Truth, Inspiration, Hope.

US-funded Ukraine Biolab Scandal at the Forefront in Deadly Brinkmanship With Russia

Neil Campbell
Neil lives in Canada and writes about society and politics.
Published: March 12, 2022
The U.S. funded Ukraine biolab scandal is serving brinkmanship to drive the world to accept a dangerous global military conflict.
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland testifies before a Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on Ukraine on March 8, 2022 in Washington, D.C. The narrative surrounding the existence of U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine and Russia’s interest in them is being used to push public opinion to the brink of a global military conflict. (Image: by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

News Analysis

No matter whether you identify as Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, socialist or capitalist, or are an American, Ukrainian, or Russian citizen, the military conflict between President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation and the Ukraine and the U.S.-led International Rules Based Order has the human race flirting with global war and the potential repercussions that are inherent in modern weaponized combat.

The need for détente

Détente is very simply defined by Google as “the easing of hostility or strained relations, especially between countries.” 

The concept is not only apt, but in dire need of application in the Russia conflict.

When the assault began, Putin warned “those who may be tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside” in no uncertain terms that, “Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.”

“No matter how events unfold, we are ready,” Putin stated, adding, “All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken.”


Google likewise defines Brinkmanship as, “The art or practice of pursuing a dangerous policy to the limits of safety before stopping, especially in politics.”

And brinkmanship, rather than détente, is exactly the method being utilized and pushed by the globalist empire. Russia has faced nearly every financial and political sanction possible, including the withdrawal of the vast majority of iconic global brands such as Ikea, Victoria’s Secret, McDonald’s, Apple, and Starbucks. 

The exodus has only resulted in the Russian Federation stating it will likely begin nationalizing the assets of withdrawn companies.

In what some may call a punishment and others may call a blessing, Russia and Vladimir Putin were even expelled from the globalist bloc World Economic Forum

Moreover, Russian media outlets have likewise been erased from Big Tech platforms, Google-alternative search engine DuckDuckGo has said it will begin shadowbanning websites it considers “associated with Russian disinformation,” several national banks have been severed from the SWIFT network, and Russia has been pushed towards the Chinese Communist Party’s Union Pay system as Visa and Mastercard cut all ties with the country.

But rather than deescalate, the situation only continues to escalate. On March 10, Facebook announced the creation of an exemption from its usual policies to allow calls for the death of both Vladimir Putin and Russian citizens and soldiers.


The exclusion contained several limitations, such as not containing other targets or organizing an assault at a specific place and time. Users calling for violence must also be from a select group of eastern European countries, including Ukraine and its NATO member-neighbor Poland.

In response, Russia’s Prosecutor General has asked the legal system to designate Facebook and Instagram’s parent company Meta as an extremist organization.

Statements made by Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) during a March 3 Twitter diatribe calling for a “Brutus” or a “more successful Colonel Stauffenberg” to assassinate Vladimir Putin, succinctly revealed the modus behind the madness, “The only people who can fix this are the Russian people.”

Graham made it clear to “the Russian people” that sanctions and cancel culture were crafted and initiated for the purpose of bullying civilians to drop support for Vladimir Putin and his “denazification” effort, “Unless you want to live in darkness for the rest of your life, be isolated from the rest of the world in abject poverty, and live in darkness you need to step up to the plate.”

So much for ‘conspiracy theories’

The wheels of the U.S.-funded biolab scandal set into motion when an anonymous Twitter user named WarClandestine infamously posted a Feb. 24 thread, shortly after Russia’s “special military operation” began, claiming that Putin’s real target was “US installed biolabs” in Ukraine. 

The thread stated that the U.S. had funded biolabs in Ukraine under the Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program, providing what appeared to be a map of known installations and claims that early strikes by the Russian military had conveniently coincided with their locations. 

While Twitter quickly banned WarClandestine (but not before the thread was archived), the network of Big Tech-affiliated “fact checkers” such as USA Today and Politifact undertook the usual astroturf campaign to discredit the theory. 

While the outlets seized upon the nuance that the U.S. did not own and operate laboratories in Ukraine, and that the laboratories are purported to be defensive in nature, both nonetheless glossed over the reality that the U.S. not only does fund a number of facilities in the country, but that the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine also scrubbed their website of relevant documentation shortly after the scandal became public.

