A lab doesn't mean anything. — Christoffer

It's basically impossible to have any intelligible discussion with this level of denial.

The question is about bio weapons, a weapon of mass destruction and if Ukraine has them.

As I say, for Nuland to respond with a ramble about "labs that don't mean anything", in the context of this senatorial hearing in the context of this war, in the context of possible escalation to Nuclear war, would be a delusional psychotic episode and the US government would institutionalize her immediately if there was no relevant link between the question and her answer.

If you want to learn what propaganda is ... all you got to do is reread your arguments here.

There is no credible way to say Nuland's statements are not incredibly concerning and obviously due to the fact there is WMD's in Ukraine, and there's no credible way to argue the CIA wouldn't know about it (and ... obviously the US government does know about it otherwise she wouldn't be talking about it) nor any way to argue there are some legitimate reason to tolerate it and, at best, be indirectly financing it.

And, as Tucker correctly describes, no one was really talking about it before Nuland talked about it ... and, even if it was true, to not then move / dispose of these labs by now (which, if they were all disappeared from Ukraine, Nuland could just confidently say "there are no bioweapons in Ukraine" as an answer to that question in the present tense; and if someone did bother to ask about the past tense, which is unlikely as not relevant for the current situation, she could anyways then confidently say given Ukraine's history "it has had bio-weapons in the past, yes" -- subject closed) is a fuckup of monumental proportions.

Based on previous behaviors during this war. — Christoffer

What previous behaviour? Which of the behaviours you have evidence for, indicates a likelihood of creating a smokescreen for and then using chemical weapons? You can't use your previous, un-evidenced assumptions as evidence for your next assumption

you are confusing evidence for the existence of a bioweapon facility with predicting war desinformation based on previous desinformation and active on-going desinformation. — Christoffer

No more firm language has been used in discussing the bioresearch labs than you have used, we're all just speculating here. Your more insane than I thought if you think America hasn't got just as much history of deception and subterfuge on which to base our suspicions as Russia has on which you base yours.

as I said it can have variants of pathogens for research purposes that if released by bombardments could potentially be catastrophic for the entire world. — Christoffer

And why would anyone be concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces when Russian labs already have samples of similar variants? You've not answered the question. If all these ksbs are doing is researching defenses against likely threats then it is unreasonable to assume Russia wouldn't already have preparations of these threats.

And if we're going by your narrative, what's the reason Russia would go there? Or do anything with it? — Christoffer

Seriously? A bioweapons facility exists in enemy territory and you're wondering why it might be a strategic target?

When the risk is that Russia might use chemical weapons it gets turned into "but the US should be blamed because there might be a lab in Ukraine", or "Ukraine should be blamed because Nato". — Christoffer

No. If the Russians use biological weapons, the Russians are to blame, but that hasn't happened yet so there's nothing to discuss on the matter. What has happened is s US state official has made a statement which, given America's unscrupulous history, is very suspicious, so that's what we're discussing. You're not obliged to take part.

My point was how they were aiming to blame the west and Ukraine for their own attacks. — Christoffer

A point lacking any evidence at all and so one which can simply be discarded.

I think many understand what is happening, but then there are of course those who believe what is said. I think here the issue is that Putin is still holding to the idea of "special military operation" and the Russian media is showing Russian troops handing out food and blaming the Ukrainians (neo-nazis) to be shelling the civilians. That can sink in for a while. But too big casualty figures you cannot hide, it simply goes by word of mouth. If Americans don't trust their media, Russians don't trust it on a larger scale. At least those that can use their brains. — ssu

Among Russian elite and media personalities there was evident confusion and even dismay initially, but most regrouped and closed ranks, or else are keeping quiet. Some cautiously dissenting voices can occasionally be heard even in the official media. Karen Shakhnazarov is a director of a large film studio and an accomplished filmmaker. He's been a staunch Putin loyalist and a media fixture all these years. But the other day in a TV panel discussion he was heard saying: "We must admit that over the last 30 years they (Ukrainians) apparently managed to come together as a nation." (He blamed the traditionally more independent and nationalistic West Ukraine and their "Western curators" for that.) He admitted that not only Ukrainians are not welcoming Russian soldiers, but are fighting back, and that they are determined and united. He even called the war a "war" - a taboo word in Russian official discourse. (Of course, Shakhnazarov hastened to make clear that he fully supports the "special operation.")

