Stop using FOX news as any kind of valid source. :shade:
Verify with anything other than Fox please. It's the official media closest to conspiracy vloggers out there outside of pure state owned propaganda. Since Trump went into power, Fox has been sinking even lower than it already was and now it's impossible to use as a source.

Seriously, the media knowledge in this thread... :shade:

Stop using FOX news as any kind of valid source. — Christoffer

It's a completely valid source for just showing the super strange Q&A with Nuland at a public senatorial hearing. Whatever this conversation represents, it's a fact that it happened, and legitimate to ask questions about it.

Tucker Carlson also simply has completely valid critical thinking questions: such as if the purpose of the labs was to destroy Soviet bio weapons: a) why would that take 20 years b) why would you need to to that in the Ukraine instead of just transporting them to a NATO country, and c) what's so concerning about the Russians getting their soviet weapons back (presumably they already know about them and know how to secure them).

Facts need to be sourced, but just literally showing government statements is a valid source of the fact of those statements.

Critical thinking doesn't need to be sourced, and good questions are good questions whether from Tucker Carlson, anonymous forum posters, Putin, or anyone else.

I think anyone who looks at this source will get a good feel for my view that handing out small arms to civilians is just killing people for no military justification. People with rifles will be fired upon by mortar and artillery, bombs dropped on them etc. — boethius

The levels of support for this kind of cynical exchange of civilian lives for a cheap propaganda coup is vaguely excusable (if not morally sound) in a country actually at war, but supporting from the comfort of one's armchair, as many in the West are doing is, I think, disgraceful.

Just recently in England, our Foreign Secretary said of British civilians going to 'join the fight' -

I do support that, and of course that is something that people can make their own decisions about.

The people of Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging.

...until her own defence chief had to point out that that would be illegal.

Really, the levels of zealotry for this war in the West have become absurd.

Facts need to be sourced, but just literally showing government statements is a valid source of the fact of those statements. — boethius

Government statements aren't facts. And Russian statements right now have such a low validity that anyone even seriously listening to it does not have the capacity of rational thinking. Tucker is a fucking joke, he was a Putin apologist before the invasion and his word means jack shit. Fox is a propaganda channel through and through.

If you're gonna conclude anything as facts you need to have actual evidence and people need to realize how Putin and Russia conducts this war. The propaganda machine is their biggest tool. They establish a narrative and then they act, in order to confuse people or validate for their own people why they're doing what they're doing.

The thing is that when they do this with actual UN meetings, they know that if they can't control the narrative with the rest of the world that isn't as gullible as the Russian people, it's gonna be hard for them to use those types of weapons. So they're desperately trying to fool the world that the results we're gonna see "came from an Ukraine lab leak" instead of their intentional attacks.

It's quite clear what the plan is here and it's only fooling them who don't know how to sift through the propaganda BS.

Marco Rubio (R-FL) to Nuland: “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Nuland: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities...we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of them, 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”

My bolding. It's on tape. The news channel broadcasting the tape is immaterial.

Ukraine has 'biological research facilities' the contents of which are of sufficient military function that there's a concern they may fall into the hands of the Russian forces.

If you're gonna conclude anything as facts you need to have actual evidence — Christoffer

Well, let's have them then. The actual evidence for...

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

Or are you immune from the need for evidence?

Lmao the government in question is the American one but yes keep talking about media literacy when you can't even gets basics right lol

Self-Appointed Smart Person: "media literacy is important".

Also Self-Appointed Smart Person: "lmao I don't need to watch that I can make stuff up without looking and misattribute total basics I am very enlightened".

Government statements aren't facts. — Christoffer

Government statements represent the fact the government made that statement, and give rise to legitimate questions about those statements.

That's how journalism and democracy is supposed to work: representatives (such as senators), journalists and pundits (such as Tucker Carlson), random people too, ask questions and the government responds by answering or not, giving rise to more questions about the answers or then the fact the government is not answering.

In terms of evaluating facts from government statements, certainly anything can be doubted, but if it seems something they would usually keep secret if it's true ... such as bio "research labs" in Ukraine (that isn't so famous for it's cutting edge bio medical research that is a concern if Russia gets hold of it ... to just go cure cancer in Russia or something?!?) ... maybe they are saying it because it's true, Russians have secured those labs already, and they want to get ahead of the story with some counter narrative of what those labs were about.

