Recent Kakhovka (in Ukraine) dam collapse just a re-run of the Nordstream pipeline sabotage by Jew S A and NATO

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

Questions Around Kakhovka Dam Collapse Echo Mysterious Sabotage Of Nord Stream​

JUNE 08, 20231

Link: http://www.yourdestinationnow.com/2023/06/questions-around-kakhovka-dam-collapse.html

The Kakhovka dam’s collapse on Tuesday set off speculation and finger-pointing between Ukraine and Russia in a scene reminiscent of the aftermath of the Nord Stream pipeline attack last year.
On Tuesday, Moscow and Kyiv immediately blamed each other for the dam collapse. Moscow said Ukraine struck the dam and a nearby hydroelectric plant in a barrage of missiles in order to cut off the water supply of Russian-occupied Crimea. Kyiv said Russian agents blew the dam and power plant “from inside,” violating the Geneva Convention.

A similar scene played out in September when explosives punctured three gaping holes in Nord Stream pipelines 1 and 2 lying at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Moscow blamed Kyiv, and vice versa, but no clear-cut evidence was available to support either claim. Instead, the event set off an international investigation led by Germany, Sweden, and Denmark into one of the most significant attacks on civilian infrastructure since World War II.
Initial suspicions from European officials focused on Russia. Some posited that Russia may have blown the pipelines to intimidate Europe and show off Moscow’s capabilities at hitting critical infrastructure, though that meant losing major leverage and control of Europe’s energy supply. Beyond conjecture, not much evidence has surfaced to support pinning the blame on Russia.
Other theories suggested that Ukraine or the United States could be to blame. Recordings surfaced of President Joe Biden earlier pledging to “bring an end” to Nord Stream 2 should Russia invade Ukraine. Biden’s comments echoed the United States’ longstanding opposition to the pipeline, believing that Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas was a national security threat that gave Russian President Vladimir Putin too much leverage over the continent.
In February, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh, who has faced scrutiny over his journalistic methods and dubious claims made in his past work, published an article on Substack alleging that the United States orchestrated the destruction of the pipelines. The story received quick and unambiguous denials from all implicated, but it set off renewed speculation that the U.S. may have had a role in blowing up Nord Stream.
Ukraine, largely dismissed as a suspect early on, received new scrutiny this week after leaked classified documents suggested that Ukraine’s military leadership was plotting to destroy the pipeline months before it was blown. The CIA learned about the plot in June 2022, and the details of the plan bear striking resemblances to what investigators suspect may have taken place.
For instance, the Ukrainian plan was to be carried out by a group of special operatives using fake names. German investigators found that a group of six men using fake passports rented a yacht and sailed into the Baltic Sea before Nord Stream was blown.

A similar cycle has taken over the Kakhovka dam failure. Putin has called the dam’s destruction a “barbaric action” that caused a “large-scale environmental and humanitarian catastrophe.” Strong denunciations from an autocrat with a history of brutality mean little to Western officials who are pointing the finger back at him.
“The destruction of the Kakhovka dam today put thousands of civilians at risk and causes severe environmental damage,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday. “This is an outrageous act, which demonstrates — once again — the brutality of Russia’s war against Ukraine.”
Ukraine has largely escaped scrutiny from the West, though some are pointing out that Ukraine is far from being cleared. Tucker Carlson, who is negotiating his exit from Fox News, released the first episode of his new show Wednesday on Twitter, focusing on the dam’s failure and Ukraine’s interest in seeing it fall.
“Blowing up the dam may be bad for Ukraine, but it hurts Russia more. And for that reason, the Ukrainian government has considered destroying it,” Carlson said. Last year, as the two sides were fighting for control of Kherson on the Dnieper River downstream from the dam, Ukraine considered blowing the dam to flood the river and disrupt Russian supply lines. The plan was never carried out, but also never taken off the table. It was kept as a “last resort,” according to The Washington Post.
The dam’s destruction flooded communities downriver, forcing Ukrainian and Russian emergency response teams to evacuate thousands of civilians from Kherson and the surrounding area. The depleted Kakhovka reservoir and offline hydropower plant supplied water and energy for millions of people in southern Ukraine and Russian-controlled Crimea. The reservoir also supplied water to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, now forced to rely on an artificial lake that is expected to run dry in a few months.
“When the facts start coming in, it becomes much less of a mystery what might have happened to the dam. Any fair person would conclude that the Ukrainians probably blew it up, just as you would assume they blew up Nord Stream. … In fact, the Ukrainians did do that, as we now know,” Carlson said.
 

