Sunday, October 11, 2026

The Soviet Union Possessed The Most Sophisticated Offensive Biological Weapons Program...


The Soviet Union Possessed The Most Sophisticated Offensive Biological Weapons Program In Human History And They Weaponized The Plague

On the second of October, in a town most people could not place on a map, a young woman died of a pneumonia that nobody could name. Her name was Darya Shipilova, and she was twenty-eight, a laboratory technician in Shelekhov, a small settlement in the Irkutsk region of Siberia, at an institute whose entire reason for existing is the study of plague. Two days earlier she had fallen ill at work, gone home, and never recovered.

The official account is careful to the point of evasiveness. Rospotrebnadzor, Russia’s health watchdog, said she had died of a pneumonia of unknown origin, and that no case of plague had been recorded in Irkutsk at all. The head of a neighbouring region, Buryatia, had already told the world on social media that she died of the disease, then edited his post to soften the claim into a possibility. Even the World Health Organization was informed there was nothing to see. And then, quietly, everyone began to behave as though there were.

That is a great deal of machinery to assemble over one death from a nameless pneumonia. No country seals hospitals, cancels events, screens airports and spooks its neighbours because a lab technician caught an ordinary chest infection. It does those things when it is unsure what it is dealing with, and when the honest answer would be more alarming than the reassuring one it has chosen to give.

Which leaves the one question no official has answered. What was inside that laboratory.

The answer does not hinge on the fate of a single technician. It hinges on the fact that the Irkutsk Research Anti-Plague Institute of Siberia is no ordinary public-health facility. Rather, it is a surviving node of a network built by a superpower that spent four decades secretly engineering the deadliest bacteria known to man, and that treated the plague not as a disease to be cured but as a weapon to be sharpened. If the strain in Siberia was ordinary, the world will hardly notice. If it was something the Soviet Union built, the comfortable arithmetic that health officials keep reciting — that antibiotics will save us — may not survive contact with reality.

A second reason to take this seriously has nothing to do with Russia. The modern world has spent seventy years telling itself that plague is a solved problem, a medieval curiosity with a modern cure. That confidence rests on a single pillar: pneumonic plague, the only form that travels from person to person, is a bacterium, and bacteria can be killed with drugs. Every strategy, protocol and contingency plan assumes the drugs work. What few people outside a small circle of specialists appreciate is that the Soviet Union spent the last decade of its life building versions of the plague designed to make sure they do not. Then it collapsed, and left those versions running.

The Only Plague That Travels on Breath

Plague arrives in three forms, and almost everyone has heard of the wrong one. The version carved into the European imagination, bubonic plague, spreads by the bite of an infected flea and announces itself with swollen, agonising lymph nodes called buboes. Septicemic plague floods the bloodstream and can kill before any bubo appears. Both are grim, and both are lethal without treatment, but neither passes easily from one person to the next.

Pneumonic plague is the outlier, the one that behaves like a respiratory virus while killing like something out of the Middle Ages. Settling in the lungs, it leaves the body on the breath. When an infected person coughs, or even exhales hard, they throw out a fine mist of droplets carrying Yersinia pestis, the rod-shaped bacterium behind all three forms. Anyone standing close enough breathes it in, and the clock starts. This is the only form of plague that spreads person to person, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta says so in exactly those words.

The timeline is what makes it frightening. Symptoms can surface within a day or two of exposure, and the incubation period rarely runs past three days. Fever, chills, a cough that soon brings up blood. From the first sign of illness, the window to act is measured in hours. Get antibiotics within roughly twenty-four hours of the symptoms beginning and the odds are good; miss that window and the case is close to a death sentence. Untreated, pneumonic plague is fatal in the overwhelming majority of cases, and fast enough that a patient can be talking at breakfast and dead by the following evening.