It's quite clear what the plan is here and it's only fooling them who don't know how to sift through the propaganda BS. — Christoffer

The Wests own sources, such as the Nuland senatorial hearing above, or Western journalists regularly visiting Azov brigade since 2014, is not Russian propaganda. Russia cannot be accused of creating propaganda if it's material literally coming from the US government or Western media institutions like the Times.

Of course, Russia will take that material and also use it for propaganda purposes, but the logic that this material (that a CIA chief / "Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs" admitting to building a bunch of "Bio Research Labs"--that were obviously secret as otherwise we'd already know about them as just normal university or hospital labs--gives rise to completely legitimate questions regardless of how big a gift that is to Putin and the Kremlin).

Seems that you have been gone a long time for some strawman argument, in thinking I'm denying something. — ssu

No. Here's the exchange...

Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. — Isaac

Again. Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it.

That's enough, really. - ssu

And the context before was me saying...

NATO has attacked loads of people. Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan... It's attacked them under the auspices of peacekeeping goals but it still attacked them, so Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. The fact that you personally trust their judgement of what counts as 'peacekeeping' is irrelevant in international relations.

...in response to questions about whether advancing NATO was provocation.

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

Thanks for transcribing ... it's pretty common sense Tucker Carlson's questions, and credit where credit's due.

Research facilities on biological substances exist all over the world, facilities being funded from many different companies or even governments based on what they're working on. A bioweapon facility, on the other hand, is something else. And in true Fox news fashion they report on how it's been debunked that Ukraine has bioweapon facilities but turn it towards the Biden administration as a "well, so asking questions about it means we are just Russian propaganda so that means it's all untrue *wink wink*"

Or are you immune from the need for evidence? — Isaac

What evidence?

A bioweapon facility, on the other hand, is something else. — Christoffer

Both Isaac and I have already commented that normal biol labs in universities, hospitals and private companies aren't really a concern if they "fall into enemy hands".

It's also an answer to the direct question about bio weapons ... so rambling about something totally different (legitimate biological research) in response to this question is at best some sort of delusional psychotic episode in the context.

Government statements represent the fact the government made that statement, and give rise to legitimate questions about those statements. — boethius

Yes, but questions does not equal counter-evidence or counter-arguments.

but the logic that this material (that a CIA chief admitting to building a bunch of "Bio Research Labs"--that were obviously secret as otherwise we'd already know about them as just normal university or hospital labs — boethius

Both Isaac and I have already commented that normal biol labs in universities, hospitals and private companies aren't really a concern if they "fall into enemy hands". — boethius

You do know that research labs on extreme contagious viruses are considered secret in practice and location so that criminal groups, terrorists or foreign agents won't attack, steal or infiltrate them? Many of these labs are government funded. This does not equal them being bioweapon facilities.

What evidence do you have that any of these are bioweapon facilities? It's important to have clear facts.

Research facilities on biological substances exist all over the world — Christoffer

They do. There's one not far from where I live. Neither I no my government would care if an invading force got hold of it because it just contains a load of non-weaponised samples of easily available various pathogens which would rapidly die outside of the very tightly controlled conditions in the lab.

And if they're not bioweapons, or anything close they why were they mentioned as an answer to the question "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

She didn't say " no, but they've got some great restaurants "

What evidence? — Christoffer

Evidence for the claim you made, obviously.

Yes, but questions does not equal counter-evidence or counter-arguments. — Christoffer

You don't seem to be following the conversation.

What evidence do you have that any of these are bioweapon facilities? It's important to have clear facts. — Christoffer

The evidence is what Isaac just literally transcribed. We can assume Nuland knows whatever these labs are about, otherwise it's unlikely she'd improvise, and from her statement we can pretty safely conclude there is a military purpose for these research labs.

If you want to say she's making it up as she has zero knowledge of the situation or actually wants the whole world to believe the Ukraine military has bio weapons labs (WMD's) the US knows about and funds directly or indirectly ... then that's a possibility too.

The propaganda machine is their biggest tool. They establish a narrative and then they act, in order to confuse people or validate for their own people why they're doing what they're doing. — Christoffer

That's exactly what the US (and their British Poodle) are doing, too. They establish a narrative and then they act:

Propaganda in the United States - Wikipedia

This is common knowledge, unless you live on a different planet (called Finland). So, perhaps you ought to acquaint yourself with some basic facts before lecturing others about facts. :grin:

It makes "emotional sense" now, but will make zero rational sense as soon as the War is over and the extreme damages to Ukraine and people's lives contended with. — boethius

Some people keep saying that Putin “miscalculated”. But I think it is fair to say that Zelensky miscalculated even more. All he had to do was to promise not to join NATO and recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian. That would have saved half of his country from being reduced to rubble.