It's basically impossible to have any intelligible discussion with this level of denial.

The question is about bio weapons, a weapon of mass destruction and if Ukraine has them. — boethius

The question is raised by Russia. Intel leaked (as intel leaked before that was confirmed by Russian acts) points to possible chemical attack by Russia.

You listen to Russias narrative, you have that in mind when interpreting statements not mentioning anything like that. You interpret according to the planted ideas of bioweapons and weapons of mass destruction.

You have no evidence, there's nothing but an old conspiracy theory and propaganda narrative originated from Russia. But you still entertain the though as valid, without anything concrete to support it.

This is why I think all of this is stupid. It's basically how conspiracy theories work. Confusing facts with being on the same level as questions raised concluding in conjecture without any real connected dots.

Try and make a conclusion that only uses what we actually know. If you want to elevate that to what you are talking about, then you need further support for that.

You can't use your previous, un-evidenced assumptions as evidence for your next assumption — Isaac

A bioweapons facility exists in enemy territory — Isaac

I rest my case

The question is raised by Russia. Intel leaked (as intel leaked before that was confirmed by Russian acts) points to possible chemical attack by Russia. — Christoffer

Neither Nuland nor Tucker Carlson are Russians.

And, your whole argument is "statements" by the government have no factual, or even critical thinking value (lab could "mean anything") ... yet "leaked intel" you find more credibly objective, true and no possible ulterior motives ... and somehow not statements from the government?

We know exactly what Russia is thinking and doing and planning because of Western "leaked intel"?

Try and make a conclusion that only uses what we actually know. — Christoffer

Good idea, let's try that. You provide the template.

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons — Christoffer

Lay that out for us using only what we actually know.

Any question can be evaluated as to whether it is a sensible question or not. Going even further, I can tell if I would have wanted or if I wanted to ask that question. That means I think it is a valid question to ask. When I get the answers I will make up my mind about the answer.

Lets see the transcript and I did watch the video of the testimony:

3:51
>> DOES UKRAINE HAVE CHEMICAL OR
3:54
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS?
3:56
>> UKRAINE HAS BIOLOGICAL
4:01
RESEARCH FACILITIES WHICH IN
4:04
FACT WE ARE NOW QUITE CONCERNED
4:06
RUSSIAN TROOPS, RUSSIAN FORCES
4:09
MAY BE SEEKING TO GAIN CONTROL
4:12
OF.
4:13
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE
4:15
UKRAINIANS ON HOW THEY CAN
4:17
PREVENT ANY OF THOSE RESEARCH
4:19
MATERIALS FROM FALLING INTO THE

Ok. Why not answer "No, Mr. Chairman, as you know the United States does not fund Chemical or Bio Weapons research in other countries. " Could it be that lying to congress is a crime? Is that a possibility after all? Possibility.

Russia is now trying to smoke screen a possible attack with chemical weapons
— Christoffer — Isaac

Don't you think that is one of the possible explanations but not the only one? Probabilities aside.

yet "leaked intel" you find more credibly objective, true and no possible ulterior motives. — boethius

Because the strategy has been in the open over the course of this entire war. It is true because leaked information has been validated by how it relates to Russian propaganda and acts in the war. So concluding it to be more plausible is based on the actual events of leaked intel undermining Russian narratives before their acts. This is why it's more credible, not that we trust the government more, but how the act of leaking intel that is actually linked to acts Russia is doing. So if intel is leaked about Russia possibly using chemical weapons, it can be plausible they will do so, especially when they at the same time try to start a narrative about Ukrainian labs. Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/russia/595916-us-employs-unusual-intel-strategy-to-counter-putin

The tactic didn’t prevent Russia from invading Ukraine, but experts credit it with scrambling and defanging some of the Russian plots to create a false justification for an invasion, as well as preparing the world to react quickly.

I don't see any complication there except of your making. — Isaac

Bosnia, Serbia (not Kosovo), Libya and Afghanistan didn't have nuclear weapons. (Libya had a program, which was a joke, didn't go anywhere). None of these countries were CIS countries allied with Russia. Had Putin been not so hostile towards it's neighbors, likely he could have emerged as a person of reason and sanity in this crazy World. It would be sitting in the G8 with it's friends Germany and France and there would be absolutely no talk of joining NATO in my country. We would be extremely happy with our non-NATO member stance.