Contrast that with the viral pandemics of recent memory. Covid-19 spread easily and killed a small fraction of those it reached. Pneumonic plague spreads less efficiently but kills a far larger share of the people it touches, and does so in days rather than weeks. A pathogen with that combination — short incubation, airborne transmission, brutal lethality — is the sort of thing that empties cities. Bubonic plague crawled across medieval Europe on the backs of fleas and rats over the better part of a decade; its pneumonic cousin can move through an airport terminal in a single afternoon.

This is not a disease of the past, either, which is the part the public tends to forget. A few hundred cases are reported around the world each year, clustered in places like Madagascar and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with smaller pockets in central Asia, Mongolia and the western United States. In 2017, Madagascar suffered an outbreak of pneumonic plague that infected thousands and briefly panicked the Indian Ocean. In 2014, a Colorado man became the first American in a century to catch the pneumonic form in his own country. The bacterium has never gone away; it has merely been kept at arm’s length by drugs and by geography.

Geography, though, is a weaker defence than it once was. Plague lives in rodent populations across enormous stretches of the planet, and every so often one of those reservoirs boils over into a human. What follows depends entirely on how quickly the first case is recognised and how quickly the patient is treated. In a rural district with a functioning clinic, that is a manageable problem. In a crowded airport, a hospital waiting room, or a lab where the strain is worse than anything nature makes, it is not.

Which is precisely why the Soviet Union found it so interesting. A disease that spreads on the breath, kills within days and can only be stopped by one class of drug is a gift to anyone building a weapon. Nature had already done most of the work; all the Soviets had to do was remove the one thing that made it survivable.

An Empire’s Shadow Factory

For most of the Cold War, the world believed the Soviet biological weapons effort was a modest, defensive affair. The Americans had their program, the British had theirs, and everyone assumed Moscow had something similar but smaller, tidier and safely under control. In fact, as only became clear after 1991, the Soviet Union had built the largest and most sophisticated offensive biological weapons enterprise ever assembled, and had lied about it for forty years.

The architecture of that lie was a civilian front organisation called Biopreparat. On paper, it was a pharmaceutical concern, a name invented to sound boring. In practice it ran somewhere between forty and fifty research and production facilities across the Soviet Union, all of them quietly working on germs meant to be loaded into missiles and dropped from aircraft. A parallel program, Ekologiya, went after crops and livestock, on the theory that a nation can be starved as easily as it can be infected.

The scale is still hard to grasp. At its height the effort ran on budgets approaching a billion dollars a year. Tens of thousands of people worked across the network, most without any real idea what the whole enterprise was for. Biopreparat’s scientists handled smallpox, anthrax, Ebola, Marburg, tularemia and a long list of other horrors, with the casual secrecy of an institution that answered to nobody in particular and reported almost nothing.

More...

Things To Come In 2027?


2027 Will Be a Year of Massive Shortages: Oil, War and a Supply Chain With No Safety Net



Crude moved more than five percent in a single American session on Thursday, and the headline figure was not the most alarming part of it. Brent crossed $105 a barrel, West Texas Intermediate pushed toward $93, and diesel futures rose 4.5 percent in European trade with heating oil trailing behind. Ten-year Treasury yields touched a 24-year high of 5.35 percent before easing back, pulling the rest of the curve higher in their wake. Four markets, four jolts, one afternoon.

Two explanations were offered for the violence of that move, and both sit inside bodies of water that share a name. One is a hurricane gathering strength over the Gulf of Mexico and aiming at the densest concentration of American oil refining on earth. The other is a war in the Persian Gulf that was meant to be winding down and, by most measures, is quietly starting up again.

Anyone who spent the summer convinced the worst had passed should study Thursday’s tape again. In June, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in a burst of optimism, then largely ignored it. July brought the truce’s collapse, when the Revolutionary Guard struck three ships in the Strait of Hormuz and the White House answered with hundreds of strikes on Iranian targets. A lull followed in August, and a lull is dangerous, because it persuades people that the crisis is over. It never was.

