Russia’s War in Ukraine: Part 4

Some history and background on bioresearch

Part 1, Is Russia’s cause justified? The historical run-up
Part 2, A just cause in the face of violence and a Neo-Nazi resurgence
Part 3, A just cause in the face of violence, deceit, and a policy of regime change
Part 4, Some history and background on bioresearch
Part 5, Ukrainian biolabs and US attitude towards bioresearch
Part 6, Use of chemical weapons in Ukraine confirmed
Part 7, Russia is NOT the aggressor…
Part 8, …but the US, NATO and EU are!
Part 9, America’s nuclear gambles.
Part 10, Are we the baddies?

I am reposting this older article, mostly as originally written, as this is vital for a correct understanding of what is to follow. In this article, I will provide more background and some history on the labs in Ukraine, as this is shaping up to be at least one of the elements at the core of what is happening.

First, a few observations.

1) BioClandestine, the person who ‘broke the story’ on Twitter (several investigative journalists have been on the biolabs for years now, shout-out to Dilyana Gaytandzhieva), was banned from Twitter within 24 hrs.

This was a completely new topic and charge, which makes that speed of banning very suspicious: why ban an idea if it isn’t true (as they claimed, initially), or if it is harmless (the accusation by itself doesn’t harm, so their excuse to suppress people for making claims on Covid, the jab, therapeutics, etc. [in their narrative, not following the ‘science’ would be deadly] does not apply here!)?

1.a) BioClandestine claims that he and family members who work in the Intelligence world got questioned about this, focus of the questioning was to find out if he had gotten access to classified info, or if he had contact with foreign actors.

Why would such high level agencies be involved if it is yet another wacko tinfoil hat fabrication? And why question specifically on sources and contacts, right off the bat?

Unless, of course…

2) Russia called for a UN Security Council meeting. Why do so, if you don’t have the goods to back up your claims? No actual evidence was publicly presented, but Russia claimed it would present such in the near future.

(Russia has since held several other such meetings, and tried every other avenue to raise the alarm and set the procedures in motion to have this officially reviewed, but the veto powers of the Western members is insurmountable. Yet other countries abstain, more and more, or start to support Russia.)

3) On one hand, you have NATO countries who vehemently deny those accusations, dismiss them out of hand, even. On the other hand, there is Russia who makes very specific accusations.

Both are involved parties, in this war. If that claim is true, Russia is more than justified to invade and neutralize that threat. If that claim is untrue, Russia [seems to] have no legitimate reason to have invaded Russia.

So we should not accept any claim, pro or con, without proper evidence.

Enter China, India and several other non-EU countries on that UN Security Council meeting: in various shades of trying to remain in the middle/neutral regarding the actual war, they each called for investigations into the alleged bioweapon labs.

That is a major indicator of where the world stands. The West is NOT presenting a world consensus, not even close! Russia is NOT isolated, not even close!

4) When Iran engages in nuclear research/technology, sanctions and IAEA audits/controls and stringent oversight protocols are put into place to ensure that their use remains strictly ‘peaceful’, including limitations of quantities of fissionable materials. Yet the US denies the same confirmation and assurances now that serious accusations are leveled against labs the US runs.

As to the excuses from the Biden White House: Strictly peaceful research into bioweapons has some important differences from ‘non-peaceful’ uses. This includes quantity of pathogens stored, form into which they are stored, etc.

Yet, at the same time, it is near impossible to do such ‘peaceful research’ without also including research into the weapon side of it, or into elements that can very easily be turned into weapons.

Keep those observations in mind, as we go on a deep dive into time.

________________________________________

A bit of history.

The Russians and Americans have both undertaken research into biological and toxin weapons. Officially, the US only on non-contagious organisms (such as anthrax and tularemia), and only until 1969, while Russia also sought to study and develop the most contagious and lethal bacteria and viruses (plague and smallpox, resp.).

Despite the 1972 convention on such bioweapons, the Russians continued their research, but as they operated ‘under the highest security classification of “Special Importance” (higher than Top Secret), the U.S. intelligence community did not even know it existed until 1989 when a top ranking scientist from the bioweapon program defected to the United Kingdom.’

