The neocon's confession does not justify Russia's invasion and bombardment of Ukraine. But it does shed critical light on the U.S. role in Ukraine, and raises vital questions about these labs that deserve answers -- including why self-anointed "fact-checkers" declared this False.
It is also notable how Nuland - a hard-core neocon from one of America's royal neocon families - went from being Dick Cheney's national security adviser to running Ukraine for Obama and Biden. Except when Trump was president, she's always in power: showing the two-party lockstep.
Whatever else is true, we should know what these so-called "biological research facilities" in Ukraine are. Claims that they are benign and common are negated by Nuland's grave concerns about the "materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces."
Reporting on admissions by top U.S. officials, testifying under oath before the Senate, is now "Russian propaganda," says drooling McCarthyite cretins like @peterjukes (who, notably, confines himself to posting Churchillian war poems on Twitter rather than fighting in Ukraine):
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We don't know if biological weapons are in Ukraine. We do know there are dangerous "biological research facilities" there: which we know because Victoria Nuland, shocking Rubio, warned about.
But the history of US programs gives the lie to WH denials about bioweapons in general.
It's been amazing to watch the entire US corporate media -- from the NYT to certain Pentagon reporters on Fox -- unite to *proclaim* that concerns about bio weapons labs in Ukraine are *false.* They 100% *do not know that*: they only CIA/DoD denies it.
I wonder where the enormous amounts of weapons flooding into Ukraine might end up? Do you think it will be with the nice, moderate forces, or the most extremist forces such as those nice neo-Nazi gentlemen in the Azov? Might this cause problems in the future: Syria & Afghanistan?
If you say that only a Kremlin agent or a pro-Putin apologist would care about such consequences of emotionally cathartic policies, these questions will blissfully disappear.
After YouTube notified the producers of Oliver Stone's Ukraine film that it was removing it from their channel, @rumblevideo uploaded the film. In less than a day, it's been viewed more than 150k times. Watch with a critical eye, but highly recommended:
This thread reveals one of the most alarming episodes yet for free information and state censorship. The EU has *ordered* search engines and social media companies to suppress and/or disappear Russian news outlets. Defending democracy through repression:
Ukraine has "biological research facilities," says Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland, when asked by Sen Rubio if Ukraine has biological or chemical weapons, and says she's worried Russia may get them. But she says she's 100% sure if there's a biological attack, it's Russia.
Really good cleanup by Rubio: interrupting Nuland's bizarre confession, which he did not expect, and immediately directing her to say that if there's a biological attack, it must be Russia.
Why is she so concerned Russia would seize such a benign "biological research facility"?
It's one of those odd yet revealing facts of Washington than under both Obama and now Biden, the person in charge of Ukraine policy at the State Department is a hard-core neocon from the royal neocon Kagan family. Beloved by both parties:
"Some 74% of Americans - including solid majorities of Republicans and Democrats - said the US and its allies in the NATO should impose a no-fly zone in Ukraine, the poll found.
An equally bipartisan 80% of Americans said the United States should stop buying Russian oil."
It's definitely reasonable to assume -- and the Reuters article suggests -- that many people who say they support a no-fly zone don't realize all that it entails. But just 2 weeks ago, large majorities didn't want a major US role in Ukraine. That changed radically and quickly.
And note there's almost zero partisan difference. These views are fully bipartisan. There was (and, to a lesser extent, still is) some heterodoxy and debate within right-wing media circles, but GOP officials themselves have been 100% pro-Ukraine along with Dems from the start.