When the Baltic states joined NATO, there were not even planned any kind of Article 5. defense for the Baltic States. One NATO member thought it was too provocative to even have plans to defend the Baltic States. There were no NATO exercises in the Baltics. Estonia was basically reprimanded for sticking with something as obsolete as conscription and area defence strategy. Basically the armed forces were not for repelling a possible Russian attack

Russia has no less a reason to fear being attacked than America does. If America has legitimate concerns about where its bases should be located then so does Russia. — Isaac

Having security concerns are really a bit different from attacking other countries.

There simply isn't any justification or logical reasoning to attack a country when the action has the totally opposite effect on your security situation than you want. It has been totally counterproductive. It's all been totally counterproductive.

It would be like the Chinese would lose their marbles and started harassing US allies in the Pacific perhaps by starting to sink Japanese, South Korea or Australian ships. You really think that would benefit the Chinese? That it would cow US allies not to have strong ties with the US? Of course not!

What China can do (and is doing) is to develop it's armed forces and try to improve it's economy (as it has done). And just let the US talk about the "Chinese threat". As the were talking about the "threat" of Japan taking the dominant economic position in the World earlier.

valid question to ask. — FreeEmotion

When I get the answers I will make up my mind about the answer. — FreeEmotion

You already made up your mind, you just try to find stuff that supports it.

This shows the utter lack of understanding how a country governed by laws operates and that it is usually the dictatorships that are the most corrupt. — ssu

Doesn't it depend on the dictator? Putin was chosen because he was corrupt and so would protect Yeltsin. If he dies in office, couldn't there be a reset where Russia becomes less corrupt?

Because the strategy has been in the open over the course of this entire war. — Christoffer

And you base this "strategy" of objective truth telling openness ... on what?

On leaked intel?

And you base this "strategy" of objective truth telling openness ... on what? — boethius

Read what I wrote again...

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Do you understand what I'm saying here?

Do you understand what I'm saying here? — Christoffer

So, you "interpret" leaked intel as being 100% credible.

But our interpreting Nuland's clear answers to direct questions to just mean what she clearly means ... is invalid "interpretation"? Because it doesn't cohere to previous phases where the US government was denying any bio weapons labs in Ukraine...

That because they've kept it a secret for a long while--hasn't "played out" as information in an earlier phase--and a top US official, most closely associated with the original Ukraine coup and managing things since, is only disclosing this secret now ... it, therefore, cannot possibly be true?

So, you "interpret" leaked intel as being 100% credible. — boethius

Oh for fuck sake, are you illiterate, can you please READ what I wrote here AGAIN and see if you can understand it before continuing?

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

I've found that there's no point in discussing further without getting a good validation that what I've written has been interpreted correctly first. I have no interest in circle jerk behaviors.

Don't you think that is one of the possible explanations but not the only one? Probabilities aside. — FreeEmotion

Yeah, definitely. They're both as bad as each other. If it came out later that they'd cooked the whole thing up between them to boost arms sales I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

I've no objection to having the least charitable interpretation of Russian motives possible. It's probably right. What I object strongly to is the associated white-knighting of the US and Europe. They're far more powerful so giving them a free ride is way more dangerous in the long run.

And, just so everyone's aware, one good explanation for everything:

1. Snap surprise invasion planned in a week
2. Conventional warfare not starting for 2 weeks, small units rushing everywhere not super clear strategy wise.
3. Russia not caring at all about world opinion or sanctions.
4. Far larger invasion than anyone expected.

Is perfectly explained if Russia knew about these bio-weapons labs (because Russia has had intel ops in Ukraine for ... basically ever ... and it's a pretty corrupt "intel space" where people are super likely to sell info to the Russians as "be a patriot").

And the "irrational" chaos of the first phases of the war was to ensure securing these labs with special forces: take over the lab, get the researcher in charge to message back "the shower is cleaned; the pubes have been itched; the hair is in the drain", and then wait for a salient to secure the position, which are so random and chaotic that it's impossible to deduce what the Russians are doing until it's too late.

