agreement, and some journalists writing up their reassuring tour of the facilities, presented as evidence that they weren't. Go figure.

The long public statement, with screenshots and documentation and photos, that was presented by the Russians as their proof of the assertions, is in the public domain and can be found online if you're curious. I browsed it many months ago, but didn't feel the need to dive deeper into the rabbit hole then, and don't feel the need now. I actually agree with Sandy above, that's it's a possibility. Others can produce greater evidence if they want to confirm it as being a thing.

[Anthony Thorne]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can understand why it would be advantageous to have missile launch sites in countries neighboring your enemy. But I don't see any advantage to having biological weapons research labs near them. This would serve only to make your enemy nervous. 

 

Less nervous than having missiles pointed at them? There's maybe a difference, but I don't see it as being a big one.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

If they were producing biological weapons - on the sly - would it have been written up in the public agreement, or would it be left out of the public agreement?

Of course.

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Equally, I'm not sure why you're asking me personally to produce evidence that the US was doing those things at the labs, as I've never asserted there was definite proof that they were doing so.

Just asking.

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

But so far we have the public agreement, and some journalists writing up their reassuring tour of the facilities, presented as evidence that they weren't. Go figure.

I’m accessing the actual alarm Putin may have felt over these labs, and the degree — if any — their existence justifies the invasion of Ukraine.

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

36 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Less nervous than having missiles pointed at them? There's maybe a difference, but I don't see it as being a big one.

Good point. I always come up against what I think is a straw man argument when someone says none of this justifies Putin’s invasion. I never hear any of these facts - nukes on the border, bio labs, Azov militia, agent provocateurs shooting during the Maidan protests, used as justification. Its wrong to ignore history, to call promises made to Gorbachev meaningless because they were not formalized, call weapons systems on Russia’s border or bio labs next door trifles because NATO and or the US are peaceful and would never attack, diminish the role and history of far right Ukrainian Nationalist militias. Or on the other hand to justify any of this by pointing out Putin’s flaws. What’s the expression - remove the mote from your own eye first? War is a racket, period. Not enough was done to avoid this one. Empathy is lacking on all sides. 

[Cliff Varnell]

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Good point. I always come up against what I think is a straw man argument when someone says none of this justifies Putin’s invasion. I never hear any of these facts - nukes on the border, bio labs, Azov militia, agent provocateurs shooting during the Maidan protests, used as justification. Its wrong to ignore history, to call promises made to Gorbachev meaningless because they were not formalized,

Promises between NATO and Russia — formalized or not — were meaningless because the peoples of the former Soviet Bloc have a Human Right to determine their own economic and security alliances.

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

weapons systems on Russia’s border

Negotiations were ongoing as late as January 2022.

https://time.com/6138916/ukraine-russia-nuclear-missile-treaty/

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

or bio labs next door

The labs have been there 30 years.  Any evidence that these labs presented a new and existential threat to Russia in 2022 has yet to surface.

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

trifles because NATO and or the US are peaceful and would never attack,

Mutually Assured Destruction prevents such an attack.

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

diminish the role and history of far right Ukrainian Nationalist militias.

Who garnered around 5% in the previous election.  What is the argument that Azov presented an existential threat to Russia in 2022?

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

Or on the other hand to justify any of this by pointing out Putin’s flaws.

Yes!  We point out Putin’s flaws.  Just like we call out American Presidents for war crimes.  

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

What’s the expression - remove the mote from your own eye first?

So we need to re-litigate American post-WW2 foreign policy on the backs of Eastern Europeans?

“Sorry Nikola, you can’t join NATO because it’ll make bad actor America happy.”

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

War is a racket, period. Not enough was done to avoid this one. Empathy is lacking on all sides. 

If Putin withdraws tomorrow it’s over.

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

On 6/18/2023 at 3:56 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I can understand why it would be advantageous to have missile launch sites in countries neighboring your enemy. But I don't see any advantage to having biological weapons research labs near them. This would serve only to make your enemy nervous.

22 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Less nervous than having missiles pointed at them?

 

What does that have to do with the point I made? Never mind, let me make my point in another way:

Why would the U.S. want to locate bio-weapons research facilities near the Russian border? Is there anything to be gained from doing so? Nothing that I can see.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Not enough was done to avoid this one.

 

You're right Paul. Biden should have just let Putin have Ukraine.

Peaceniks.... sheesh.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Peaceniks.... sheesh.

 

For the record, I feel the same way about war mongers. Extremists all.