On February 5, 2003, at the UN Security Council, Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, showed the other secretaries at the meeting a white liquid, which was supposed to be a vial of anthrax and would be in the hands of the Iraqi regime.

However, in 2005, a report released by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported that, since 1991, Iraq had no active program to build weapons of mass destruction; but, based on these inquiries/lies by the secretary and the US, together with their propaganda apparatus and military complex, they forged that Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, would have weapons of this magnitude and could attack Western countries at any minute. Tony Blair, the British prime minister at the time, even said Saddam's missiles could strike the UK in less than 45 minutes.

After the fuss, another step in the Western neocolonial plan began, a plan that began with the attacks of Al-Qaeda on September 11 and aimed at the economic and political takeover of the Middle East and Central Asia, and Iraq would suffer from this new imperial doctrine to maintain its unipolar order. The false evidence legitimized the invasion and the conflict would extend until Saddam's death in 2006, in addition to legitimizing that the country would remain under US intervention until the present day.

After the lies and the war, the US was accused of several human rights violations, with much more violence than Saddam did, including allegations of torture camps and that his airstrikes attacked civilians, as shown in the video released by Wikileaks of a " collateral massacre".

The war was won by the West, Saddam was killed and Iraq was "liberated", but one question remained: where were the weapons that would attack the West at any moment? After the mainstream media censored dissenting analysts at the White House speech and ended their careers, what was the explanation for the lies against Iraq and its insane oppression of the truth? None. In fact, even after proof, they begin to justify their own lies, saying that Westerners brought "democracy" and "freedom" to Iraq, even as these liberal utopian myths were brought to Iraq through torture, lies, and killing.

The weapons are in Ukraine

After years of ethnocentric policies against the ethnic Russian population and becoming an informal colony of NATO, Ukraine is under Russian intervention and aiming at the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of the nation, as Putin put it.

The West has only two options to offer as a response to Russia, they are:

1. Imposing unilateral sanctions, which could once fall on its votes;

2. Buying public opinion with an anti-Russian sentiment, even allowing posts that authorize and legitimize violence against the Russian population on social media, in addition to, perhaps the most horrendous attitude, turning Nazi militias and rulers into heroes — "the new freedom fighters".

All this propagandist verbalization has one goal: to undermine the new geopolitical order — of Eurasia. After two weeks of conflict, the Russian Defense Ministry, on Thursday (10/2), released on its exhibition platforms that the US and its allies were behind the funding of more than 30 chemical and biological weapons laboratories, with research facilities with sites in Kiev, Kharkov, Kherson, Lvov, Odessa and Poltava, among other cities, were being funded by the Pentagon worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The value is estimated at $200 million, and it appears that research has been going on for several years until recently, including with avian viruses and pathogens involving bats, such as Covid-19, according to a report by Russian media agency TASS.

The Russians obtained the information during the conflict and they demand answers from the Americans on the issue.

The confused response from US officials

The American response was full of contradictions and ambiguous speeches. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki took to Twitter to say that the authentic documents released by the Russians were "disinformation", like anything that diverges from the totalitarian narratives of the corporate media; But in contrast, Marc Rubio asked US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland during a Senate Committee hearing: "Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons?" The response from the US Secretary of State, the same that in 2014 was distributing 'cookies' to the coup plotters in Ukraine and had a direct influence on US interference in the country, was the statement that the country, on Ukrainian soil, has biological research centers.

