Russian Defense Ministry briefing on analysis of documents related to U.S. military and biological activities
April 07, 2023
According to the document, despite a forced pause due to a special military operation, activities under the Program have now been resumed. The main tasks at this stage are to continue the construction of biolaboratories in Ukraine, as well as to expand the format of training for Ukrainian biologists.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation continues to analyze the military-biological activities of the United States and its allies in Ukraine and other regions of the world.
We have previously provided the names of participants in U.S. bioweapons programs. These include officials from the U.S. Department of Defense, Pentagon contractors, U.S. biotechnology corporations, Ukrainian government institutions, and private companies.
Today we add to the list of Pentagon biological research figures. They include:
Eliot Jacobs Perlman, head of the International HIV and Tuberculosis Institute, a non-governmental organization in Kiev, was directly involved in the creation of a laboratory base for the implementation of military biological research in Ukraine.
Greg Glass, professor at the Institute for New Pathogens at Florida State University, studied the spread of tularemia in Ukraine. He was involved in the U-P-8 project (Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus and hantavirus spread in Ukraine).
Andrew Stanley Pecos, professor of molecular microbiology and immunology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.
He was involved as one of the lead consultants for the U-Pi-2 project (Application of Geographic Information Systems, Remote Surveillance and Laboratory Diagnostics for Human and Animal Anthrax and Tularemia Disease Detection in Ukraine).
Among the executors of U.S. military-biological projects are citizens of Ukraine:
Natalia Rodina, deputy director general of the Kyiv Regional Laboratory Center state institution of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and a former employee of the U.S. company Black & Veatch. Since 2020, she has been an advisor to the commander of the AFU medical forces on laboratory diagnostics.
Elena Nesterova is director of the Ukrainian Institute for Public Health Research. She coordinated the activities of Labyrinth Global Health, carried out interaction between Ukrainian state bodies and Metabiota.
Fleeing from responsibility for participation in military-biological projects many persons involved left the territory of Ukraine.
To prevent possible leakage of information about the Pentagon’s illegal activities, the U.S. administration is taking urgent measures to track them down and bring them back. Through the Ukrainian Science and Technology Center (USTC), work is being done in two directions: collecting data on the whereabouts of employees who have already participated in so-called “Ukrainian projects” and searching for new specialists in the field of weapons of mass destruction development.
Please note the questionnaire distributed through the STCU website for students enrolled in special courses. A prerequisite for participation is dual-purpose research experience.
From April 24 to 26, 2023, online training will be held with the selected candidates and a face-to-face meeting is planned in Warsaw.
During the training camp, participants will be invited to continue working on closed projects on Ukrainian territory and abroad.
We do not rule out that under the guise of such courses, activities to prepare provocations with biological weapons and the deployment of an information campaign against the Russian Federation may be carried out.
The U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) will use the potential of biologists not only from Ukraine, but also from Central Asia and Transcaucasus states to implement these tasks. Works in this direction are planned by the American administration for the period at least until 2025.
Funding for dual-use projects is provided by the U.S. military department through a grant system. The STCU and the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) are responsible for distributing the funds. The head of this organization is Ronald Lehman, former head of the U.S. Arms Control Agency.
I would like to draw attention to the names of individual ISTC projects without indicating where they are located.
Project 2410, “Assessment of Natural Resistance of Brucellosis Pathogen in Domestic and Wild Animals” is aimed at studying the possibility of transmission of this dangerous pathogen to humans. It is noteworthy that the research was conducted with the participation of specialists from the University of Florida.
Project 2513 studies risk factors and molecular properties of environmentally resistant virulent enterobacteriaceae. The research aims to isolate strains of microorganisms immune to all known classes of antibiotics.
Project 2545 involves modeling the evolutionary changes of certain virus species (bunyaviruses) that are highly pathogenic to humans. It is planned to conduct research on combining the genetic materials of dangerous pathogens with the support of the National Agency for Research and Innovation in Great Britain.
Recall that the goal of the ISTC’s biological threat reduction program is to protect the United States, its armed forces and allies. This once again confirms that Washington considers the post-Soviet space as a springboard for the deployment of NATO military units.
By the example of Ukraine we see how the imposed by the collective West funding of military-biological programs leads to the loss of national biological sovereignty and undermines its own scientific and technological potential in the field of biological, food and pharmaceutical security.
The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has previously informed about “directed evolution” research by American pharmaceutical companies, the so-called “Big Pharma”, as well as corruption and collusion with US government agencies related to the development and production of vaccine drugs.
It was noted that regulators lobby for the commercial interests of companies at the expense of current safety and quality standards. By authorizing the use of drugs without going through regulatory procedures, federal agency officials subsequently occupy key positions in pharmaceutical corporations.
Among them are former employees of the U.S. Department of Health’s Food and Drug Administration: Mark McClellan, a current board member of Johnson & Johnson; Scott Gottlieb, a board member of Pfizer; and Stephen Hahn, chief medical officer of Flagship Pioneering, directly affiliated with Moderna.
According to the information we have, collusion between officials and the manufacturers of Pfizer’s anticoviral vaccine has allowed drugs with serious side effects to be put into circulation. Yet, at the time the vaccine was approved, Pfizer had actual evidence of an increased risk of serious cardiovascular abnormalities after vaccination.
The company’s closed-release report states, “There is evidence that patients who receive the COVID-19 vaccine are at increased risk of developing myocarditis. Since April 2021, Moderna has reported an increase in cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in the United States following vaccination with mRNA vaccines, especially in male adolescents and young adults over the age of 16. Pathologic changes usually occurred within days of vaccination, and more often occurred after a second dose…” END OF THE QUOTATION.