Refineries sit at the centre of this story for reasons that have nothing to do with romance. Crude in the ground is nearly useless until somebody boils it and splits it into the fuels that move ships, trucks, tractors and aircraft. America’s capacity to do that work is concentrated along a few hundred miles of Gulf coastline between Corpus Christi and Pascagoula. Remove that strip of coast from service, even briefly, and the world does not lose a well. It loses a lung.

The other hinge is narrower still. Roughly twenty million barrels of oil and petroleum liquids pass through the Strait of Hormuz each day, about a fifth of everything the planet burns, and traffic there has fallen by more than ninety percent since late February. Saudi Arabia rerouted what it could through the Red Sea, and the Emiratis pushed crude down a pipeline to Fujairah. Neither workaround replaces what a closed strait removes, and both have themselves been attacked.

Behind those two facts sits a third that receives far less attention and matters a great deal. Fuel is not only fuel. Diesel powers freight, and freight delivers food. Fertiliser is made from natural gas and shipped through the same contested water, and the Middle East supplies close to a quarter of the world’s urea and roughly half of its traded sulphur. Disrupt the Gulf and the price of a tank of petrol is only the beginning; the price of bread, of lettuce, of anything that must travel before it is eaten, rises with it.

What follows is an attempt to set out, plainly, how these two threats reinforce each other, and why the arithmetic points somewhere darker than most forecasts allow. The margin of error that cushioned four decades of cheap energy has been spent. Inventories are thin, the strategic reserve sits at its lowest level since 1982, spare refining capacity outside China is scarce, and the buffer that once absorbed a shock is gone. In a system without slack, small events stop being small.

2027, then, looks like a year of shortages. Not famine, not collapse, not the end of the world, but a grinding, cumulative squeeze on the things ordinary people buy without thinking. That is the claim, and it deserves to be tested rather than asserted, which is why the analysis that follows relies heavily on data.

Begin with the geography, because the geography makes the argument. More than half of all United States refining capacity is stacked along the Gulf Coast, and the Texas and Louisiana stretch alone accounts for close to half the national total. On the most recent federal figures, the region holds roughly 9.9 million barrels per day of operable capacity, about fifty-four percent of the country’s total refining capacity. This is where crude becomes petrol, diesel and jet fuel. Nowhere else in the industrialised world matches the concentration.

Isaias is aimed at the northern shore of that same gulf. It formed off eastern Mexico in the first days of October, strengthened into the season’s first Atlantic hurricane, and by Thursday had reached Category 2 with winds near 110 miles per hour, forecast to make landfall late Friday or early Saturday between eastern Louisiana and the Florida Panhandle. No hurricane has struck the United States since Milton in 2024, and this one arrives with the system unusually exposed.


Before turning to what the storm might do, it helps to set down the state of the system in cold numbers. Every figure below comes from federal data, industry analysts or the World Bank.








Refinery operators began preparing days before landfall. Shell, Chevron and BP pulled non-essential staff off platforms and throttled production. By midday Thursday, about 1.3 million barrels a day of Gulf oil had been shut in, along with more than half the region’s gas output, and more than 120 offshore platforms had been evacuated. Attention then shifted ashore, to a handful of plants whose importance reaches far beyond their hometowns.

Chevron’s Pascagoula refinery in Mississippi, able to process some 369,000 barrels a day, sits close to the projected track. So do the dense clusters around New Orleans and Baton Rouge, where ExxonMobil, Shell and Valero operate some of the largest and most complex plants in the country. Andy Lipow, a Houston analyst who has watched storms for three decades, placed roughly 2.7 million barrels a day of national refining capacity inside or near the storm’s path and said he expected at least some of those plants to cut runs. His reading of the wider system was blunt: there is no slack anywhere to replace what is lost, so the shortfall must come straight out of already thin commercial inventories.

Shutting down a refinery ahead of a hurricane involves far more than simply switching it off. Plants are built to run continuously for years, and a controlled stop is a delicate, hours-long sequence of cooling, depressurising and clearing lines. Restarting takes longer and carries more risk, because equipment that has been flooded, starved of power or shaken by wind must be inspected, dried and tested before it can handle hot hydrocarbons again. Even a glancing Category 1 strike usually costs a week of production. A direct hit, with flooding and loss of grid power, can idle a plant for a month.

Multiply that by the number of plants in the danger zone and the national picture sharpens. Florida, which refines almost nothing of its own and depends on tanker deliveries from the Gulf, is the most exposed. Barges and tankers cannot load or unload in a storm, so the disruption reaches well beyond the coastline the hurricane touches, into states that will never see a drop of its rain.

None of this would matter so much if inventories were normal. They are not. Petrol stockpiles recently fell to their lowest seasonal level since 2012, and distillate inventories, which cover diesel and heating oil, sit at their lowest for early October since record-keeping began in the early 1980s. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds about 283 million barrels, down from a peak above 700 million, and has been drained repeatedly to soften the war’s price shocks. Refilling it would take years and tens of billions of dollars, and every barrel released now is one that will be missing from the next emergency.

One wrinkle rarely makes the evening news. Hurricanes do not only shut refineries; they interrupt the pipelines, terminals, docks and power lines that link them, and they scatter the specialised workforce that keeps them running. Restart crews fly in from out of state, and contractors are booked weeks ahead. When several plants are damaged at once, they compete for the same electricians, valves and barges, and a recovery that would take a week for one plant stretches into a month across many.

The storm, then, is a threat with a long tail, and that tail runs straight into the second fire.





Europe and Russia Flirt with Nuclear War


Europe and Russia Flirt with Nuclear War
J.B. Shurk


There is no shame in armistice when the alternative is Armageddon.

War is ugly and awful.  People who experience it generally detest it.  In movies, soaring soundtracks make falling buildings and gunfights seem exciting.  In real life, people feel excruciating physical and emotional pains that never really fade.  It’s Hell on Earth.

After WWI, nations around the world celebrated Armistice Day on November 11, which later became known as Remembrance Day in many countries.  Remembering the dead was only half of the holiday’s purpose; it was equally important for the survivors of the Great War to remember the costs of total war, so that mankind would never unleash such cataclysm again.

We did not sufficiently remember the costs of global war, and twenty years later, humanity endured a Second World War far more deadly than the First.  After WWII, there was a movement in the United States to honor all veterans — both living and dead — on Armistice Day.  President Eisenhower signed into law a bill renaming Armistice Day as Veterans Day, and we Americans have observed the holiday ever since.

We should honor our military veterans every day.  By forgetting about Armistice Day, though, we stopped remembering the horrors of war.  November 11 was once a day for survivors to say, “Never again.”  It transformed into a holiday that celebrates heroes and sacrifice, while often burying the most important warning from past generations to the present: Do not repeat our folly.

War is tragedy, not entertainment.  Although I wish that we humans had longer memories when it comes to the psychological toll of mass killing, we barely know peace for half-a-generation before descending into Hell once again.




With real troop losses and the threat of future troop losses weighing heavily on the minds of decision-makers in Europe and Russia, what once was unthinkable has become more openly discussed: the use of nuclear weapons on the continent.  For eighty years, the taboo against atomic warfare has been so great that the United States and the Soviet Union fought a half-century Cold War in the shadows in an effort to avoid direct confrontation.  However, as Russia, Ukraine, and E.U.-NATO struggle for leverage and deterrence, the likelihood of nuclear conflict is growing.

Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a part of NATO, military representatives from all of NATO’s thirty-two members gathered in Kyiv this week.  Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, announced, “We are here in full strength with a clear message: The bond between NATO and Ukraine is stronger and stronger.”

On Tuesday, the French military test-fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile over the Atlantic.  President Emmanuel Macron was present for the test and described it as “a new demonstration of the credibility of our deterrence” and “a clear message … for wherever it must be received.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov agreed that France’s missile launch was a “loud and clear message.”  Peskov then warned: “Against the backdrop of such aggressive actions and such plans, Russia is on alert.  We are taking all necessary measures to ensure our national security at the strategic level.”