In any case, the Russians learned their tactics from America and Britain and are following the example of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden .....

They do. There's one not far from where I live. Neither I no my government would care if an invading force got hold of it because it just contains a load of non-weaponised samples of various pathogens which would rapidly die outside of the very tightly controlled conditions in the lab. — Isaac

And that means that there are no higher tier labs anywhere with pathogens much worse? That doesn't mean a thing.

Evidence for the claim you made, obviously. — Isaac

I was asking for evidence of bioweapon labs in Ukraine funded by the US for bioweapon research. What evidence exist? Questions by Tucker on Fox news aren't evidence.

Some people keep saying that Putin “miscalculated”. But I think it is fair to say that Zelensky miscalculated even more. All he had to do was to promise not to join NATO and recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian. That would have saved half of his country from being reduced to rubble. — Apollodorus

Yes, and if the offer was bad faith and Putin attacked anyways, then it's far easier to legitimately claim there is an existential war happening with an enemy that cannot be dealt with diplomatically.

And even Putin's demands to pull back NATO to Germany makes rational sense considering the justification of that forward deployment was to send missiles to Afghanistan and NATO was "adamant" that was the reason literally stating it has nothing to do with Russia... which doesn't seem such a good justification anymore, and NATO just huffs and puffs that "of course they're not removing those missile bases! Don't be absurd! Delusional demands from the Kremlin!!".

Here's the conversation we just had...

Us: The US Secretary of State has just admitted that Ukraine has biological research facilities of such a nature that it would be concerning if they fell into the hands of enemy forces - that sounds like they might be bio weapons.

You: You need evidence, evidence, evidence...

Later...

You: Russia are going to the UN to discuss the bio-weapons issue, that sounds like they're creating a smokescreen for a bio-weapon attack of their own

Me: You need evidence

You: What do you mean I need evidence?

And that means that there are no higher tier labs anywhere with pathogens much worse? That doesn't mean a thing. — Christoffer

The point is not the tier of the lab, the point is that Nuland was concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces. You don't think Russia has sources of Anthrax, Ricin, Botulinum, Tularemia... They don't need to go to Ukraine to get samples of the sorts of pathogens which could be released as bio-weapons. If they were going to use them, they'd have just brought some with them.

The issue people are interested in (anyone above kindergarten level analysis, anyway) is why Nuland would be concerned about these samples getting into the hands of the Russian forces. If they were purely defensive preparations in this lab, then they would be defences against preparations the Russians already had, wouldn't they? So no cause for concern about them falling into the hands of the Russians.

The only reasonable explanation for the concern is that the labs contain samples of something the Russians could use as a weapon which they don't already have. In that instance it's very hard to see how they could have been researching some standard global risk. The Russians would already have samples of that.

Russian combat effectiveness seems to have plunged. They're using reconstituted regiments now, forming new units out of ones cut down far from dull strength. Conservative US estimates are 5-6,000 KIA, which would mean an additional 10,000-15,000+ wounded.

This is borne out by the recruitment drive in Syria, consideration of using unreliable Belarusian forces, and use of Chechen irregulars and mercenaries like the Wagner Group as frontal assault units for their main effort on Kyiv. Also the abandonment of Kharkiv. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Speaking at a meeting of Russia's security council, Defense Minister Sergei K. Shoigu claimed that some 16,000 fighters from the Middle East were ready to join the battle. President Vladimir V. Putin ordered the Russian Defense Ministry to help thousands of volunteers from the Middle East join the war in Ukraine.

(Officially, they are volunteering to "defend" the separatist Donbass.)

More worrying is the recently intensified propaganda claiming that biological weapons were being developed in US-sponsored labs in Ukraine. Such claims have a history going back to before the war, but back then it was just one strain in a flood of fantastical and outrageous anti-Ukraine propaganda. Now it is being repeated so insistently - and amplified by the Chinese - that it looks very likely that Russia is preparing the ground for using chemical or biological weapons, like it did in Syria.

Russian combat effectiveness seems to have plunged. They're using reconstituted regiments now, forming new units out of ones cut down far from dull strength. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a totally normal process ... and may also be happening to Ukrainian forces. To say Russia is losing requires not just Russian losses, but more losses than Ukrainians (decrease in relative strength, not absolute strength). But, only Russian generals really have a good idea, likewise for Ukrainian generals about the state of Ukrainian forces.