It is truly a "game changer", and you can't really fake secret research if you find it. Other NATO countries can easily verify the info checks out as something only the CIA could have helped create, both contextual evidence and human testimony (of double agent / captured researchers) overwhelming.

So, if Russia knew about it ... which is honestly the only way it could credibly "fall into enemy hands", then it explains a lot about the Kremlin's decision making.

If it was just speculation on the internet, it would just be speculation on the internet, but these few statements by Nuland are quite possibly the most shocking statements in the history of international relations, all in a tiny handful of phrases.

It's truly a completely bizarre and almost unimaginable (any point in time before) turn of events.

Having security concerns are really a bit different from attacking other countries. — ssu

Right, I've actually quoted our entire conversation and you're still making up stuff you imagine I said rather than using the quotes I painstakingly provided for you. I don't see the point replying if my role in this discussion is going to take place entirely in your head.

Oh for fuck sake, are you illiterate, can you please READ what I wrote here AGAIN and see if you can understand it before continuing? — Christoffer

I respond to exactly what you say ... what are you missing.

You say you're "interpreting" government actions ... like "leaked intel" which are still government statements, just nominally supposed to be kept secret as it's intelligence during a war and potential nuclear escalation.

We're "interpreting" Nuland's statements.

What's the "information has played out in earlier phases" that are relevant for interpreting Nuland's public statements? Sure, information "pays out", I'm not denying that, but how do we know we're not seeing right now information playing out in the way it seems to be playing out: the US government admitting in public that Ukraine has bio-weapons that the US surely knew about if not helped create?

These handful of phrases by Nuland seem to have no other "interpretation", as you call it, other than representing the greatest intelligence and clandestine failure in all of history. By a wide margin.

it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Governments obviously leak intelligence to support their interests and/or undermine the interests of opposing governments.

One of the ways leaked intelligence could be used to undermine opposition governments is to de-fang their propaganda.

That can, in no way, serve as evidence, or even greater likelihood, that any given intelligence leak is being used for that purpose. Simply being one of the options doesn't stand as evidence that it is more likely than any of the others.

And it could get even bigger ... it's possible that the Russians discover the exact lab where SARS-COV-V2 originated, and manage to prove it ... maybe still unlikely, but honestly anything seems possible after watching this answer by Nuland.

Even so, already easily rivals the spies in the Manhattan projects as:

A. US needed a lot of scientists to make the bomb, and scientists can have sophisticated ethical and political analysis and decide it's not acceptable that only the US has these weapons, especially considering they are willing to use them, and are really smart so it's by definition a challenge to keep tabs on them. So, certainly a Soviet intelligence success, but it's not like the US intelligence community mishandled and just "failed' miserably in securing the Manhattan project.

B. Soviets may have developed the bomb anyways in roughly the same amount of time, so the Manhattan project spies may not have changed world history much.

Likewise, the Soviet movement of missiles to Cuba ... difficult to keep a secret, and the political point would be the US knows about it anyways (just as Russia knows about missiles in Poland).

As well as breaking enigma; it's not like the German cryptographers had a dumb system easy to break.

Whereas in the present situation, in the middle of a real possibility of nuclear war, it's honestly a truly dumbfounded level of incompetence to not only have these labs ... but then not get rid of them ... by yesterday?

And, rationally, the only justification to have these secret labs in Ukraine (in a sort of "closer we are to danger, farther we are from harm" sort of plan) ... would be to do something truly nefarious. It's certainly not for Ukraine's "protection".

I can assure you that nearly every world leader and diplomat and intelligence officer and military officer on the entire planet is thinking the same as us: what the fuck just happened?

Doesn't it depend on the dictator? Putin was slexiochosen because he was corrupt and so would protect Yeltsin. If he dies in office, couldn't there be a reset where Russia becomes less corrupt? — frank

I think it can. Many seem to have lost hope in this. The fact is that it takes decades for corruption to be erased as it's more part of the culture. Or simply such a horrible disaster that people agree that the past has to be forgotten and a totally new society has to be created. Like happened in post-war Japan or Germany.

A dictator cannot do everything. He isn't omnipotent. And dictators have this urge to control issues with special decrees, personally made laws and of micromanagement. To portray themselves as the leader "who makes things done". This creates an environment where actually corruption prospers. For example Hitler's Germany was quite corrupt.

