Eurasia Press & News
Concerns about American biological laboratories in Ukraine and other post-Soviet republics can no longer be considered exclusively ‘Russian disinformation.’
In Part 1 of this investigative series, I examined the growing fears surrounding emerging pandemics, high-containment biological laboratories, and the renewed public scrutiny of gain-of-function research in the aftermath of COVID-19. From the outbreak of Hantavirus aboard the MV Hondius in tandem with the controversial opening of Argentina’s first BSL-4 laboratory, the larger questions are impossible to ignore:
Are these facilities truly defensive public health institutions, or have some evolved into something far more dangerous under the veil of “biosecurity” and international bioweapons threat reduction cooperation?Now let’s dive deeper into one of the most controversial and heavily disputed aspects of the global biological research network — the U.S.-funded laboratories established across Ukraine and other former Soviet republics.
For years, allegations and recriminations surrounding these laboratories were dismissed in Western media and so-called fact-checking sites as “Russian disinformation” or conspiracy theory. Yet recent developments inside the United States intelligence community suggest that at least some of these concerns are now being taken seriously at the highest levels.
Biological agents, in this view, offer a new weapon capable of overwhelming public health systems and paralyzing economies without causing mass casualties and destruction of property
Reports that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, under Tulsi Gabbard, has opened inquiries into more than 120 U.S.-funded biological laboratories operating overseas, investigating at least 30, according to Newsweek..
This moment represents more than political controversy coming to a head. It is personal vindication — proof before my children, peers, and critics that I was right all along, and confirmation for those who risked their jobs helping me by providing internal documents, design and redesign plans, punch lists, and evidence suggesting covert gain-of-function research.
What has been especially revealing in my work has been documenting the misuse of US public funds, uncovering ‘slush funds’ at the Lugar Lab in Tbilisi, Georgia, disguised as medical translations, and how this facility used publicly funded health programs for sinister purposes. I have been attacked on many fronts, in the media and physically, as a result of my work over the years.
Coincidence or not, one of my former sources, the former head of external security for the Lugar Lab in Tbilisi, was killed in a highly suspect car accident in the wake of the journalistic investigation. I don’t think it was an accident, but the truth will never be known.
Regardless, the recently announced US investigation about biolabs worldwide raises fundamental questions about transparency, accountability, dual-use biological research, and whether offensive capabilities have been developed under the guise of public branding of defensive science for good purpose, civilian purposes—as a public good!
We can see in the US that the lies and half-truths about public health won’t go away with such headlines as Anthony Fauci can’t escape his original COVID-19 lie.
Fauci has ‘yet’ to come clean about his role in funding the dangerous research in the Wuhan lab via EcoHealth Alliance – and all its Ukrainian connections. His efforts to discredit the China “lab leak” theory only confirmed that he was hiding something, aside from his own culpability!
There are larger networks of labs that are anything BUT in the interests of public health!
Biological research should exist, but it must be transparent, as nations conduct infectious disease research for the well-being of their citizens. The concern is whether classified military-linked programs, operating beyond meaningful international oversight, crossed the line between legitimate biodefense and the manipulation of pathogens for offensive purposes.
As with COVID-19 and other pathogens, the public is once again confronted with uncomfortable questions:
Were governments fully honest about the nature of overseas biological programs?
Did geopolitical interests override public transparency?
And could the next global health crisis emerge not from nature alone, but from laboratories operating in secrecy under the protection of national security?Ukrainian bio labs are ground zero in recent calls for investigation!
Statements from officials such as Victoria Nuland acknowledging the existence of Ukrainian biological research facilities contradicted earlier public messaging that dismissed such concerns outright as “Russian propaganda.” For critics, those contradictions became symbolic of a much larger credibility crisis.
The potential investigation is potentially game-changing because it threatens to redefine how the public views modern health security institutions and the relationship between science, government, military funding, and secrecy. For decades, programs tied to biodefense and pandemic preparedness were broadly trusted as necessary protections against emerging disease threats.
Now, however, some of those same programs have operated under minimal oversight, through complex grant networks and a spiderweb of subcontractors, while conducting experiments that carried global risks.