One of the topics this defector divulged, was on the genetic engineering successes and other advances in Russian microbiology.

Context: on November 16, 1988, Estonia was the first Soviet state to declare state sovereignty from Moscow, setting off a chain reaction. In October 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. And on Dec. 26, 1991, the Soviet Red Flag was lowered from the Kremlin for the last time, to be replaced with the Russian tricolor flag.

It is in this period that these defectors saw their chance (or felt the need to save their hide) to escape and defect. The first, high ranking scientist (defected Oct. 1989) admitted an “extensive genetic engineering program aimed at developing new kinds of biological weapons against which the West would be defenseless.” (For example making one strain of tularemia resistant to all known Western antibiotics.)

Subsequent lower ranking defectors corroborated the first defector’s info. Importantly, they signaled that while Gorbachev had ordered the termination of biological offensive programs in 1990, which Boris Yeltsin had also publicly announced, they confirmed that research on new forms of plague had secretly continued.

[Color me skeptical, but definitely in light of the recent news, I don’t think the US fully stopped their research in 1972, either, perhaps keeping it secret from the official government circles, hiding behind ‘need to know’ and euphemisms.]

At the end of 1992, the Deputy Director of Biopreparat defected (meaning the second in command, of one of the main research entities that employed over 30,000 people; Biopreparat was a military program under civilian cover). This provided top level info on just about all aspects of the Russian bioweapon programs and their advancements.

I believe it is news of what those defectors said, that in part spurred or boosted the Nunn-Lugar efforts that ended in the ‘Cooperative Threat Reduction Program’ (CTR), or the Nunn-Lugar Act. Even though it was first conceived and created in 1986 out of concern of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands if and when the USSR would break apart, it became a law in 1991 as the USSR was indeed in full collapse.

One Military paper, titled ‘Next Generation Bioweapons: The technology of genetic engineering applied to biowarfare and bioterrorism’, by Michael J. Ainscough, Colonel, USAF; The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 14, stated:

“The revolution in molecular biology and biotechnology can be considered as a potential Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). […] Four elements are required for a RMA: technological advancement, incorporation of this new technology into military systems, military operational innovation, and organizational adaptation in a way that fundamentally alters the character and conduct of conflict.”

Interestingly, it admitted:

“The closure of our offensive program has had a serious and limiting effect on our ability to develop medical defensive measures, such as our capability to develop appropriate vaccines, antibiotics, and other treatments.”

This shows that there is basically no difference between a ‘peaceful’ and an ‘offensive’ bioweapons program (!!). Only the intent is different, but that can change from one minute to the next, depending on who is in charge.

The paper continued:
“In 1997, the United States Department of Defense released Proliferation: Threat and Response, which identified trends in biological warfare capabilities. These included the increasing use of genetically engineered vectors and the growing understanding of both infectious disease mechanisms and the immune defense system.”

If you research such vectors to study the delivery of a useful medicine to an organism, you now also have the know-how to use that vector to deliver a not-so-benevolent drug/pathogen to any other organism!

An interesting chapter is the following, indicating that early 2000 the Military was thinking about the threat that biological weapons pose, and the different ways new technology can be used to such ends. Some of those are of interest in light of the current developments. They talk about ‘turning off the immune system’ as the goal of one type of designed disease. (which is exactly what the vaccine does, especially with repeated exposure)

The paper calls for action: “Biological warfare and bioterrorism are multifactorial problems that will require multifactorial solutions. We need our best critical thinkers and biological researchers to solve this constantly evolving problem. Fortunately, the same advances in genomic biotechnologies that can be used to create bioweapons can also be used to set up countermeasures against them.”

I cannot help but immediately notice how the advances that can be used to create bioweapons are mentioned first.

It comes down to this, yet again: any advance in protection comes with the knowledge to attack, just the same. Such ‘dual use research’ is being done today, as the paper shows: “A viral vector has already produced a lethal strain of mousepox virus. The genetically manipulated virus completely suppressed the cell-mediated response (the arm of the immune system that combats viral infections) of the lab mice. Even mice previously vaccinated against the natural mousepox virus died within days of exposure to the super virus.”