You say you're "interpreting" government actions ... like "leaked intel" which are still government statements, just nominally supposed to be kept secret as it's intelligence during a war and potential nuclear escalation. — boethius

:shade:

No, you basically seem to not understand what I'm saying. Or intentionally since otherwise it would undermine your argument.

Let's break it down for you so it becomes easier for you.

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government, it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases. — Christoffer

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government
This means that interpreting the events that have unfolded previously has nothing to do with what governments are literally saying, i.e their info is not the validating factor.

it has to do with interpreting the behaviors of these governments and how the information has played out in earlier phases.
This means interpreting the interplay between acts by governments involved in this conflict.

So, Russia releases a statement that others accuse of being propaganda, false and lies (example: "we will not invade Ukraine). The west releases intel regarded by outside analysis to be purposeful leaked intel (this intel cannot be verified as true at the time it is released, example: Russia will do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine). At this point, it's word against word and disregarding years of confirmed disinformation from Russia we'll just go with the events here. Russia claims independence for regions of Ukraine. The west releases intel of false flag operation. Russia releases "cry for help" from the independent regions, i.e false flag operation started. This validates the leaked intel of false flag operation. Russia then initiates a full-scale invasion. This validates the leaked intel of full-scale invasion.
These are initial acts from the west by leaking intel that is later confirmed by actions made by Russia.

This interplay points to how events might play out going forward.

So when Russia forms a narrative around labs in Ukraine. And the west leaks intel once again that undermines that intel, i.e Russia might use chemical weapons. That will inform a plausible event chain based on previous events. It does not mean it will happen, it means it is likely it will happen according to these previous interplays. Nothing of this validates the current "leaked intel" as true, but the creating a likely scenario based on previous events.

This is what I've proposed. A likely scenario based on previous events. Because it's more likely that events play out as I've described compared to the fiction and conspiracy interpretations other people try to play against it. I have the events that have happened, a chain of causality that is likely to continue, the interplay between the west and Russia as the foundation, while you use Putin's propaganda, a vague interpretation of a vague answer to a question and a conspiracy narrative that was debunked, or a misunderstanding of what types of labs there are in the world. Nothing confirming bioweapons, nothing confirming a link to anything about Russia's chemical weapons, only the using the link provided by Putin and his propaganda machine.

So if you continue to do your circular reasoning by saying that I say the intel is 100% you are either intentionally misinterpreting what I write or you don't actually understand what I write.

Governments obviously leak intelligence to support their interests — Isaac

Or to just undermine the propaganda so that Russia's actions cannot be justified by them through lies.

I know that you just want to blame the west and the US all the time, but that bias just makes you unable to break the circular reasoning you're doing over and over.

I would have hoped to hear other people in here, but it seems like a gang of apologists have formed in here to circle jerk the entire thread. So what's the point of actually trying to discuss anything of this. You're clearly not taking in what other people write and just repost the same conclusion over and over without any attempt at premises that support it.

Interpreting these events has nothing to do with trusting any government — Christoffer

Your narrative is based on "leaked intel": aka. trusting the government in question's intel is accurate to begin with and leaked for the purpose of "just being open" ... aka. trusting the government is telling the truth when they say they are just being open and honest with everyone and that they actually have the truth to be open about in the first place.

Leaked intel could be fabricated but it could also simply false anyways.

Comparing that intellectual process to a top US official just answering a question in public and admitting in public to certain things ... can just be dismissed because "government's can't be trusted" and "lab can mean anything"?

Like happened in post-war Japan or Germany. — ssu

This is why I'm hoping for a Russian revolution. Clearly, there are enough people in Russia who don't want the current form of government.

Your narrative is based on "leaked intel": aka. trusting the government in questions intel is accurate — boethius

So you don't understand what I wrote, even with that nice breakdown. Or you just ignore it to fit your argument. Either way, if you don't understand what I'm talking about and just strawman everything like that, then there's no point in engaging in a discussion with you. I can wait until you engage the argument as the argument I presented, not your delusional interpretation of it.

Your narrative is based on "leaked intel": aka. trusting the government in questions intel is accurate to begin with and leaked for the purpose of "just being open" ... aka. trusting the government is telling the truth when they say they are just being open and honest with everyone. — boethius

:up: