Abiding Dude

NOTE FROM MSK: Trolling comment removed, but a link going to an article by Tracinski is preserved. ... you could read someone ...

Yes, that's correct, sorry. I should have written tmj.

From the article you linked to: Despite Nuland’s concern about the pathogens being used in warfare, the Western media have tried to claim the labs were set up to destroy bioweapons from the Soviet era, or to “secure” old Soviet bioweapons, or that they’re diagnostic labs, “health labs,” biodefense laboratories, or that they’re used for vaccine development. The story changes depending on who’s telling it. No, they're all true. They were set up to destroy Soviet bioweapons; they are also used for all of the purposes above. These are not mutually exclusive, and they are not even secret; as I mentioned before, I learned about them from reading about Russian propaganda about a similar lab in Georgia. The Soviets did build bioweapons labs in those now-independent countries. The US Defense Department and other organizations did get involved in securing them and in using them to conduct epidemiological research. (There are many zoonotic diseases--diseases infectious to both animals and humans--in that part of the world, such as anthrax, the plague, and on and on, that pose a grave threat to human health--this interesting overview of naturally occurring anthrax risks gives an idea why such research is pursued: We estimate that 1.83 billion people...live within regions of anthrax risk, but most of that population faces little occupational exposure. More informatively, a global total of 63.8 million poor livestock keepers...and 1.1 billion livestock...live within vulnerable regions). (Partly this was as a means of keeping former bioweapons scientists gainfully employed instead of set free to become bioweapons producers for groups and rogue states that might want to create them). Moreover, some have been used for vaccine development. It's not an ever-changing story, it's all different parts of the same story. The article continues, But to create the cure — the vaccine — they must first create that imagined threat, be it a souped-up natural pathogen through gain-of-function or a synthetic bioweapon. So, all of this work is “offensive” in that it can be used for military purposes. 1. "Having the possibility of use as a bioweapon" is not the definition of "offensive" in bioweapons terminology, which is the development, production, and stockpiling of bioweapons for offensive use. It does not include studying them for biodefense purposes. This is included in the very law that Boyle crows about drafting and that either he or this author misrepresents: "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both." (emphasis added; in other words, if you look at what the law actually says, this article--probably deliberately--confounds "biological agent" and "bioweapon" and ignores the requirement of mens rea stated in the law) 2. By this view, any development of vaccines (or, for that matter, the collection of samples of biological agents for epidemiological research, which the labs in question have conducted) is inherently offensive bioweapons research, since you have to collect, cultivate, and test against a pathogen, which means that they might possibly be used in a different process as bioweapons. So when that article writes, The problem with making a distinction between “biodefense” and “biowarfare” is that, basically, there is none, by the same token there's no distinction between vaccine research, epidemiological research, and bioweapons. 3. You write, Except there's a twist. A lot of these studies are targeted to specific genetic configurations like race and others. So what? They haven't shown that any of this research is offensive bioweapons research, and there is a lot of research on genetic factors in disease susceptibility. (Think of sickle cell anemia for why.) This is positive and important research (...) And note this inconsistency: He points out that the United States is the only country in the world that has not abided by the law to get rid of all its biological weapons (The United States has in fact gotten rid of bioweapons, starting in 1972 under Nixon, though not biological agents for biodefense work--again, the article deliberately confuses the two), but oh wait, The U.S. is not alone in creating dangerous biological weapons, of course. “The British are also a part of this, the French, the Israelis. We have a network and a cult of Nazi biowarfare death scientists,” Boyle says. So which is it, only the US or everyone? Note--I'm not saying there's not bioweapons research; perhaps there is, though the claims that there are are just Russian continuations of Soviet smear campaigns since 1949. What I am saying is that articles like this are ridiculous: It doesn't make a case plausible to anyone who's actually followed any of this (...)

No. Read the article. The civilians appear to have been shot by Russian soldiers when they had control of the city, not, as claimed by Anthony, killed as collateral damage by Ukrainian bombing.

