> Many of the ads, which are mostly clips of CGTN newscasts, sprinkle in pro-Russia, anti-NATO talking points and downplay Russia's actions in launching an unprovoked invasion of its neighbor.
So what exactly did they say?
So what exactly did they say?
They peddle Russia’s claim that US has bioweapons in Ukraine: https://www.newsweek.com/china-peddles-russias-claim-that-us...
And here’s CGTN’s article on “biolabs” in Ukraine, citing Russia media outlets and officials: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1254330.shtml
Edit: As pointed out by a commenter, the above article is from GlobalTimes, not CGTN. The actual CGTN article: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-03-07/Russia-reveals-evidenc...
Point being you don't need the quotes. There are definitely DoD built biolabs, and a surprisingly large amount of them.
[1] - https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defen...
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170211022339/https://photos.st...
They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”.
They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same thing with cybersecurity. By learning to prevent cyberattacks, you are also learning how to carry out cyberattacks. And vice versa. You can't research against diseases/viruses/etc without procuring, creating and developing them.
Edited to replace virus with "pathogen".
Production of Bacillus anthracis spores for weapons use in the Soviet Union was in progress when an accident resulted in a release of spores that killed at least 66 people:
Unless your primary concern is defensive against biowarfare rather than natural outbreaks...which is indeed a priority for military research h.
You can try and find specific counter examples, but I think the idea that most virus research, and scientific research in general, could likely be repurposed for bad or good, is probably pretty accurate in general.
Policing "bad" science while allowing "good" science is probably an impossible task.
This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start getting into weapon-making territory.
Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility", not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.
By nobody you mean everybody, especially everybody outside of the west? It's funny how blinded we are by our false sense of moral superiority.
> not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.
Last I checked, doesn't take that much technical effort or time going from "civilian" to militar/weapons grade. There are an entire class of nations classified as nuclear latent powers - about 20 or so nations who could piggy back off their "civilian" nuclear industry to nuclears weapons in weeks/months. Surprisingly, the list is made up primarily of western nations ( which nobody would characterize as having nuclear weapons research facilities ) and japan/south korea/etc.
Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.
Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc...
So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.
This is absurdly untrue.
This is an error to the level of claiming that programming language research is the same as video game manual writing, and then trying to justify it as "but they both involve computers"
> The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases. The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures. The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats
"Of the $41.91 million, $37.61 million was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which describes its mission as “to protect the United States and its allies by enabling the DoD and international partners to detect, deter, and defeat WMD and threat networks.”"
https://nypost.com/2021/07/01/pentagon-gave-millions-to-ecoh...
I wonder why when the pandemic hit, there was literally zero useful info coming out of all these threat reduction programs?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/no-white-...
Where would these pathogens and toxins that need to be secured be coming from?
The two hypotheses about the origins of COVID are natural (wet market) and accidental (lab leak). Back when “The War On Terror” was the political Zeitgeist-meme, there was at least one anthrax attack (deliberate), and I remember suggestions that terrorists might also try to trigger foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks or algal blooms (it may not surprise you to learn that the latter was suggested by someone looking for government funding for their existing research into algal blooms).
Bioweapons defense is pretty fuzzy, as until recently you generally had to study a strain for a long amount of time to develop and test an effective vaccine. Which means you have to have a representative strain. Which means you either need to get one... or create your best guess.
All while the environment and/or your adversary are doing god knows what out of your sight.
Miracles like a vaccine-in-a-year don't just happen. They build on decades of research and preparedness.
I obviously don't know what the labs mentioned by the parent poster were doing but the fact that the US DoD (or any country's department of defense) does medical research should be about as surprising as the fact that they do research on explosives.
I also worked for a company which had several novel therapeutics for agents commonly used in bioweapons in their pipeline and the DoD was funding parts of that as well.
So the DOD funding research could mean it thought the research could mean it had potential as a weapon, or a defense against weapons, or was just a random thing being funded to promote basic science research.
You can't really draw a line from "This was funded by this department, so it had this intent" in US science funding.
US has changed to a limited interpretation of what a biological weapon is, and considers non-deadly biological agents to not be bioweapons when it comes to treaties banning them.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121204112835/http://www.fas.or...
The US does research into chemical and bio-weapons they do not consider to be lethal:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121119043547/http://www.fas.or...
Plus historically, there are plenty of wars where disease was more deadly than enemy combatants.
There is no conspiracy here unless you just want to see it.
At the time, pandemic influenza was the best guess, but the point of the platform and the program was to rapidly address any pathogen.
If such activity is just business as usual for the DoD in every country, then it certainly weakens the case for anything nefarious happening specifically in relation to Ukraine.
Here's the international agreement establishing the relationship: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra....
The Department of Defense is a misleading name since it spent a large % of its historical budget on offense and invasion. The use of the words 'defensive and defense' are always misleading in the US context and should not be taken literally in my opinion. US history makes this clear.