This is borne out by the recruitment drive in Syria, consideration of using unreliable Belarusian forces, and use of Chechen irregulars and mercenaries like the Wagner Group as frontal assault units for their main effort on Kyiv. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This isn't surprising nor really indicates anything; a military is going to use the available assets the best it can; US equipped and advised jihadist fighters in it's proxy war with Syria, because it had those assets to use.

Also the abandonment of Kharkiv. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If the purpose is to cut Ukraine in half North to South then the purpose of all fighting in the East is simply to tie up Ukrainian forces until they can no longer effectively retreat to the West. If you want to retreat by civilian vehicle, that maybe impossible by now, and armor is vulnerable to air attack and whatever is left maybe out of fuel (maybe we didn't see much air power until now to not scare Ukrainian East deployed forces to retreat to the West).

If you're going to retreat on foot, according to google maps it would be 133 hour walk from Karkiv to Vinnytsia (that is a town just West of where the Russian pincers are likely to meet).

It's not possible to walk 133 hours in one go, so we can easily double that to 266 hours, which is 11 days (where you'd need to bring all the food you need, or then scavenge for it, and this assumes the optimum path as calculated by google).

Tying up the Ukrainians in the East and encircling them not only reduces significantly Ukrainian strength, but will almost certainly lead to a domino of surrenders of these encircled forces.

When people talk about sieges lasting years in ancient or medieval times ... the superb innovation of just in time supply lines had not yet been discovered.

If Russian generals see no way Ukrainian troops in Kharkiv can possibly retreat to West of their pincers in the time they calculate those pincers to meet, then there is no further need to keep pressure on Kharkiv and those troops can return to Russia and be circled around to reinforce the main pincers.

You don't seem to be following the conversation. — boethius

Well, if people keep spamming you will start confusing yourself as well.

The evidence is what Isaac just literally transcribed. We can assume Nuland knows the whatever these labs are about, otherwise it's unlikely she'd improvise, and from her statement we can pretty safely conclude there is a military purpose for these research labs. — boethius

That's not evidence for fuck sake. That's an answer that you interpret as being questionable.

If you want to say she's making it up as she has zero knowledge of the situation or actually wants the whole world to believe the Ukraine has bio weapons labs (WMD's) the US knows about / funds directly or indirectly ... then that's a possibility too. — boethius

Still no evidence for BIOWEAPON RESEARCH. Get it into your skull already.

She could very well be talking about Ebola strains which are not bioweapons. A specific Ebola strain in a high tier research facility could be vastly more infectious and dangerous than what we've seen in outbreaks since research labs do this to test out variants for treatments and that is totally legal and important in order to combat pathogens like it.

That's exactly what the US (and their British Poodle) are doing, too. They establish a narrative and then they act: — Apollodorus

Of course, but not with the level of state control Russia has and not with the blatant stupidity of thinking people outside of Russia falls for it. The scrutiny in the US and UK is much better since media is more free and it's easier for people to review and question such propaganda. If you do that in Russia you get sent to prison. It's not even comparable.

unless you live on a different planet (called Finland) — Apollodorus

Here's an example of you not ever reading what I'm writing because you think I live in Finland, so clearly you aren't paying attention to what I'm actually writing over the course of this thread.

All he had to do was to promise not to join NATO and recognize Crimea and the Donbas as Russian. That would have saved half of his country from being reduced to rubble. — Apollodorus

Are you still blaming Ukraine for this invasion? Like... you are unable to understand page after page of counter arguments to this? Ignoring how almost everyone points to Putin wanting to restore the Russian empire which has nothing to do with Nato except that if Ukraine joins Nato it becomes harder for him to invade and claim Ukraine? Promising not to join Nato does not mean that Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia, that's his goal. Nato stands in his way, that's all, that's the whole connection to Nato. He fears that further expansion of Nato will block his attempts to restore the empire borders. Why can't you understand this?

And stop blaming Ukraine for the invasion, it's disgusting.

that sounds like they might be bio weapons. — Isaac

Not evidence

Later...

You: Russia are going to the UN to discuss the bio-weapons issue, that sounds like they're creating a smokescreen for a bio-weapon attack of their own — Isaac

Based on previous behaviors during this war. In some way you are confusing evidence for the existence of a bioweapon facility with predicting war desinformation based on previous desinformation and active on-going desinformation. I never said they WILL use chemical weapons, I said they MIGHT.