The paper focused on six main areas where biotechnological research could make significant contributions to peaceful ends:

• Understanding the human genome

• Boosting the immune system

• Understanding viral and bacterial genomes

• Bio-agent detection and identification equipment

• New vaccines

• New antibiotics and antiviral drugs

The paper wrote in it’s conclusion: “Genetically engineered pathogens constitute the “next generation” of biological warfare agents. Evidence indicates that the Russians have genetically engineered biological warfare agents. Ken Alibek’s [the 3rd, and top ranked defector] original debriefings were so shocking that some military and intelligence personnel preferred to believe that he was exaggerating. As his statements about genetic engineering and FSU capabilities began to be substantiated, however, the reality began to sink in.”

I believe that this was the impetus that started top levels of the US to start looking into new virus and pathogen related advancements, laying out a path that follows the weapon path, for higher speed of discovery and higher efficiency of research, even if skirting the laws. Remember that this was also in the wake of 9-11, and any research to halt terrorist advantages would have found funding and approval. (Anthony Fauci said it literally, during a hearing on a defense project labeled BioShield: “However, the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent anthrax attacks have changed, probably forever, how the biomedical community is going to respond to emerging threats. We are now in a wartime mode and are compelled to modify the way that we do business without compromising the elements that have made us so successful.” We are in a wartime mode!)

The paper ends ominously:

“There are those who say: “the First World War was chemical; the Second World War was nuclear; and that the Third World War – God forbid – will be biological.””

A NYTimes article, from Feb 4, 2002, informs us that Bush was requesting big spending to push on bioterrorism, talking about a budget increase from $1.4 billion to $5.9 billion.

“Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, said the huge infusion of federal aid for basic and applied research was likely to be "transforming." "The $1.75 billion request for the National Institutes of Health alone is the biggest single-year request for any discipline or institute in the history of the N.I.H.," Dr. Fauci said. "This is the first time that an extraordinary amount of money is being increased expressly for bioterrorism rather than for the general enhancement of capabilities." But, he added, because of this investment "we may all be healthier."

And

“Dr. Fauci said he was putting the final touches on a strategic plan for spending the new money at his institute, which is scheduled to receive a 61 percent increase. He said he would spend about $441 million of the $1.75 billion budget on basic research, some $592 million on drug and vaccine discovery and development, $194 million on trials of new drugs, and $522 million on new research laboratories at federal, university and industry facilities.”

Tellingly, it also records Fauci as stating this:

“"You need appropriate facilities to work on dangerous microbes that can be used for weapons," Dr. Fauci said. "And we must jump-start our efforts to get new facilities and expertise into existing centers of biological excellence.”

Is this why Fauci was suddenly hiding?

Consider that when he was testifying before Congress in 2003, in light of the counter-bioterror program ‘BioShield’ his NIH and NIAID were to receive billions in extra funding for, he also stated, in reply to the question if there was a potential for dual use where the research of biodefense may well lead us to research breakthroughs for other diseases:

”I think it is not only a potential, Mr. Waxman, I think it is inevitable that there will be an important contribution to the research that we put into emerging and reemerging diseases to inform us about biodefense research, and it is without a doubt that the research that goes into biodefense will help us with naturally occurring. Because as a matter of fact, as we have discussed before, as you know we feel that deliberately released microbes is just another form of emerging and reemerging disease. Instead of occurring naturally, it is done with malice and deliberately, but the end result can be the same.”

An alarming case of blurring lines and limits…

In the same hearing, Fauci openly admits:

”For example, as part of our biodefense research endeavor, we are involved in a major program for the sequencing of pathogenic microbes, not only those on the category A or B list, but microbes for which one can, by a simple mutation, lead to a microbe that would be a bioterror weapon.”

And if there was any doubt

In light of all this, an August 2005 article from the WaPo stated:

“The agreement, the result of more than a year of negotiations, was announced by Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during a visit to the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. The senators credited Ukraine's reformist leaders, ushered into power by last fall's Orange Revolution, with breaking bureaucratic resistance to the pact.”