'Cynical' Ukrainian Counteroffensive Takes 'Horrific' Casualties​

Yesterday (Updated: 20 hours ago)

Link: https://sputnikglobe.com/20230612/c...ive-takes-horrific-casualties-1111076303.html

Leopard 2 with its turret ripped off after an accident during training by Ukrainian tankers in western Poland.  - Sputnik International, 1920, 12.06.2023

© Photo : Twitter / @clashreport


James Tweedie - Sputnik International

James Tweedie

Ukraine's much-hyped counteroffensive has proven a costly debacle so far. But international relations and security analyst Mark Sleboda warned that Kiev and its NATO backers may still have some tricks up their sleeves.
The Kiev regime appears to be cynically throwing men and machines against solid Russian defenses — but all may not be as it seems, a military commentator says.
One week into the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the Kiev army has already lost thousands of casualties, along with up to 15 of the vaunted German Leopard 2 tanks, eight M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) supplied by the US and five of the French AMX-10 RC light tanks.
Security analyst Mark Sleboda told Sputnik that Ukraine's military chiefs were to blame for sending their troops into the killing fields.

"Currently there is fighting along pretty much every line of engagement between Russia and Ukraine right now, except for the Kherson area where the recent flooding has made combat impossible," Sleboda noted.
He said the Kiev regime was sending troops forward in NATO-supplied IFVs and armoured personnel carriers (APCs), supported by tanks and artillery — including US-made HIMARS rocket launchers.
"But they're doing it into echelon to Russian defenses that have been formed over months," Sleboda stressed. "Five layers of defense, trenches, concrete fortifications, pillboxes, bunkers, tank obstacles like dragon's teeth."
But he said that most significant was that Russian forces had "created mazes of minefields" which have taken a significant toll on attacking Ukrainian vehicles.

"It sounds rather cynical, but right now the strategy that the Kiev regime appears to be using to clear the minefields is over the vehicles and bodies of its territorial defense units," Sleboda said. "And the horrific casualties that are resulting from this are pretty high."
He said the Ukrainian plan right now appeared to be based on "hoping to punch a hole in the line somewhere."
"And then presumably a very large reserve force, supported by a the majority of the western main battle tanks, will seek to exploit that," Sleboda ventured. "But then even so, to make it even through one line of defense and to face several lines more, each actually progressively more significant than the others, It seems a very bad situation."
Russian serviceman - Sputnik International, 1920, 06.06.2023
Russia's Special Operation in Ukraine
Ex-Intel Officer Scott Ritter Portrays Ukraine's Counter-Offensive as Dead End
6 June, 16:11 GMT
But the security expert warned against complacency on the Russian side, saying he expected "something more cunning" from the Ukrainian armed forces.
"Once the waters recede from the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, I expect some kind of multiple pronged attack, including amphibious assaults against a lower Kakhovka reservoir towards Energodar and the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant," he said. "But I would presume that Russia is also prepared to defend that there as well."

"NATO has been wargaming this out for half a year. This is the most hyped, announced offensive in world history," Sleboda stressed. "I'm expecting that there has to be a curveball. It can't be this straight up playing exactly into Russia's defenses. There's going to be something. We just haven't seen it yet."
For more in-depth analysis of the top news events, tune in to our Sputnik Radio show Fault Lines.
 

More than four-in-ten Republicans now say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine​

BY ANDY CERDA

Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...-the-us-is-providing-too-much-aid-to-ukraine/

FT_23.01.24_Ukraine_feature.jpg
The Ukrainian flag flies near the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 21, 2022, the night Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed a joint meeting of Congress. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
As the war in Ukraine intensifies, nearly half of Americans (47%) say either that the United States is providing the right amount of aid (31%) or not enough assistance (16%) to Ukraine, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. That compares with 28% who say the U.S. is giving too much support to Ukraine.
How we did this
Yet the share of Americans who say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine has steadily increased since the start of the war, largely driven by a shift among Republicans.
A bar chart that shows since Russia’s invasion, Republicans have grown increasingly skeptical of U.S. aid level to Ukraine.
Currently, 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the U.S. is giving too much aid to Ukraine, up modestly since January (40%) and the highest level since shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year.
Just 14% of Democrats and Democratic leaners view the current level of U.S. aid as excessive, little changed in recent months.
In March of last year, Republicans were only 4 percentage points more likely than Democrats to say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine (9% vs. 5%). Today, Republicans are 30 points more likely to say so.
Public attention to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is little changed in recent months. Around six-in-ten Americans (59%) – including similar shares of Republicans and Democrats – say they follow news about the invasion at least somewhat closely.

How much of a threat to the U.S. is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?​

A bar chart showing that fewer Americans say Russia’s invasion is a major threat than in March 2022.
Roughly a third of Americans (32%) say Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a major threat to U.S. interests. An identical share say it is a minor threat, while 11% say it is not a threat.
These views have changed only modestly since January. But in March 2022, half of Americans said Russia’s invasion posed a major threat to U.S. interests.
Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say Russia’s invasion is a major threat (38% vs. 28%), but this view has declined among members of both parties since March of last year.

Views of the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion​

Around four-in-ten U.S. adults (39%) say they approve of the Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while about a third (35%) disapprove, according to the new survey. A quarter say they are not sure.
A bar chart that shows slightly more Americans approve than disapprove of Biden administration’s response to Russia’s invasion.
A majority of Democrats (59%) approve of the administration’s response, while just 16% disapprove. In contrast, 57% of Republicans disapprove of the administration’s response, while 23% approve.
Views of the Biden administration’s response have changed little since January, the last time this question was asked.
Note: This is an update of a post originally published Jan. 31, 2023. Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology. [see site link, above, top]
 

Former NATO Chief Admits "We Decided Back in 2008, Ukraine WILL Become Member of NATO"​

WORLD HAL TURNER 15 JUNE 2023

Link: https://halturnerradioshow.com/inde...k-in-2008-ukraine-will-become-member-of-nato/

[see vid at site link, above]

Former NATO Chief Admits We Decided Back in 2008, Ukraine WILL Become Member of NATO


Folks who think the Russia-Ukraine conflict began on February 24, 2022 may be surprised to learn it's been brewing since 2008. Former NATO Chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen admits in video below "We decided back in 2008, Ukraine WILL become a member of NATO." That decision caused today's troubles.
In the video below, released by "Alliance of Democracies" which was founded by the former NATO Chief, Rasmussen speaks about the present Russia-Ukraine conflict and how NATO is trying to find a way to admit Ukraine even though it is presently at conflict with Russia!
Rasmussen points to the possibility that the US and NATO might give certain "Security Guarantees" to Ukraine BEFORE it is admitted to NATO. The Interviewer asks Rasmussen if such Security Guarantees might be worded similar to those between the US and Israel, and Rasmussen makes a STUNNING admission:
We don't have to use that wording we can use the wording from 2008. "We decided in 2008 Ukraine WILL be admitted to NATO."
At approximately 1m 57s into the video below, he makes that statement. Watch for yourself:

This is a stunning fact. This was not previously publicized, anywhere.
What this means is that the present troubles between Russia-Ukraine/NATO/US all began with that decision back in the year 2008.
From that decision, the US/NATO and the collective West, did what they thought necessary to lay the foundations TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY PROMISED RUSSIA THEY WOULD NOT DO.
Back in 1991, then US Secretary of State, James Baker, met with then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and his then Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevrednadze in the Kremlin. It is noted in official US and UK documents that Baker, on orders from then US President George H.W. Bush, told Gobachev and Shevrednadze that if the then Soviet Union agreed to the re-unification of East and West Germany, "NATO will not move beyond the Elbe (River)" in East Germany.
Here is a snippet of the UK document, from the UK National Archive, outlining the facts:

So NATO knew in 2008, that back in 1991, the US, UK, France, and Germany promised the then Soviet Union that NATO would **NOT** be expanded east of Germany and now we see above, straight from the horses mouth, that the very Chief of NATO back in 2008 agreed to admit Ukraine. He knew they were not supposed to do that, but they did it anyway.
The US, UK, France and Germany explicitly promised not to do that, and NATO went ahead and did it anyway starting in 2008.
That leads us to who was in charge back in 2008. In the US, George W. Bush (the son) was President.
Michael Hayden, a retired United States Air Force four-star general and former Director of the National Security Agency, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Robert Gates, an American intelligence analyst and university president served as the twenty-second United States Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011.
Those are the men who needed to green-light such a move by NATO and, clearly, from Rasumussen's admission in the video above, they must have actually done so.
Here we are, 15 or so years later, we are all on the verge of Nuclear World War 3 because of the decisions these men took in 2008.
Now, on several of my radio shows, I have wondered aloud if the people in our government are psychopaths based on the things they are doing which ARE leading us all into another World War?
The video above gives all of us a look into whether or not they actually ARE psychopaths.
When the Interviewer in the video above, asks Rasmussen "What will the Russians think about that (Giving security guarantees to Ukraine before it is admitted to NATO) Rasmussen replies "I don't care."
. . . and there . . . . right there . . . you now see the answer to whether or not these people are psychopaths.
We are facing nuclear World War 3 because of what men like Rasmussen did - and are still doing - and his response to the Interviewer is simply "I don't care."

With people like this, doing what's being done, you and I seem to have no hope at all of avoiding nuclear world war 3.
Prepare as best you can with Emergency Food, Water, Medicine, a generator for electric, fuel for that generator, communications gear (CB/HAM Radio) and get right with God.
 

Ukraine Destroyed the Kakhovka Dam: A Forensic Assessment​

By Thomas Palley
Global Research, July 07, 2023
Thomas Palley 4 July 2023

Link: https://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrai...ing_wp_cron=1688799636.1393330097198486328125

Kakhovka_HES-400x300.jpg

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Kakhovka dam was a massive two-mile-long structure that dammed the Dnieper River which bisects Ukraine. It was built by the Soviet Union in 1956 and raised the Dnieper by 16 meters (52 feet), creating the Kakhovka Reservoir. The dam was destroyed on 6 June 2023, resulting in massive flooding downstream on both sides of the river which created a social and environmental disaster. The city of Kherson, located near the river’s mouth with the Black Sea, was also flooded.
Both Ukraine and Russia deny blowing up the dam and blame the other. At this stage, all the evidence is circumstantial and conjectural, but a forensic assessment of that evidence overwhelmingly suggests Ukraine destroyed the dam. Despite that, US and Western European politicians and media have uniformly sought to implicate Russia as the perpetrator.
In multiple ways, the dam’s destruction echoes the 2022 destruction of the Russian-owned Nord Stream 2 pipeline. That pipeline was a piece of civilian infrastructure; was destroyed by an explosion; its destruction caused a massive environmental disaster; Ukraine denies any role; many European governments claimed Russia had blown up its own pipeline; and Western media either explicitly claimed Russia had done it (Time) or tendentiously sought to implicate Russia (New York Times, Guardian).

The evidence: a forensic assessment

The evidence regarding the dam’s destruction is circumstantial, conjectural, and multi-dimensional. The best starting point is motive.
(1) The main argument against Russia is it blew up the dam to disrupt Ukraine’s pre-announced counter-offensive and gain military advantage. That argument is easily dismissed.
The dam’s destruction flooded both sides of the Dnieper. Ukraine’s forces were stationed far in the rear, out of range of Russian artillery. In contrast, Russian forces were dug in on the east bank in anticipation of Ukraine’s offensive. The Guardian recently reported: “The explosion – which Kyiv and Western governments say Moscow carried out – washed away Russian frontline positions….. The hydroelectric dam explosion has made crossing the river easier after water levels receded leaving behind a sandy plain.” Indeed, Ukraine has now established a small bridgehead on the east bank of the river, near the destroyed Antonivskyi bridge.
Russia was undoubtedly aware that flooding would be militarily counter productive. Thus, The Moscow Times (which is highly critical of President Putin) reported back in November 2022 that: “(T)errain levels mean the flooding would likely be worse on the Russian-held left bank of the Dnipro, making a detonation of the explosives on the dam an unlikely move for Moscow. ‘[Destroying the dam] would mean Russia essentially blowing off its own foot’ military analyst Michael Kofman said on the War on the Rocks podcast last month. ‘(I)t would flood the Russian-controlled part of Kherson [region]… much more than the western part Ukrainians are likely to liberate’.”

(2) Another reason why Russia would not destroy the dam (and Ukraine would) is Crimea’s water supply. The Kakhovka resevoir is a major source of water supply to the parched Crimea peninsula via the North Crimea canal. Ukraine cut off that supply in 2014. On capturing the Kakhovka dam in early 2022, Russia immediately restored supply, showing its high priority. Russia destroying the dam would be a self-inflicted wound. Ukraine destroying it would fit with Ukrainian aspirations to disrupt and recapture Crimea.
(3) Prior Ukrainian attacks on the dam show Ukraine’s willingness to destroy it. In November 2022, during its Kherson counter-offensive, Ukraine shelled and damaged the dam in an unsuccessful attempt to cut-off Russia’s retreat across road and rail lines on top of the dam. Moreover, President Zelinsky publicly warned that Russia had mined the dam’s generating room, so Ukraine was aware of that. In keeping with its practices, Ukraine denied those attacks — as if Russia were shelling its own troops, cutting-off its line of retreat, and risking flooding its positions in Kherson which were then on both sides of the river.
Even more damning, The Washington Post (December 29, 2022) reports Ukraine’s General Andriy Kovalchuk, commander of the southern front, acknowledged using high precision US-supplied HIMARS missiles to attack the dam in November 2022: “Kovalchuk considered flooding the river. The Ukrainians, he said, even conducted a test strike with a HIMARS launcher on one of the floodgates at the Nova Kakhovka dam, making three holes in the metal to see if the Dnieper’s water could be raised enough to stymie Russian crossings but not flood nearby villages. The test was a success, Kovalchuk said….”
(4) The silence of US and UK military intelligence suggests Ukraine did it. The US and UK are deeply involved in the war and committed to discrediting and indicting Russia. Yet, neither country’s intelligence services have released official pronouncements that Russia blew up the dam. The reason is if they made such pronouncements, they would have to provide evidence which they either do not have or (more likely) shows Ukraine did it. Silence can be revealing, as in the Sherlock Holmes story in which the decisive clue is the dog that did not bark.
(5) The timing of the destruction makes no sense from a Russian standpoint. Russia has held the dam since early 2022. It did not destroy it when Russian forces were retreating from Kharkiv in September 2022, and nor did it destroy the dam when Russian forces withdrew from western Kherson in November 2022. Now, the tide of war has turned in Russia’s favor as evidenced by the capture of Bakhmut and the failing Ukrainian counter-offensive; Ukraine’s calls for both additional and more advanced weaponry; and calls by by former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen to put Polish troops in Ukraine. Those circumstances speak to why Ukraine had a military incentive to blow the dam now, and not Russia.
(6) Lastly, Kherson is a heavily ethnically Russian region which would discourage Russia from flooding it and encourage Ukraine to do so. Throughout the conflict, demographic considerations have been almost entirely neglected by Western media. The war has been fought in the Donbas and Kherson regions which are almost exclusively ethnically Russian. Concern for the safety of ethnic Russians is a high priority for Moscow, which explains why Russia has evacuated locales in advance of conflict. In contrast, Ukraine is controlled by Azov/Bandera forces which are committed to extinguishing the ethnic Russian presence. That was evident in the battle for Mariupol in which occupying Azov forces used the civilian population as a human shield. It is also evident in Ukraine’s on-going purge of Russian culture, prohibition of the Russian language, and banning of political rights for ethnic Russians. Given those attitudes, the destruction of ethnically Russian centers suits Ukraine and helps explain its psychological willingness to commit a crime of such proportions.

How was the dam destroyed?

The above evidence points to Ukraine’s culpability. However, there remains the question of how the dam was destroyed. Two possibilities suggest themselves.
The first possibility is Ukraine again targeted the Kokhovka dam gates with HIMARS missiles, as it had done in November 2022. This time the dam gave way owing to accumulated structural weakness from lack of maintenance and abnormal operating procedures. That explanation would account for both the explosion signatures that were seismographically detected and the infra-red heat signatures that were detected by US spy satellites. It is also consistent with the structural collapse argument made by the Conflict Intelligence Team (CIT), which is an anti-Putin organization that monitors Russia’s global military activity.
The second possibility is Ukraine fired HIMARS missiles at a detonator mechanism that was atop the dam. The dam was mined for miltary purposes, as would-be all bridges and crossings. Ukraine knew that and photos have surfaced showing a car packed with explosives and wired into the structure of the dam. That explanation would be consistent with an explosion from within the dam. It would also be consistent with the detected seismic and infra-red signatures, and the CIT explanation would also be relevant as the dam was vulnerable owing to inappropriate wear-and-tear.

Consequences

There are important consequences to Ukraine’s probable destruction of the Kakhovka dam and the West’s complicitous concealment thereof.
First, President Zelensky and Western leaders have accused Russia of ecocide and a war crime. If it is now shown that Ukraine is responsible, that makes Ukraine guilty of those crimes. If HIMARS missiles were used in the attack, that would make the US an accessory, at least in spirit. If British Sorm Shadow missiles were used, the UK would be an accessory. The extent of US or British personnel involvement is an unknown.
Second, the West’s concealment of Ukraine’s probable attack renders it complicit and carries dangerous consequences. Letting Ukraine get away with it promises to further embolden Ukrainian recklessness. There have long been fears Ukraine would attack the Zaporizhzia nuclear plant and claim Russia had done so. The Kakhovka dam attack can be viewed as a trial run, and President Zelensky has already begun stepping up the Zaporizhzia nuclear rhetoric.
An attack on Zaporizhzia would be a catastrophe for all Eastern Europe, Central Europe, and even Western Europe. Beyond that is the risk Russia interprets such an attack as akin to a dirty bomb and responds in kind. Complicity has its consequences.
Third, the West’s concealment of the probable Ukrainian Kakhovka dam attack resonates with other coverage regarding the war, and it threatens Western democracy. Mendacity about foreign affairs does not stay outside. Instead, it bleeds inward and affects the domestic body politic.
 

U.S. DOD ISSUED CONTRACT FOR ‘COVID-19 RESEARCH’ IN UKRAINE IN 2019​


Published: July 11, 2023

SOURCE: THE EXPOSE

Link: https://www.blacklistednews.com/art...tract-for-covid19-research-in-ukraine-in.html

The world first started to hear about a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, with reports of an alleged new pneumonia like illness spreading across Wuhan, China. However, the world did not actually know of Covid-19 until February 2020, because it was not until the 11th of that month that the World Health Organisation officially named the novel coronavirus disease as Covid-19.
So with this being the official truth, why does United States Government data show that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) awarded a contract on the 12th November 2019 to Labyrinth Global Health INC. for ‘COVID-19 Research’, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?
The shocking findings however, do not end there. The contract awarded in November 2019
for ‘COVID-19 Research’ was not only instructed to take place in Ukraine, it was in fact part of a much larger contract for a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’.
Perhaps explaining why Labyrinth Global Health has been collaborating with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and Ernest Wolfe’s Metabiota since its formation in 2017.

The Government of the United States has a website called ‘USA Spending‘, an official open data source of federal spending information. According to the site as of 12th April 2021 the US Government has spent a mind-blowing $3.63 trillion “in response to COVID-19”. But that’s not the only information on Covid that can be found within the site.
image-163.png

Hidden within the ‘Award Search’ are details on a contract awarded by the Department of Defense to a company named ‘Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp‘, which is allegedly “a global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company specialising in infrastructure development”.
The contact was awarded on September 20th, 2012 and is described as “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services”. Obviously this is very vague and most likely of little interest to anyone who happens to stumble across it. But there is something contained deep within the details that should be of interest to anyone and everyone.
The ‘Award History’ for the contract contains a tab for ‘Sub-Awards’ detailing the recipients, action date, amount, and very brief description for 115 Sub-Award transactions. Most of the Sub-Awards are extremely mundane for things such as “laboratory equipment for Kyiv”, or “office furniture for Kyiv”.
Click to enlarge
But there is one Sub-Award that stands out among the rest, and it is was awarded to Labyrinth Global Health INC for “SME Manuscript Documentation and COVID-19 Research”.
An award for Covid-19 research isn’t exactly shocking when the world is allegedly in the grip of a Covid-19 pandemic, but considering the fact the sub-contract was awarded 12th November 2019, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19, the award for Covid-19 research should come as a shock to everyone.
Source
But the shock doesn’t end there, because the place the contact for Covid-19 research was instructed to take place was Ukraine, as was the entire contract awarded by the DOD to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp.
image-166.png

The contract details found on the ‘USA Spending’ site actually reveal that the specific DOD department that awarded the contact was the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The contract was awarded 20th September 2012, and concluded on 13th October 2020.
image-168.png

Whilst the details are vague, the US Government site also reveals that $21.7 million of the $116.6 million contact was spent on a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’.

Why did the Department of Defense pay a company that is allegedly “a global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company specialising in infrastructure development”, to help implement a “Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’?
And why did both the DOD and said company then pay Labyrinth Global Health INC to carry out COVID-19 research in Ukraine at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?
Founded in 2017, Labyrinth Global Health is allegedly a “women-owned small business with deep expertise and a proven track record supporting initiatives for scientific and medical advancement.”
They describe themselves as “a multicultural and international organization with offices in four countries and a team of experts with diverse backgrounds and competencies, including microbiology, virology, global health, emerging infectious disease nursing, medical anthropology, field epidemiology, clinical research, and health information systems.”
One of those offices just happens to be located in Kyiv, Ukraine, which the company dubs “a gateway to Eastern Europe”.
image-169.png
Source
The leadership team of Labyrinth Global consists of Karen Saylors, PHD who is the Chief Executive Officer; Mary Guttieri, PHS who is the Chief Science Officer; and Murat Tartan who is the Chief Financial Officer.
image-170.png
Source
Karen Saylors, PhD, who co-founded Labyrinth Global Health, has allegedly worked in the international public health field for over a decade and has spent many years living in Africa establishing global surveillance networks, “working with partners to improve Global Health policy on infectious disease detection, response, and control”.
At Labyrinth, Dr. Saylors specialises in studies that aim to understand and mitigate biological and behavioural risk of disease transmission. Dr. Saylors worked with Oxford University Clinical Trials Network in Vietnam on zoonotic disease surveillance research and continues to coordinate with regional partners on emerging outbreaks in animal and human populations.
But who are the partners that Dr Karen Saylors and Labyrinth Global Health choose to work with? They are none other than the ‘Eco Health Alliance’ and ‘Metabiota’.
Dr Karen Saylors, Eco Health Alliance and Metabiota worked together on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) ‘PREDICT’ program from 2009, while Labyrinth Global Health worked alongside EHA and Metabiota on the PREDICT program from 2017.
Launched in 2009 and funded by USAID, PREDICT was an early warning system for new and emerging diseases in 21 countries. It was led by the University of California’s (“UC”) Davis One Health Institute and core partners included EcoHealth Alliance (“EHA”), Metabiota, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Smithsonian Institution, and as we’ve just revealed; Labyrinth Global Health. PREDICT was a forerunner of the more ambitious Global Virome Project.
The USAID describes PREDICT as having made “significant contributions to strengthening global surveillance and laboratory diagnostic capabilities for both known and newly discovered viruses within several important virus groups, such as filoviruses (including ebolaviruses), influenza viruses, paramyxoviruses, and coronaviruses“.
Here’s one of the many studies published by Eco Health Alliance, Metabiota and Labyrinth Global Health proving the connection –
image-174.png
Source
PREDICT partnered with the non-profit Eco Health Alliance (EHA) to carry out its 9-year effort to catalogue hundreds of thousands of biological samples, “including over 10,000 bats.” A PREDICT-funded 2015 study on “diversity of coronavirus in bats” also included Peter Daszak, president of EHA, among its participants.
Eco Health Alliance is listed as a partner of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (“WIV”) on archived pages of its website and was mentioned as a one of the institute’s “strategic partners” by the WIV’s Deputy Director General in 2018.
Notably, the relationship between the WIV and the American Biodefence establishment was advanced by EHA policy advisor, David R. Franz, former commander at US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick.
WIV’s Dr. Shi Zhengli, a.k.a. “Batwoman,” had also worked with EHA’s Daszak on bat-related studies. As far back as 2005, Daszak and Zhengli were conducting research on SARS-like coronaviruses in bats. Several PREDICT-funded studies on SARS-like coronaviruses and Swine Flu count with both Zhengli’s and Daszak’s contributions. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these is a 2015 PREDICT and NIH-funded study she co-authored entitled: ‘A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.
Meanwhile, Nathan Wolfe is the founder of Metabiota and non-profit Global Viral. He spent over eight years conducting biomedical research in both sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Unsurprisingly, Wolfe is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader. More notably, since 2008 he had been a member of DARPA’s DSRC, Defence Science Research Council, until it was disbanded.
All of these people and organisations have been working for at least the last decade studying coronaviruses and helping to set up Biolabs in Ukraine. All using US Department of Defense funds to do so. You can read much more about this here, here and here.
image-173.png

