Recently resurfaced reports and admissions of high-profile U.S. officials confirm that the U.S. government has funded research on deadly pathogens in Ukrainian biological laboratories. Combined with other political and military factors that were largely influenced by the United States, this most likely contributed to the Russian rationale for invading Ukraine.
As reported by The New American last week, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a hearing that “Ukraine has biological research facilities” that the U.S. government is “concerned” would fall under Russian control.
As noted in the report, “The extent of U.S. involvement with Ukrainian labs that allegedly worked on biological weapons development is unclear, and it seems likely the U.S. government is not being fully transparent about it.”
For example, the U.S. embassy in Ukraine deleted all of its bio-lab documents from the official website, according to a News Punch report.
A resurfaced official report from 2011 from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Anticipating Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-Containment Biological Laboratories of the National Institute of Health (NIH) stated,
The collaboration [between the United States and Ukraine] focuses on preventing the spread of technologies, pathogens, and knowledge that can be used in the development of biological weapons. [Emphasis added.]
How would Russia view such developments on its border? Dr. Robert Malone, who has vast experience in working with the U.S. defense community, posted on his Substack,
If one looks at the situation from a Russian geopolitical-realpolitik frame of reference, the gradual development of a NATO-aligned state along the Russian border, replete with US-sponsored “Biolabs” that were (at best) working with biothreat agents (toxins, pathogens) collected from the Ukrainian region (and heavens knows where else), represented a legitimate threat to Russian national security.
Malone added that based on his professional experience, he finds it probable that the United States was indeed involved in the development of bioweapons in these labs, even though the U.S. government denies it.
Speaking with Peter Navarro of The War Room on Wednesday, Dr. Malone said that it was “highly unlikely” that the sole purpose of the labs was to collect and archive dangerous pathogens. In agreement with Russian military intelligence, he would definitely view these labs as a “potential threat,” which is “consistent with the whole pattern of increasing assimilation of Ukraine as a client state [of NATO].”
Asked why the United States “puts our [bio]labs” in places such as China and Ukraine, Malone alleged that the U.S. federal government, specifically the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institute of Allergies and Infection Diseases (NIAID), and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DRTA) of the DOD are offshoring risk and legal liability, and trying to circumvent congressional oversight concerning activities related to bioweapons development.
In his Substack post, Malone argued that the Russian position on asking Ukraine to give up its NATO aspiration and becoming a neutral country may be a “valid point.”
“If you believe the recent statements by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov (as reported by The Epoch Times), if the Ukraine gives up NATO alliance/US Client state aspirations, then there is a deal to be made to end the ‘war,’” he wrote.
However, becoming a neutral demilitarized state seems not to be the desire of the Ukrainian establishment, as appears from the “hyperbole and propaganda” pushed by President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration, as noted by Malone.
On Wednesday, Zelensky pleaded with the U.S. Congress and President Biden to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which is viewed by many as a move that would bring the United States into war with Russia.
Malone further points out that the Biden administration — with the apparent support of the U.S. Congress — has transferred $13.6 billion “to support what appears to me to be a lost cause in Ukraine.”
On Tuesday, President Biden signed a $1.5 trillion spending bill that will shore up federal funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which is also doling out cash for Ukraine.
Announcing additional military aid to Ukraine the next day, Biden said, “The American people are answering President Zelenskyy’s call for more help, more weapons for Ukraine to defend itself, more tools to fight Russian aggression. And that’s what we’re doing.”
The president hinted that more aid will be provided, since “This could be a long and difficult battle.”
Malone alleges that the Washington, D.C., “Uniparty,” together with the administration, has “reappropriated and transferred COVID-19 funds” for “foreign adventures in the Ukraine.” To replenish the Covid funds, the U.S. government will request — and almost certainly receive — up to $100 billion for future “pandemic preparedness.”
President Biden announced in early March a 96-page strategy dubbed the National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan that will require more spending.
As reported by The New American, the strategy is based on four pillars: protecting against, and treating Americans for, Covid, preparing for new Covid variants, preventing economic shutdowns, and leading the effort to “vaccinate the world.” The plan is full of provisions that will likely bear no positive results, such as developing a vaccine to protect against all current and future strains of Covid; vaccinating young children; adding antivirals, masks, and testing kits to the Strategic National Stockpile; buying more Covid tests; combating COVID “disinformation and misinformation,” and many other measures.
While recognizing Russian President Vladimir Putin as “an aggressive militaristic opportunist,” Malone concludes that the current situation in Ukraine “is largely of our (Team USA) own making due to ill-advised efforts to turn an economically distressed former USSR territory with petroleum assets (see ‘Burisma’) into a USA/NATO client state.”