On March 6, the story took a turn when Becker News reported that the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that the very same U.S.-funded biolabs were producing “components of biological weapons” and undergoing development “in Ukraine, in close proximity to Russian territory.”

Although the MOD’s statements may be dismissed by some as simple “disinformation,” Becker nonetheless included document, which the outlet translated into English, released by Russia that appears to be a copy of a Feb. 24 order from the Ukraine Ministry of Health. 

The decree directs for the “emergency destruction of the biological pathogenic agents which are used for maintenance of system and quality management of laboratory in case of emergence of extraordinary military character.”

A few days later, during a March 8 congressional hearing, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland was asked a simple, albeit loaded, question by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?”

Nuland responded, rather carefully, that “Ukraine has biological research facilities,” adding both that her department believes Vladimir Putin and Russia are seeking to capture the labs and that the DOD is working with Ukraine to “prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”

But the real story of Nuland’s testimony is not her careful admission of the existence of what is already well documented and publicly known.

Instead, where the alarm bells ring is when Rubio quickly interrupted Nuland, seizing the opportunity to frame a sharpened anti-Russia narrative using the matter as ammunition, “I’m sure you’re aware that the Russian propaganda groups are already putting out there all kinds of information about how they’ve uncovered a plot by the Ukranians to release biological weapons in the country and with NATO’s coordination.”

Rubio went on to throw the Under Secretary a softball that even a child could hit, “If there is a biological or chemical weapon incident or attack inside of the Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100 percent it would be the Russians behind it?”

Nuland quickly gave Rubio what he was looking for, “There is no doubt in my mind, Senator, and it is classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they’re planning to do themselves.”

Just one day later, no less than White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the woman who effectively speaks on behalf of President Joe Biden’s administration, added fuel to the spurious flame, “Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It’s a clear pattern.”

But Russia’s MOD was undeterred. A day later on March 10, its official Twitter account posted a “briefing on the results of the analysis of documents related to the military biological activities of the United States on the territory of Ukraine,” complete with a Yandex drive with supporting documents translated into English.

No matter how one #StandsWithUkraine, a sobering alarm should immediately sound upon hearing this type of rhetoric made by officials and representatives of the U.S. government as nuclear world war hangs in the balance. 

Some questions to consider: 

  1. How could it be that the U.S.-funded labs inside Ukraine were defensive in nature, not producing biological or chemical weapons, but also possessing pathogens and toxins that the Russian Federation does not already control in its own biological research facilities?
  1. How is it possible that if a biological attack were to be released inside Ukraine against either soldiers or civilians, it simply could only be a conspiracy theory-style false flag attack initiated by Russia?
  1. Can it really be that the Ukrainian forces, rife with neonazi batallions directly armed with U.S. Javelin anti-tank weapons and promoted by a NATO think tank, are so holy that they would just never commit a war crime while in a pinch against a heavily armed Russian military slowly encroaching on Kiev?

These are questions that need to be, and will be, answered as the situation progresses. 

But tensions have not abated. On March 11, the CCP-friendly World Health Organization announced it had advised Ukraine to “destroy high-threat pathogens to prevent any potential spills.”

The directive came only a day after the Russian Federation called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to present its evidence.

Also on March 11, Washington Post cited “security officials and diplomats” from Europe and the U.S. who “spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the matter.” 

The diplo-anons claimed “intelligence, which they declined to detail, pointed to possible preparations by Russia for deploying chemical munitions, and warned the Kremlin may seek to carry out a ‘false-flag’ attack that attempts to pin the blame on Ukrainians, or perhaps Western governments.”

Sober second thought

Fortunately, there was at least one voice of sober second thought amid the crowd, coming from none other than President Biden himself, who correctly stated during a March 11 press conference, “We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine. Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.”

The President’s comments come on the back of a March 10 article by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board that stated the backtrack and cancellation of NATO member Poland’s donation of MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine was directly attributable to Biden, who “vetoed the jet delivery lest it provoke Vladimir Putin and risk escalating the war.”