Putting the biolabs in Ukraine to one side for now, let’s return to the subject of Covid-19. If the US Government was funding Covid-19 research before Covid-19 was publicly known to exist then this suggests they either knew Covid-19 existed naturally, or they were involved in constructing this virus in a lab.
But if the contract evidence isn’t enough for you to come to this conclusion (it should be), then perhaps coupling it with evidence that the US National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID), and Moderna had a coronavirus candidate in December 2019 will be.
A confidentially agreement which can be viewed here, states that providers ‘Moderna’ alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna to recipients ‘The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
image-180.png

The material transfer agreement was signed the December 12th 2019 by Ralph Baric, PhD, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and then signed by Jacqueline Quay, Director of Licensing and Innovation Support at the University of North Carolina on December 16th 2019.
image-179.png

The agreement was also signed by two representatives of the NIAID, one of whom was Amy F. Petrik PhD, a technology transfer specialist who signed the agreement on December 12th 2019 at 8:05 am. The other signatory was Barney Graham MD PhD, an investigator for the NIAID, however this signature was not dated.
image-178.png

The final signatories on the agreement were Sunny Himansu, Moderna’s Investigator, and Shaun Ryan, Moderna’s Deputy General Councel. Both signautres were made on December 17th 2019.
image-177.png

All of these signatures were made prior to any knowledge of the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus.It wasn’t until December 31st 2019 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) became aware of an alleged cluster of viral pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. But even at this point they had not determined that an alleged new coronavirus was to blame, instead stating the pneumonia was of “unknown cause”.
image-176.png

All of this requires much further research to fit all of the pieces of the puzzle together, but here’s what we definitely know so far –
  • A novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan in December 2019.
  • The world did not get to hear about this novel coronavirus until early January 2020.
  • The world did not know this novel coronavirus was called Covid-19 until February 2020, when the World Health Organization officially named it so.
  • The US Department of Defense awarded a contract for Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services to Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp‘, which is allegedly “a global engineering, procurement, consulting and construction company specialising in infrastructure development”.
  • That contract involved a Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine.
  • As part of this larger contract, another contract was awarded to Labyrinth Global Health for ‘COVID-19 Research’ on 12th November 2019.
  • This was awarded at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19.
  • Labyrinth Global Health works alongside the ‘Eco Health Alliance’, and ‘Metabiota’, and participated in the USAID PREDICT program. All of these people and organisations have been working for at least the past decade studying coronaviruses and helping to set up Biolabs in Ukraine. All using US Department of Defense funds to do so.
  • Information found here points to Eco Health Alliance having a hand in creating the Covid-19 virus.
  • Information found here points to Moderna having a hand in creating the Covid-19 virus.
  • ‘Moderna’, alongside the ‘National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ (NIAID) agreed to tranfer ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates’ developed and jointly-owned by NIAID and Moderna, to recipients ‘The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’ on the 12th December 2019.
What does all this point to? That’s for you to ponder and decide. But we promise you there is much more to come on the above…

READ MORE... [see https://expose-news.com/2023/07/09/u-s-dod-issued-contract-for-covid-research-in-2019/]​

 
Back
Top