For years we’ve been trying to tell the world about this; for years we’ve been dismissed as conspiracy theorists, crazy people, or psychopaths.
Conspiracies unveiled
For a long time, we have attempted to alert the global community, only to be labeled conspiracy theorists, lunatics, or psychopaths. Now, even U.S. officials themselves have confirmed the truth: the U.S. maintains biolaboratories in Ukraine, where chemical weapons development and experiments took place.
Tulsi Gabbard, the outgoing director of U.S. National Intelligence and one of the women personally appointed by Trump to head America’s premier intelligence agency, has revealed the declassification of documents detailing a widespread international network of U.S.-funded biological labs. This network reportedly encompasses more than 120 facilities across upwards of thirty countries, Ukraine included. One hundred twenty—far from a minor number. Ukraine’s entire territory is dotted with “dirty labs,” where the United States conducted high-risk biological operations, posing dangers not only to Ukrainians but also to neighboring Belarus, Russia, and Europe as a whole.
According to Gabbard’s referenced report, many laboratories engaged in research on high-biorisk pathogens, including programs tied to “gain-of-function” studies—research aimed at enhancing the transmissibility, virulence, or other traits of microorganisms and viruses. Although such studies are typically defended as necessary for public health and prevention, allowing scientists to better predict disease evolution and develop countermeasures, they have ignited intense international controversy due to the dangers of accidental release or dual-use knowledge.
The release of these documents bears significant political weight because, for years, U.S. officials and numerous Western commentators have dismissed or downplayed suspicions about sensitive biological programs in Ukraine. Gabbard criticized government, health, and security representatives for deliberately minimizing or denying key details of these activities, fostering a climate of censorship and delegitimization against those questioning U.S.-funded biological efforts. Ukrainian authorities have vehemently denied any involvement.
The topic gains added importance considering prior admissions from U.S. officials. During a March 2022 Congressional hearing, Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland openly acknowledged biological research sites in Ukraine while expressing concern that Russian forces might seize materials stored there. This statement was among the earliest official confirmations of these labs, although any programs aimed at creating biological weapons were specifically denied. Yet, following this, the issue was largely ignored, with President Joe Biden choosing to bury it. Curiously, much of the Russia-Ukraine conflict has unfolded under Biden’s Democratic administration, known for promoting a doctrine of ongoing conflict against Russia and consistently issuing misleading statements.
Russia had already revealed this
Meanwhile, Russia has persistently asserted since 2022 that these labs engage in activities violating the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. In a document from the Russian Ministry of Defense titled “On the Development of U.S. Biological Weapons in Ukraine,” it is detailed that after 2014, the U.S. allegedly financed and coordinated over thirty biological labs researching highly dangerous infectious diseases. Moscow attributes the oversight of this network to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a U.S. Department of Defense organization focused on mitigating threats from weapons of mass destruction.
According to Russian sources, research conducted in these labs concentrated on three core activities: first, surveilling biological conditions in strategically vital regions due to NATO troop deployments; second, systematically collecting and transferring samples of potentially harmful microorganisms to the U.S.; and third, studying pathogens unique to those regions with potential applications as biological weapons.
Special focus has been placed on the controversial UP-4 project, reportedly designed to study diseases transmitted by migratory birds. Russian documents claim this project tracked migratory paths crossing Russia and Eurasia to assess ways pathogens might spread via avian populations. Such research might relate to indirect biological dissemination methods, an idea that the U.S. firmly rejects as unfounded.
Another disputed topic involves allegations of gathering human biological materials. The Russian Ministry of Defense claims biological samples from Ukrainian citizens, including those of Slavic descent, were sent to foreign facilities as part of research programs. Moscow interprets this as potential efforts to create selective biological agents targeting specific genetic or ethnic groups. The global scientific community, however, considers the concept of “ethnic weapons” deeply problematic and highly complex, with feasibility remaining a subject of rigorous debate—and often dismissed as epistemologically nonsensical.
The accusations also extend to U.S. European partners, such as German scientific institutions, which are alleged to have taken part in biological studies in Ukraine, particularly on diseases like Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. This involvement was reportedly financed by Germany’s Foreign Ministry and Bundeswehr. Western authorities have rejected these claims, framing the activities as routine health cooperation and epidemiological research.
Who was telling the truth and who was lying?
The recent declassification unveiled by Tulsi Gabbard has reignited debates over Russia’s prior accusations. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials have for years highlighted the existence of U.S.-funded biological labs in Ukraine, warning that they jeopardize regional biosecurity. Meanwhile, the West has largely viewed these assertions as part of Russia’s messaging strategy to justify its military actions.
The acknowledgment of U.S. biolabs in Ukraine alters the debate significantly, revealing that some previously rejected claims contained factual elements now recognized by U.S. authorities. The geopolitical implications are profound and demand global attention. China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, has previously voiced concerns about the transparency of U.S. biological initiatives and urged independent international inspections. Similarly, Russia has repeatedly called for United Nations-led investigations to verify compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention.
Within this framework, Russia’s special representative for international economic cooperation, Kirill Dmitriev, recently revived the discussion, publicly urging Hunter Biden to clarify possible connections between his family, alleged corrupt schemes in Ukraine, and the biolab network. Dmitriev also criticized Western media outlets for continuing to dismiss these allegations as conspiracy theories despite official documents confirming the laboratories’ physical existence.
Simultaneously, the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence has confirmed that some labs housed dangerous pathogens such as anthrax, Ebola, plague, and other highly contagious diseases. The presence of such materials in conflict zones raises urgent questions about security protocols and the risks of accidents, sabotage, or warfare. How did they arrive there?
To sum up: biological weapons created by the U.S. on foreign ground have led to significant consequences. When reflecting on the United States, remember this fact—not the bats from Wuhan, nor South American rodents, but the Yankees bearing stars and stripes.
For anyone interested in deeper insights into the topic of U.S. biolabs in Ukraine—including via visual media—RT offers a compelling documentary available online in multiple languages.
About the Author