The deeper concern emerging from the investigation is the widening divide between what governments publicly presented as benign public health cooperation and what may have been occurring behind classified or semi-classified channels. Such high minded terms as “biosecurity,” “pandemic preparedness,” and “defensive research” most likely have been flimsy fronts for dual-use and gain-of-function research that enhances pathogen transmissibility or lethality—and the ability to fight back with traditional medical knowledge.
If evidence supporting such claims surfaces, it will permanently alter public attitudes toward institutions once viewed and trusted as solid authorities — from intelligence agencies to major public health organizations and international scientific partnerships.
I remember telling of how the dots are well-connected, and all that is coming to light now has been shared before, in detail, in NEO, and now, as I give background to our readers in 2022, I need to look at who Peter Daszak is (Ukrainian roots and EcoHealth Alliance) and how he led a WHO group in Wuhan and also a second group (Lancet), set up to investigate the origin of COVID19.
She maintained close ties with Wuhan and Communist China through previous work, including with the National Institute of Health (NIH). This adds up to more than a few conflicts of interest, and many of these include supposed military labs, which, according to Victoria Nuland, include bio research facilities in Ukraine, which she feared would fall into Russian hands.
Link to French Intelligence: Alleged Biolabs in Georgia
French intelligence services were the first to commission an investigation into alleged biological research facilities in the Caucasus, tasking me, as an investigative journalist, and the former editor-in-chief of the Georgian Times, with a BS and MS degree, to examine the Richard G. Lugar Center for Public Health Research in Tbilisi, Georgia, even prior to its construction.
I was tasked with identifying participating U.S. and international universities, key scientific personnel, their CVs, military background, other researchers, their institutional affiliations, and any potential links to covert military programs. Particular attention was directed toward U.S. and European companies involved in the facility’s development, with emphasis on Bechtel National and Turkish firms connected to Turkish Intelligence (MIT).
The investigation also scrutinized the U.S.-backed Biological Weapons Prevention Program, later renamed Defense Threat Reduction, Bechtel National, whose publicly stated defensive and non-proliferation objectives appeared to be just the opposite..
Axe to Grind, Bad Experience!
The French had already had a bad experience with the Americans, who had taken over the research agenda of the joint lab in China via the National Institute of Health and the proxy EcoHealth Alliance, grabbing the very civilian lab that the French had designed and funded.
I hope that French authorities would now share their full insights with American counterparts, despite past frictions over French fries and the invasion of Iraq.
What I can share about the lab is, in retrospect, and as previously shared, having been interviewed at least 20 times by most major Russian TV channels, have participated in several documentaries about bioweapons over the years in exposing what is now under official investigation.
How far it will go, and if real action will be taken, is anybody’s guess. In interviews and documentaries I cut to the chase with a pointed rhetorical question: “Do you know any weapons that sooner or later do not end up being used, even if accidentally?”
Strategic and Geopolitical Dimensions
Keep in mind that the US has limited ground forces and relies too much on defence contractors and claimed advanced technologies—this can include biology—as a means to offset conventional military weaknesses, citing experiences in Afghanistan as an example. Biological agents, in this view, offer a new weapon capable of overwhelming public health systems and paralyzing economies without causing mass casualties and destruction of property. .
History can teach us so much; for instance, the media censorship during the 1918 influenza pandemic, noting how the disease became known as the Spanish flu due to Spain’s freer press at the time, while other nations suppressed reporting, especially Germany, England, and the US.
Motivations Behind Conflict and Official Denials
Now we know for some certainty how ‘alleged’ biological weapons facilities, research facilities, have been a primary—though rarely emphasized—target of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. In my assessment, President Vladimir Putin recognized the risk that a cornered West might resort to “weapons of last resort.”
It is ironic that in 2022 testimony, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines stated that Washington does not assess Ukraine as pursuing biological or nuclear weapons, describing Russian claims as a “classic” influence operation to fabricate pretexts.
Needless to say, I, and others, Gabbard, etc., remain highly-sceptical of official denials, as they do more to confirm rather than dispel long-held suspicions. When governments cloak sensitive programs in the language of science, public health, and humanitarian progress, alarm bells should be ringing, as the thin line between defensive and offensive capacity has been crossed and it becomes a Brave New World.