Having labs is not equal to having bioweapons
edit: removed snark
Ukraine warns Chernobyl nuclear plant is without power [1]
Now, most experts say there is nothing to worry about. Why did they report this unless to imply that it somehow poses a threat to the world? Or did they also mention that there are post offices in Ukraine without power?
Very similar, ain't it?
[1] https://www.axios.com/ukraine-chernobyl-nuclear-plant-power-...
HN discussion on that specific article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30614163
That is the part that is clearly the fake propaganda. The US and Ukraine are not working together to design a disease meant to genetically target Russians, like from the movie James Bond.
No its not. It is not plausible at all. Just think about this for a second.
People in eastern europe are genetically similar to russians. Why would they make a super weapon, to kill off people with slavic DNA, when such a super weapon would target much of its own population as well?
The conspiracy doesn't make any sense even if you assume supervillian levels of evilness.
You seem to have followed one unecessary qualifier with another one immediately.
I suspect this is somewhat intentional because it's absolutely not required where the vast majority of bioweapons are concerned.
Its not an unnecessary qualify because the "targeting russian DNA" is a common part of many of the conspiracies and what I was referring to.
A common conspiracy going around is that there were bio-weapons meant to target Russian DNA, which doesn't make any sense.
Edit: for Example, here is one english speaking, moderately sized influencer, repeating this conspiracy about the targeting of Russian DNA. https://clips.twitch.tv/SpicyClearFriesItsBoshyTime-9Ap6YN1H...
I don't keep track of every place that is spreading each specific conspiracy theory. But the point of this example, is to just give a one-off example describing this conspiracy in general.
I can only see it as an attempt to deflect, undermine, distract from the core points of this exchange, which makes it a bad faith approach on your part, in my opinion.
Instead, it is other people attempting to deflect from the very real issue of conspiracies being peddled by these bad actors.
So yes, the original point about all of this, is about fake propaganda being spread. And yes that is an issue, as demonstrated by the example that I gave.
You and others just have to admit that yes fake propaganda, being spread by bad actors, is a real issue, which is the core point.
The idea that these bad actors are speading a bunch of mis-info, and half truths, to justify an invasion should be pretty obvious, IMO.
There are biolabs in the Ukraine, as confirmed by Nuland in the Senate hearings. Whether they have bio-weapons or medical research, who knows, but you can perhaps understand that the Russians might be concerned?
What's really amazing about this story that only days ago it was painted as a Q-anon theory. Turns out it was real. We are neck deep in propaganda from all directions, but most people think it's only coming from the Russian side.
And at this point, the Russians have demostrated a clear willingness to lie about anything in pursuit of their geopolitical agenda (see: months of explicit denial of preparing for a Ukrainian invasion, by all levels of their government, in official statements).
US history says the DOD, Pentagon, & the CIA are just as willing, if not more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGE (Why Leaders Lie?)
Iraq was an autocracy that had previously invaded its neighbors multiple times and used chemical weapons against its own ethnic minorities.
Ukraine is a democracy, and has no recent history of aggression.
*At worst case. At best, they didn't verify too closely intelligence that said what they wanted it to say.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra...
quite ironic
[0] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1501313109520175104
That's GlobalTimes. I know they are both state media, but we are talking CGTN here.
> citing Russia media outlets and officials
I bet I can find them quoting US or Ukrainian media outlets and officials too. Should media not report what countries fighting a war claim? It's not like Western media consistently gets it right (e.g. deaths on snake island) by reporting only the pro-Ukrainian side.
> They peddle Russia’s claim that US has bioweapons
Why link to Newsweek instead of the actual CGTN post? I am less interested what Western media claims CGTN says than proof of what they actually say.
You're acting like an anti-Ukrainian position exists, to be discussed.
What position other than pro-victim would you like to see reported on, please?
It seems like you're very new here, and the only thing you've discussed is the Russia situation, or trying to make it look like it's reasonable to listen to state media to learn what's happening, by contrasting state propaganda to a disgraced magazine that was sold for a dollar to the daily beast ten years ago, then to religious extremists
Russia has invaded another country without provocation, and is shelling civilians, children's schools, hospitals, and grocery lines.
What pro-Russian spin would you like to see, specifically, please, new anonymous account? Thanks.
----
An aside: I am of the opinion that if websites like Facebook and Twitter don't get their fake account problem under control, laws will be coming to do it for them, and if those laws are written by politicians, it's going to go really badly for UGC websites
But, hey, the CGTN post is very easy to find, given the Newsweek article: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=CGTN+russia+Igor+Konashenkov
According to Newsweek, but the CGTN article actually doesn't use "bioweapons".
CGTN only calls it “military biological program”. So technically not the same, but of course CGTN wants to give the same impression to keep spreading misinformation.
Yes, but this comment chain is about CGTN, so when switching let's keep it clear.
> course CGTN wants to give the same impression to keep spreading misinformation.
That's the least charitable interpretation, yes. However, I see no lies in their article.
edit:
You specifically said:
> They peddle Russia’s claim that US has bioweapons
They meaning CGTN.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
Other scientists contacted by The Intercept noted that there is published evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was already engaged in some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal and that viruses designed in North Carolina could easily be used in China. “The mail is filled with little envelopes with plasmid dried on to filter paper that scientists routinely send each other,” said Jack Nunberg, director of the Montana Biotechnology Center at the University of Montana.
Sure, but that doesn't point to America it points to China.
> “The mail is filled with little envelopes with plasmid dried on to filter paper that scientists routinely send each other,”
It seems unlikely the leak happened at the Wuhan post office, but even if it did, how does imply American incompetence?
1 million dead people kind of makes it seem an “a priori”
Some analyst will someday pull together a fault tree weighted by deaths and economic harm, and America’s share will (based on current trends) certainly weigh heavier than most.
Some analyst will someday pull together a fault tree weighted by deaths and economic harm, and America’s share will (based on current trends) certainly weigh heavier than most.
Following Go rules, since I no longer have the energy to dig up references for you, let’s just call ko.
Edit: "The US has an interest in biolabs in Ukraine" - I feel like this is a pretty useless nit to pick.
(Sorry for the twitter source. It's a video of Marco Rubio, a US senator, talking to Victoria Nuland)
The US is basically warning that Russia plans to release stuff from these labs and blame the Ukrainians for it. Kindof the same thing they were supposedly doing with Chernobyl. If that's Russian propaganda, then the propaganda has gotten to pretty senior levels of the state department.
edit: look I'm definitely not some Chinese misinfo spreader. I think that weaponization of social media, weaponization of the news, and weaponization of human emotion is basically the next version of nuclear weapons. That is: a new type of weapon that will (and is) completely change(ing) the war landscape. I think that sort of weapon is in use now, and the use will only increase. You've already seen Russia ban facebook for their citizens, China has their great firewall, and strict control over their citizens social media. It's here.
But I think the people who are trying to reach for these claims about bioweapons labs, or "bio labs" or perhaps no labs at all, are the ones spreading misinformation. That ambiguity and division that you are creating by spreading these lies is the problem. This desire to attack people's ability to interpret simple statements, and read the plain meaning of those simple statements is an attack on people's ability to resist this propaganda.
Does the US have "bio labs" in Ukraine? Yes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30615313
Is the US concerned that the materials in these labs could fall into the hands of the Russians? Also yes.
These are facts. Acknowledging these facts does not make you a Q anon conspiracy theorist, a Trump supporter, or anything else. These things are just nakedly true.
Now once you've acknowledged these things as simply true, you can get to the question of "is this a problem?" - To be clear, in my opinion: no these things are not necessarily a problem. Yes the US runs bio weapons labs in Ukraine. We do it for reasons that people have indicated in some of their comments. These are defensive in nature.
There's a question about if human beings generally should be studying this, but that is independent to the question about the US running biolabs (studying weapons...so...bioweapons labs) in Ukraine. You HAVE to acknowledge these truths. It should be obvious that having a good ability to separate truth from fiction is the way to defend against the type of propaganda that I outlined above. Twisting yourselves into knots to not accidentally acknowledge some information which is blatantly true, is how the propaganda is allowed to spread. It is an attack on your sense making ability. Please stop doing this.
The U.S. also has biolabs in China, or funds them, or has enough involvement that it's equivalent to what they're doing in Ukraine so maybe Russia should invade China next using their own biolab justification.
Except this is not a justification used for invasion.
Maybe they could invade China for some drummed up reason (reunite the communist world idk) and then find these labs and talk about them there too?
It seems like we're getting into some really weird definitions of weapons if that doesn't count as a "weapon".
Here's an article from 2007 about the CDC shutting down a "bioweapons lab" at Texas A&M University: https://www.wired.com/2007/07/the-centers-for/
Texas A&M wasn't creating bioweapons, they were studying them as part of a bioweapons defense program.
Actually it does. Any lab that works on viruses of mass destruction are bioweapon labs with a trivial amount of objective shift.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra...
Edit: parent changed the text of their post from "US does have biolabs in Ukraine" to "US has an interest in biolabs in Ukraine"
You said “There is nothing in the video saying the biolabs belong to the US, stop spreading conspiracy misinformation.”
I pointed out that there is in fact US DoD funded research in Ukrainian bio labs.
I have no idea if they are making bioweapons. I can’t prove that they are, you can’t prove that they aren’t. But I do know that Victoria Nuland stated in that twitter video that whatever they got in those labs can be used as bioweapons, so on that point I think it’s an argument of semantics.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra...
Also any time the DoD (or any gov entity anywhere in the world) claims “we are doing this only for the seemingly good purpose A” there is generally a much bigger purpose B, C, and D that they don’t mention.
I understand the urge to apply neutrality here but the fact is that the priors simply do not support a good faith interpretation of what we know is coming from the Russian state propaganda apparatus.