There's also an inductive argument to be made. What's more likely based on what we know so far about this war? A) Russia continues to use propaganda and desinformation to try and control the narrative. B) The US has leaked intel continuously in order undermine that desinformation and has proven to be correct information based on Russia actually acting accordingly.
- So, the likely conclusion based on repeating events points to Russia aiming to use chemical weapons and will use the idea of a bioweapon facility in Ukraine having "leaks" in order to control the narrative so that the world blames Ukraine and not Russia if chemical weapons on civilians leaks to the world press. Pentagon leaking this intel falls in-line with how they've leaked previous intel in order to undermine Russian propaganda.

Since we can't deduct and only induct in this, we must go with most likely. A vague interpretation of a statement that might hint at a facility with dangerous pathogens co-funded by the US does not even remotely induce a conclusion of the Russian narrative. And even if there is a facility in Ukraine working on bioweapons, it would still not change the fact that Russia would use it as a scapegoat for their own attacks.

The point is not the tier of the lab, the point is that Nuland was concerned about them falling into the hands of Russian forces. You don't think Russia has sources of Anthrax, Ricin, Botulinum, Tularemia... They don't need to go to Ukraine to get samples of the sorts of pathogens which could be released as bio-weapons. If they were going to use them, they'd have just brought some with them. — Isaac

Of course the tier level has a point. You are all making conclusions based on interpreting Nulands statement but her statement would also work if the tier was top level. Just 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.

And if we're going by your narrative, what's the reason Russia would go there? Or do anything with it? Even if they had labs with such weapons, it's still a narrative from Russia to scapegoat Ukraine and the US if they attack with chemical weapons.

You guys seem to always do a flip in this. 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".

If Russia attacks with chemical weapons they are the guilty one of using chemical weapons. Period.
My point was how they were aiming to blame the west and Ukraine for their own attacks. Don't fucking tell me that if we start to see civilians killed by chemical attacks you're all gonna confirm that as Ukraine's labs being the cause of it :shade:

That's not evidence for fuck sake. That's an answer that you interpret as being questionable. — Christoffer

This is literally witness testimony. Nuland obviously knows about these labs.

What's more likely based on what we know so far about this war? A) Russia continues to use propaganda and desinformation to try and control the narrative. B) The US has leaked intel continuously in order undermine that desinformation and has proven to be correct information based on Russia actually acting accordingly. — Christoffer

This seems to me completely delusional.

You're saying US has leaked intel (are you saying this is "evidence" or more government statements that aren't evidence of anything?) ... in no way to try to control the narrative themselves? Just concerned truth seekers out to give the world an objective view of the situation on the ground?

Just 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

What legitimate research purposes? You're saying that there's legitimate purpose for Ukraine (a defacto ally of the US) to being doing it's own "defensive" bio-weapons research in multiple secret labs?

There are labs that do that kind of research: heavily regulated, super secure, of the large powers that deal in WMD's (not small corrupt countries). Any "defensive" measures against bio-weapons Ukraine could legitimately need, the US could easily do that research (as it does anyways in it's top security labs run by credible top-of-their-field researchers) and supply Ukraine with whatever information they could legitimately require to "defend themselves" against a bio-weapons attack.

There is literally zero possible "legitimate research" defense of Nuland's statements.

What's the hypothesis here, that Ukraine and the CIA have had the following dialogue:

Ukraine: Ok, you've given us a bunch of ATMG's and training and stuff, super cool, but how do we defend against a bio weapon attack?

CIA: Oh, you know, you just build a bunch of secret bio weapons labs ... you'll figure it out. It's really a "learn by doing" kind of thing, we can't really like "explain it" to you; kind of like, learning to play the flute or something; sure, you can come see us do it, and hear us talk about, but nothing replaces practice, practice, practice when it comes to the finger dexterity you need to work with pathogens that (if released, so definitely baby steps) could cause a global calamity.

Which, at least could explain why no one secured the labs, if you're learning by doing then you kind of need this sort of debacle to realize securing the labs during the military build up that may invade and find the labs / cause a second global pandemic with a single errant shell, is a good idea.

Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists. — Christoffer

Use of biological weapons is really stupid. As if they could be contained. At least with chemical weapons you can observe where the wind is blowing. Usually you end up killing your own troops, just like the Japanese did during WW2:

At least 12 large-scale bioweapon field trials were carried out, and at least 11 Chinese cities attacked with biological agents. An attack on Changde in 1941 reportedly led to approximately 10,000 biological casualties and 1,700 deaths among ill-prepared Japanese troops, in most cases due to cholera.

Oops.