The goal of that pact was to allow the US to give aid to ‘improve security at facilities where dangerous microbes are kept.’

(Interestingly, that same article relays the story that the Russians created an incident, refusing to let the Senators’ plane leave, demanding to search the plane. What did they get a whiff of, at that early point?)

I am aware that this is nowhere close to a smoking gun, but it paints the context and high level thinking that happened early 2000, paving the way for what we now see unfold.

We know that Fauci pushed for gain of function research, and LIED to CONGRESS (which means, he lied to us all) about it. Fauci had told Congress in May that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." Darpa had refused such projects, because to dangerous, but it was then shipped off to labs in Wuhan and elsewhere. The NIH managed to do so anyway through contractors (namely EcoHealth Alliance). And now we know, as reported by Gateway Pundit and others, that there is “more evidence for the ties between Hunter Biden-funded Ukraine DoD subcontractor Metabiota, Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance and the US government has emerged. 8 Metabiota employees and 14 employees of EcoHealth are members of EcoHealth’s Predict Global Consortium.”

The same contractors that are running and funding all the other biolabs, away from oversight and reporting requirements. Often hiding behind diplomatic immunity, apparently (which means that some in our government were aware, and were covering the tracks of those involved.)

In 2004, an earlier revolution happened in Ukraine (see part 1), where Yanukovych, the candidate favored by Putin was defeated in a new election, ordered by the Ukrainian Supreme Court, and that his opponent, Yushenko, was declared the winner. And we know that this was hailed as positive to help Lugar and Obama broker their deal, letting the US in those exact same high level bio labs in Ukraine.

Another in a string of dots.

I don’t think this narrative is off, and that it paints the beginning of the current problem the US finds itself in.

While I don’t have any smoking gun yet (don’t think that such will be left accessible online), it might help others to focus their search, and create a much more solid narrative. Connect the dots.

One other important point to highlight, when talking about biolabs and covid: the Chinese KNEW about Covid, but didn’t tell anyone until it got out of hand. Even then, they stonewalled investigations inside of China, and they tried to withhold the genetic data they already had.

They were ready with production capacity (even if of low quality).

The US Global Leadership Coalition published on April 7 2021 a ‘COVID-19 Brief: Impact on China’s Global Influence’.

In it, they pointed out:

“Walter Russell Mead at the Hudson Institute warned at the outbreak of the pandemic, “Aid donations plus propaganda about the supposed superiority of China’s governance model will find sympathetic ears in many countries, especially if the U.S. and its allies are AWOL.”

And they gave this example:

“When Italy was struggling with skyrocketing coronavirus cases, the Chinese embassy in Rome tweeted two drawings, one showing Italy helping China after an earthquake, another showing China helping Italy, saying “You may have forgotten, but we will remember forever. Now it’s up to us to help you.””

They continued:

“Some have questioned the effectiveness of China’s vaccine diplomacy, but the real impact of the pandemic on China’s global influence may be the economic impact of actions taken to prevent the spread of the virus – especially the shutdown of economies in other countries around the world that are critical to China’s economic recovery and to its global influence.

[…] Yet China was the only major economy to grow in 2020, even if at its slowest annual rate since 1976 with even faster rates in 2021 and 2022. While China’s economy contracted in the first quarter of 2020 for the first time since 1992, its economy recovered to grow 2.3% by the end of the year and is projected to grow 8% in 2021.”

Another think thank (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) wrote:

“Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic provided China with new opportunities to make inroads by providing much-needed assistance in the form of medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, and eventually vaccine supplies.

However, rather than trying to win hearts and minds more widely, China’s soft power efforts are mostly directed at certain key influential elites in business, politics, academia, or NGOs.”

And the CSIS wrote a study on how China is advancing her interests during the Pandemic:

They made the following observations:

1 China’s Covid-19 diplomacy is not primarily based on need or reciprocity. Political and strategic calculations

2 China’s provision of medical aid and vaccines has frequently come with strings attached.

3 Beijing has sought to project the impression that its medical supplies and vaccines were donations. (99% of PPE and 96% of Chinese vaccine exports were sold)

4 With both medical supplies and vaccines, China has prioritized speed over quality in order to reap first-mover advantages.