In addition to confirming, in opposition to her co-worker, Nuland also gave “rag to her sleeve” the Russophobic corporations by saying that the weapons could not reach the “hands” of the Russians. world, including in ex-Soviet republics, which affects the security of Russia, and in Indo-Pacific countries, affecting the security of China. of questions about these facilities:

1. Why do these laboratories work in sovereign countries?

2. What is the purpose of these laboratories?

3. What is their relationship with the emergence of virological diseases, such as Covid-19?

The answers must be given soon, humanity waits for that. In addition, after the Russians and Chinese, the UN Security Council is also demanding answers, but, like the response of Nuland and Jen Psaki, the US will continue with its false and contradictory rhetoric, if it talks about imposing its narratives on hegemonic media, ending the search for truth. The US has a continued history of creating facilities of this magnitude. Just after World War II, the country spent another 250,000 yen (several thousand dollars at the time) to acquire biological and chemical weapons from Japan's terrible neo-colonial empire. Research on these labs has shown responses and successes - despite being terrible -; within 30 years of the purchase, the number of P₄ labs on US soil had risen to 750% - following the international community's fear of leaks and explosions.

After unprecedented internal pressure, the US banned the construction of laboratories on American soil and, as a consequence, took these research centers to other countries.

Shortly after transporting these labs, there were criminal leaks linked to these US centers in third countries such as Ukraine, South Korea, Kazakhstan and Georgia. These weapons, classified as weapons of mass destruction, are prohibited from being built and studied by private research centers, as the US has done. However, with the eyes of the international community focused on the confrontation in Eastern Europe, it will be difficult to provide a decent coverage of this extremely important event.

Who financed them?

Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop has once again shown its influence in the matter, as it allegedly contains emails that appear to support Russian claims that the US president's son was involved in funding biological laboratories in Ukraine and that he would be in their heads to force the development of pathogens. Biden helped arrange millions of dollars in funding for Metabiota, a Pentagon contractor specializing in researching pandemic-causing pathogens that could be used as biological weapons, the UK's Daily Mail highlighted Friday, citing emails. and letters freshly retrieved from the computer. The president's son and his partners at a company called Rosemont Seneca also invested $500,000 in the contractor.

At least one of the documents suggested that Metabiota's interest in Ukraine went beyond research and making money. Another memo showed that Biden had launched a “science project” involving Metabiota and Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company where Biden made millions of dollars as a board member. His salary was halved after his father's term as US vice president ended in January 2017.

However, some Western media outlets dismissed the allegations as Russian propaganda intended to justify Moscow's military attack on Ukraine. In many cases, the allegations were ignored or mocked without even taking them seriously enough to include a US government response.

For example, the Daily Beast stated in a headline, “Russia escalates madness,” while state-funded NPR and other outlets referred to the allegations as “false” or “propaganda” with no apparent investigation of the facts. Even the Daily Mail itself, before getting Biden's latest emails, said that Russia had stepped up its "wild propaganda campaign" in making its biological weapons claims.

The reaction echoed the response in October 2020, when the New York Post released a story alleging influence peddling abroad by the Biden family, citing emails obtained from a laptop that Hunter had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop. The release of the report was blocked on social media, where the Post was censored, and mainstream media suggested the scandal was the result of a Russian disinformation campaign. So the original scoop was essentially buried just weeks before Biden was elected president, in an extraordinary case of media bias.

However, last week, the New York Times admitted that the laptop and its contents were authentic. Government records show that Metabiota was awarded an $18.4 million contract from the Pentagon, the Daily Mail added. The emails showed that Hunter Biden claimed to be helping the contractor “win new clients,” including government agencies. Russia wants to hear US government comments on Hunter Biden's alleged involvement in funding a network of biological laboratories in Ukraine that Moscow suspects of conducting biological weapons research, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. The Russian military claimed the fund had close ties to the Pentagon and helped fund bioresearch in Ukraine.

The newspaper said emails between Hunter Biden and business partners about Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma and other overseas businesses were "authenticated" by "people familiar" with the messages and the tax investigation. So, unlike Saddam, the US has weapons that can destroy another country at any time. The Western media, which once made Saddam the incarnation of the antichrist, have not opened their voices to criticize or even question American "experiments" - showing their lack of commitment to rationality. So, should countries at risk of chemical attacks intervene in the US, as the Americans did in Iraq?