But perhaps Putin will try to wreck the Ukrainian harvest and blame it on the US.

You see, to do annexations, you have to be smart. You have understand what the backlashes are, you don't get into a situation where the response of the outside World is like this. Good examples are Israel of for example Morocco with the Spanish Sahara.

I think that this is the beginning of the end for Putin. — ssu

It does not make sense that someone who has led the Russia for so many years is stupid. If you and I know the above facts, doesn't he know? He may be carrying out a last-ditch attempt to 'save Russia'. By the way, DW has an excellent video of Putin, this time supported by depressing facts. Also see the chief opposition leader also seems to support getting Ukraine into the fold as well. It is much deeper than we think. Seems to be largely supported by Russia, which means Putins future may depend on trying to take Ukraine.



Tucker asks some excellent questions. You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, and then it is a simple matter to figure out if it is a good question or not. As I said I do not trust anything without some verification - I watch news channels to get the facts about what each faction is saying. Their statements are valuable evidence, and revealing.

Tucker asks some excellent questions. You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, and then it is a simple matter to figure out if it is a good question or not. As I said I do not trust anything without some verification - I watch news channels to get the facts about what each faction is saying. Their statements are valuable evidence, and revealing. — FreeEmotion

Totally agree, Tucker basically lays out a pretty good critical analysis of this truly extraordinary exchange. We certainly don't know the truth yet.

However, what we can more easily evaluate about the main stream news is how different people are likely to perceive things. Obviously Russian's aren't going to be bending over backwards to find some strange interpretation that Nuland is just talking about pharmacies in Ukraine with discounts coupon, that if Russian were ever to discover would aid their war effort tremendously, and, technically speaking pharmacies can have some sort of laboratory to mix drugs and pharmacists do moonlight as meth producers from time to time (and, could have developed meth recipes that would be the perfect stimulants to power the Russian war machine).

This is literally witness testimony. Nuland obviously knows about these labs — boethius

It's not evidence of any bioweapon research. A lab doesn't mean anything. If Russia uses the idea of a "dangerous lab" as a scapegoat reason to hide chemical attacks, that doesn't mean there is a bioweapon facility because of your vague interpretation of her statement. "She clearly knows about..." doesn't mean shit. And if you think that's "witness testimony", try use that in a court with a straight face. None of this is evidence, jeez

You're saying US has leaked intel (are you saying this is "evidence" or more government statements that aren't evidence of anything?) ... in no way to try to control the narrative themselves? Just concerned truth seekers out to give the world an objective view of the situation on the ground? — boethius

I'm saying that the inductive conclusion to what has been going on in this war points to what I said. You are using conspiracy narratives and valuing Russian propaganda as valid perspectives as support for yours. We know that Pentagon leaked intel about the invasion, about the acts Russia were going to take and then Russia did exactly so. This undermined their attempt at justifying the invasion and helped undermine the propaganda both in Russia and internationally. This happened, it's literally what happened at the start of the war. So leaking intel about chemical weapons COULD be in line with this strategy, which has proven to be highly effective. It's the inductive conclusion based on what we know.

What legitimate research purposes? You're saying that there's legitimate purpose for Ukraine (a defacto ally of the US) to being doing it's own "defensive" bio-weapons research in multiple secret labs? — boethius

There's no evidence for bioweapon research. Research on dangerous pathogens don't need to be weaponized in order to be dangerous. Read what I write.

There is literally zero possible "legitimate research" defense of Nuland's statements. — boethius

That is a final conclusion if I've ever seen one. So there's no other possibility than there being a bioweapon facility? There are no problems with such a final conclusion, such a final definitive fact that you conclude out of that statement? If this is how you arrive at your conclusions, no wonder they're all over the place.

And even so how does that have anything to do with the possibility of a Russian chemical attack?

Could we establish whose version we trust? Does anyone here trust the US Governments official pronouncements or are these to be met with skepticism?

Does it occur that saying bad things about the enemy - what they have done, what they will do, what their intentions are, are all propaganda and some of it may be actually fabricated?

How can an opinion be fact? If there is a attack using bioweapons it will be Putin? 100%? With statements like that it only makes sense for the Ukrainians to stage one - that is simply being strategic.

You may dispute facts, but you cannot dispute that a question has been asked, — FreeEmotion

By Fox news and Tucker who's consistently using everything possible to smudge democratic administrations. And what the fuck does it even mean to validate anything through the idea that you "can't dispute a question". Like, how are you all even arriving at valid rational conclusions if you treat "raised questions" as almost equal to facts?