Another interesting article by Meduza reporting their analysis of Ukrainian drone footage of the bodies during the time Bucha was under Russian occupation, not when there was fighting: "Meduza has not only obtained additional evidence that corroborates Maxar’s imagery — showing that Russian forces were present in Bucha when the civilian killings took place — but we have also independently confirmed when this footage was recorded."

A good survey of the information about Bucha is available from Meduza here. As they state, "After Russian troops captured the city, the active fighting stopped; judging by the state of the buildings (which were largely left intact compared to those in other Ukrainian cities), artillery fire happened relatively infrequently. This was confirmed by NASA’s global fire map, FIRMS, which uses satellite imagery: most of the fires in the city were recorded in late February, when Russian troops were first entering the city and Ukrainian troops were firing at them. From March 5 to the end of the month, less than ten large fires were recorded in Bucha, while dozens were recorded in Irpin. This suggests that the Bucha residents who died in the second half of March did not die as a result of ongoing military activity."

That's a pretty good review, but there's more to the story than even that, though that would perhaps be out of place in that review. He hints at it here: "As the film suggests, Santa Anna was quick to execute those who rose in rebellion against him, but he also conscripted many poor young Mexican peasants into the army that assaulted the Alamo." And many Mexicans rose in rebellion against Santa Anna, not just in Texas--at least 15 of the Mexican states rebelled against Santa Anna's policies of a centralized, pro-Catholic republic in 1835 (the preceding liberal administration had implemented policies of selling off church lands, among other measures) and his repeal of the Mexican Constitution, and in fact Santa Anna didn't march against Texas until after he'd put down rebellion in Zacatecas. The defense of slavery was one factor in the Texas Revolution, but the major cause was precisely the repeal of the constitution to which the Texans had taken an oath to become Mexican citizens. More generally, throughout the period after 1821, Mexico was torn between the federalists and the centralists, and the stalemate between them was the major factor in Mexican history until Diaz (read about the Reform War, for example). The history of Texas as (part of) a Mexican state and of the Texas Revolution was shaped by the fact that Texians (Anglo-American settlers) were staunchly on the federalist side; and the fact that Texas remained independent until 1844-1845 (treaty of annexation in 1844, finally enacted in 1845) was due fundamentally to the fact that the federalists and centralists in Mexico distrusted each other too much for a consistent policy to be adopted (though Santa Anna did gin up an army that attacked Texas in 1842; it massacred a bunch of people and strengthened Texan desires to join the US). It might be too strong to say Mexico was a failed state at that time (some historians have argued that), but it was certainly a weak and divided state. It's also worth comparing it to the situation in Ukraine. Texas rebelled after the constitution was repealed; the Russian separatists rebelled after a pro-Russian president fled to Russia. Texas received American volunteers but no official American military aid; Russia sent its armies into Ukraine two days after Yanukovich ran away. Texas was one of numerous states of Mexico rebelling against a dictator wanna-be who repealed the constitution; Donetsk and Luhansk rebelled against parliamentary acts in accordance with the constitution. If the Ukraine separatists are in the right, then Texas independence was peachy keen and smells like a rose by their standards; if Texas independence was wrong, then there's not much right about Donetsk-Luhansk independence.

Euromaidan, protests against pro-Russian actions by the president against the decisions of Parliament, took place from November 2013 to February 2014. After Yanukovich fled on 21 February, Russia invaded Crimea on 23 February; at the same time, pro-Russian demonstrations started in Donetsk and Luhansk. There was already war against Russian forces on Ukrainian territory, in other words, and the events in the separatist regions were exactly parallel to what Russia was doing in Crimea. The Crimean referendum was held on 16 March; all the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk were after that--the first supposed referendum in Donetsk was on 6 April, but that was basically an attempted putsch that failed miserably; the referendum that Russia backed was on 11 May. Don't forget: Russia attacked Ukraine two days after their puppet president ran away, and the same things that Russia engineered in Crimea were happening at the same time in Donetsk and Luhansk. All of these events were driven by Russia, following the same divide-and-conquer techniques Russia had already practiced in Georgia.

Putin does what he thinks he can get way with. Like Hitler, he has sent in troops wherever the opportunity has presented itself--Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Crimea, Donbas, Kazakhstan, Syria--and in many cases for the defense of ethnic Russians in exactly the same way Hitler did so for the defense of ethnic Germans. But really, I'm just agreeing with you: "No, the dirty tricks Putin has been up to in supporting a break-away bunch of Ukrainian-Russians who would force another annexation of a part of Ukraine--while pretending he has nothing to do with it. He could soon be doing some major backing down I predict, the only good thing to come out of this." Of course, back then he only marched into the Donbas and Crimea; now that he's invaded many other parts of Ukraine with over 100,000 troops, he's clearly just trying to negotiate.

Not obviously at all. You write, "If he didn't at first, he surely knows now." You then contradict yourself, "Obviously then, Putin's territorial goal was and is slightly more modest: " What Putin is willing to accept now is probably more modest than what he demanded when he invaded, which was basically to reduce Ukraine to dependent status. Otherwise all he needed to do was march his armies into Donbas and Luhansk instead of pouring over the borders from all directions. Merely a negotiating tactic? Right.

I'm not asking about consistency from a senile idiot socially promoted into second Jimmy-Carterhood, I'm asking for a consistent answer from you.

Stop avoiding the question: Were the thousands of Euromaidan protestors and 73% of the Ukrianian Parliament who voted to remove the president from office after he fled to Russian-controlled Crimea and then to Russia CIA stooges and/or agents, or did they do what they did for their own reasons? In short, were they right in stripping a president of office for going against a parliamentary decision and then fleeing, or was it fundamentally just a CIA plot in which their decision means nothing?

So they knew Putin would invade Ukraine and didn't care. Yet in the post starting this thread, you wrote, "Now Biden is tanking in the polls and his butt is owned by oligarchs and others in Ukraine (especially from his son's corrupt ventures). So what better way to solve it all than a sudden war for profit?...To make it look good, they have been antagonizing Russia to try to goad Putin into overreacting. Then they can send in American troops and look justified." On 15 February, you wrote, "What a big fake nothing-burger...This is a Biden machine PR stunt and not much more." So did Biden know Putin would invade Ukraine and didn't care, or did he have to make up lots of lies to make him do it because there was no way he'd have done it otherwise?

I see, so minority ethnicities have every right to invite in foreign armies seeking to protect their rights, as Russia did on the Donbas, and as Hitler did in the Sudentenland. It is wrong to ban political parties supporting dismembering the state to join an outside state, as Ukraine did recently and as Czechoslovakia did when it banned the Nazi Party. A willing tool of Russia like Medvedchuk and a tool of Hitler like Henlein, leader of the Sudentenland autonomy movement, are right and good and Benes and Zelenskyy are bad bad bad. After all, all Hitler wanted was pan-German unity (he said so himself!); all Putin wants is pan-Russian unity (he said so himself!). And by your argument, then, Czechoslovakia and Nazi Germany were equally evil.

Actually, protests started throughout Ukraine in November 2013, called the Euromaidan movement. Why did they protest? Because the duly elected Parliament had voted overwhelmingly to closer ties with Western Europe, but the president, Yanukovich (who was at the time declared the most corrupt world leader by Transparency International), and his government rejected their demands and chose a pro-Russian position instead. The protests turned violent and Yanukovich finally fled to Russian territory (since they liked the cut of his jib) and the next day was stripped of the title of president by Parliament, 328 of 447 members. So what in that was the doing of the CIA? Is it your position that the Ukrainians had no agency in any of this process and that it was all the malign doings of the CIA?