5 China’s Covid-19 diplomacy has been accompanied by aggressive Chinese information and disinformation campaigns

Others confirm the at times aggressive information/disinformation campaigns the Chinese have engaged it, especially protecting against the idea that the virus came from China, or that they bear any responsibility. (See here and here.)

Now, none of that shows China was complicit in the Covid outbreak. Granted.

But what DO we know?

The US funded gain of function research in Wuhan.

US/Chinese researchers have been arrested trying to smuggle research and vials to China.

The US funded (and/or built) bioresearch labs in Ukraine.

The same private companies were involved in all those activities.

The US military was strongly involved in that (see overseeing scientists from among other military linked units, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research).

That by itself is used as ground to hold the US responsible for those labs, and for the research done within them.

If the lab leak in Wuhan is to be assigned to US actors, there is NO reason NOT to ALSO implicate the Chinese.

Where did that research and leak take place? Wuhan.

The Wuhan Institute for Virology ALSO had ties with the Chinese military. The Times wrote about this, and claimed the Wuhan lab listed members of the Chinese military on its oversight committees.

Mike Pompeo confirmed this in an interview with Fox News

"What I can say for sure is this: we know that they were engaged in efforts connected to the People's Liberation Army inside of that laboratory, so military activity being performed alongside what they claimed was just good old civilian research," Pompeo said, as per Fox News.

He further mentioned: "They refuse to tell us what it was, they refuse to describe the nature of either of those, they refused to allow access to the World Health Organization when it tried to get in there."

And the US claims this, as well, on their own websites:

“The United States has determined that the WIV has collaborated on publications and secret projects with China’s military. The WIV has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.”

So, where does that lead?

That China and the US are LINKED in their research at Wuhan, where we KNOW gain of function was researched, funded by the NIH (Fauci), performed by EcoHealth Alliance of Peter Daszak. We ALSO know that the Chinese military was involved in that same laboratory: they absolutely KNEW what was going on, there.

Add to that the infiltration of US research, academia and politics with Chinese state and military operatives, and that link is fairly complete: I cannot find any reason to exclude China from the whole Covid debacle. If the US is implicated, at high level, so are the Chinese.

Which would explain why China is so happy to demand the US explain herself about the bioweapon labs in Ukraine. Notice how immediately Nuland testified truthfully about that, admitting those labs DID exist (even if visibly squirming during that part).

Just as Nuland is trying to get out ahead of the coming revelations, I believe so are the Chinese, attempting to pin this on their American deep state ‘partners’, siding with Putin who is exposing this.

It is in line with their propaganda efforts, and in line with what we know.

Hard proof?

I don’t have any. I am no James Bond.

But if we connect the dots, and with some confidence agree that the US is responsible for covid through gain of function research, and for the Ukraine bioweapons because of clear US military oversight and control, the same applies to China, which is similarly involved through her own military research units in Wuhan.

In summary:

1) A shock revelation of highly advanced bioresearch by the Russians, and that this was ongoing (despite claims by Gorbachov and Yeltsin such research was disbanded).

2) 9.11, and sudden funding for defense against bioterror

3) Lugar and Obama use the Nunn-Lugar act to gain access to Ukraine labs (among others, likely).

4) Fauci gets billions extra funding to look into bioterror.

5) The Army already outlined the new possible ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’, biotech. (With the understanding they had to get going to not miss that bus)

6) Fauci did gain of function research, through contractors. Lied about it.

7) Did such in China, Wuhan, for certain. Similar research elsewhere?

8) The Chinese military is directly involved in the same Wuhan Lab.

8) Covid-19 breaks out.

9) War in Ukraine breaks out. Likely informed by prior research by others such as Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, a ‘grunt with an iPhone’ stumbles across 2 maps that look very similar, writes about it on Twitter, and gets immediate push-back, from everywhere…

And that brings us right back to where we are now.

Hopefully with a better understanding of how it got this far.

My next article will explore Ukrainian bio-laboratories, and the role of the US in such research in those and similar labs all over the world.