Let me remind you that such studies of highly toxic drugs with unexplored risk of side effects were conducted at the request of DITRA on Ukrainian citizens and AFU soldiers without regard for any ethical norms. It seems that for the American pharmaceutical industry, which aims to maximize profits, such an approach is the norm, and its implementation is strongly supported by the Democratic Party of the United States.
The Defense Department has already noted contradictory statements by representatives of U.S. political elites about the end of the Pentagon’s work in biolaboratories in Ukraine.
Pay attention to the minutes of the meeting of the working group of American and Ukrainian specialists, headed by DITRA representatives, dated October 20, 2022 on plans of implementation of the “Biological Threat Reduction Program” in Ukraine.
Note the minutes of the October 20, 2022 meeting of a working group of U.S. and Ukrainian specialists led by DITRA representatives on plans for implementing the “Biological Threat Reduction Program” in Ukraine.
According to the document, despite a forced pause due to a special military operation, activities under the Program have now been resumed. The main tasks at this stage are to continue the construction of biolaboratories in Ukraine, as well as to expand the format of training for Ukrainian biologists.
The facts of the Pentagon’s military-biological activities, voiced by the Russian Ministry of Defense, force Washington to make efforts to conceal the true nature of the work being carried out.
Thus, it was decided to change the name of the “Joint Biological Research” program, which is actually aimed at developing components of biological weapons.
The protocol notes that the program was given a new name – “Research on Biosurveillance”. According to the document, the military department intends to continue research on dangerous pathogens, collect biological materials and send them to the United States.
The Pentagon’s plans to continue dual-use research at Ukrainian bio-objects and in other countries of the world with the change of the program name is the result of “inarticulate” reaction of the world community due to the fear of some countries to confront the American authorities.
The US State Department has prepared a series of publications in which it tries to question the documented facts of its illegal biological research. Thus, on March 14, 2023, the US State Department published a bulletin on its website which again accused Russia of disinformation.
In an attempt to deflect a blow to the Democratic Party of the United States, the pro-government American media, including the Washington Post, distributed State Department statements that flatly denied the established historical facts of the preparation of military-biological attacks in North Korea and China in the early 1950s, and ignored the information voiced by the Russian Defense Ministry.
The U.S. proceeds from the logic that if it is not possible to prove earlier episodes, then all accusations of today’s military-biological activities are disinformation.
It should be noted that the U.S. has never clearly stated its commitment to the security of research at the biolaboratories under its control. The opaqueness of their activities creates the risk of the spread of dangerous pathogens in the areas where the bioweapons are located.
In this regard, in August 2021, a South Korean NGO sued the Fort Detrick Biological Laboratory and the U.S. military in Korea for smuggling toxic substances into U.S. military bases in violation of domestic law.
The lawsuit stems from the fact that the U.S. command in Korea smuggled hazardous substances into its military bases (in Pyeongchang and Gunsan) between November 2017 and January 2019. On April 5, 2022, South Koreans took to the streets to protest U.S. biological laboratories near their military base in Busan.
Public protests in Korea are not an isolated incident. Earlier, mass demonstrations against U.S. bio-laboratories took place in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Serbia.
In late February 2023, International Secretary of the Labor Party of Ireland Gary Granger, speaking at the conference “Strengthening the Threat of NATO’s Use of Biological Weapons Against an Increase in International Controversy,” said that the threat of such weapons of mass destruction is growing every day.
Granger mentioned that quote, “Ukraine has biological laboratories funded by the United States. This could result in millions of casualties, including the risk of accident” END OF THE QUOTATION.
As we have repeatedly noted, moving the most dangerous research outside national territory is part of the United States’ biosecurity strategy. In doing so, locating bioweapons in third countries does not consider the interests of local populations and poses a serious threat to entire regions.
I would like to draw your attention to a statement from a U.S. federal department stating that the COVID-19 pandemic may have occurred as a result of a virus leak from a laboratory in the city of Wuhan. The statement emphasizes, QUOTE: “…the disease has a laboratory origin and the virus most likely spread as a result of an accident…” END OF THE QUOTATION.
The nuance is that this statement was made by the Ministry of Energy. A legitimate question arises: “What does the US Department of Energy have to do with combating biological threats and implementing dual-use projects?”
The Ministry of Defense of Russia believes that the U.S. Department of Energy is on a par with the Pentagon as the main organizer and direct participant in military-biological activities.
In 2023 alone, officially, the Department of Energy allocated $105 million for research in the Virtual Research Environment for Biohazard Preparedness project, which is supposed to study the epidemic spread of diseases.
I draw your attention to the fact that specialists still have a number of questions related to the, to put it mildly, strange variability and geographic origin of COVID-19 variants for most viruses. For example, the “beta” strain first appeared in South Africa and was identified in the UK in December 2020; the “gamma” strain in Brazil in January 2021; and the “delta” strain in India in June 2021. At the same time, each new variant had improved properties in terms of their military-biological applications, causing increasing economic damage.
Despite extremely stringent anticoviral measures, the emergence in 2022 of subvariants of the Omicron strain BA-5.2 and BF-7 strains caused an avalanche-like increase in cases in China. It seems that someone is taking deliberate actions to “strengthen” the pathogenic properties of the virus, and the pandemic is being artificially fed by “throwing in” new “improved” variants. So far these questions remain unanswered.
In addition, incoming information shows that the United States leadership continues to involve non-core government agencies, not directly related to the health sector, in the implementation of military-biological programs, diverting attention from the main beneficiary – the Pentagon.
We will discuss the activities of the U.S. Department of Energy in the field of “dual-use biology” in more detail next time.
INTERNATIONALIST 360° 