At the end of September, Russia sent official notices to NATO and Brussels warning that it would use nuclear weapons in defense of its territory, including Kaliningrad.  In blunt language that unnerved European leaders, Russia’s diplomatic message promised “Russian strikes against decision-making centers in the alliance’s member states right from the outset.”

Russian Professor Sergey Karaganov — a highly influential foreign policy figure with close ties to both President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov — argues that “Russia must be prepared to use nuclear weapons.” 

 Because E.U.-NATO countries have population and economic advantages over Russia, Russia must use its “competitive advantage” in nuclear weapons to deter European military actions.  Karaganov insists, “Nuclear weapons are necessary to prevent major wars, but this only works if the threat is taken seriously.”

The head of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy then takes direct aim at Europe: “Western European elites must be punished for their aggressive policies … and an EU that has lost its mind must begin to truly fear.”  Furthermore, “Seeking peace through non-nuclear means alone could prove far too costly for Russia.”

Karaganov concludes, “If the current Ukrainian or German regime … were to acquire nuclear weapons, we would be obliged to launch a preemptive strike because we’d have to stop them.  It would be a short war, as a result of which these countries would cease to exist.”

There are those in the U.K., Europe, Canada, and America who believe war with Russia is inevitable.  Before we reach the point of no return, I humbly ask that people take a moment to rememberwhy we all once feared WWIII.  Remember why mutually assured destruction was madness.  There is no shame in armistice when the alternative is Armageddon.


Saturday, October 10, 2026

12 Dead, Hundreds Injured in Latest Missile Attack on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport


12 Dead, Hundreds Injured in Latest Missile Attack on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport


Twelve people are dead and hundreds are injured after the latest Houthi missile attack on Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport.

The airport shut down operations on Saturday as officials assess the damage.

The US Government warned citizens to avoid Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid International Airport. 

One US citizen died in the airport attack, officials said.

The AP reported:


The latest attack on the international airport in Saudi Arabia’s capital of Riyadh killed 12 people and injured over 300 others, civil aviation authorities said early Sunday, with some in critical condition. A Saudi-led coalition blamed Iran-backed Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen.

It was the deadliest attack in any Gulf Arab country since the start of the Iran war, whose fronts have expanded to include the recent surge in fighting between the Houthis and Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces.

A missile struck a King Khalid International Airport complex housing terminals 3 and 4 for domestic flights, a regional official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to the media.

The Saudi statement said the dead included four Saudi citizens as well as two Bangladeshi nationals, a Palestinian, a U.S. citizen, an Egyptian, a Jordanian, a Syrian and a Sudanese. It said the injured were being treated at several hospitals.


More....


Iran said still able to produce missiles and drones, is being armed by Russia


Iran said still able to produce missiles and drones, is being armed by Russia


Iran has preserved its missile and drone factories and can replenish its supply of the weapons, unnamed Western officials told Bloomberg in a Saturday report, with one official saying Russia was also providing the Islamic Republic with missiles.

The report comes amid ongoing tensions between Washington and Tehran, and just days after American media reported that the US military had been told to plan a return to conflict, reportedly asking for several days of intensive strikes on Iranian energy sites as well as missile and drone arsenals. Trump himself has said that the US will not strike Iran before the November 3 US midterm elections.

According to Bloomberg, Iran has spent the last several months of relative quiet to rearm and rebuild its damaged weapons industry, with officials telling the outlet that the country remains “well-stocked” with both ballistic missiles and anti-ship weapons, and can “quickly add more.”

One official said that Moscow is providing Tehran with missiles. The Russian Defense Ministry did not respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg.

The outlet noted that the officials’ assessment contradicts comments by Trump and his staff, including US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said on September 30 that the US had destroyed the Iranians’ “military industrial capacity” and “their entire defense base.”

In a statement quoted by Bloomberg, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly “rejected that assessment” by the unnamed officials, the outlet said.

“First, President Trump obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer,” Bloomberg quoted Kelly as saying, in reference to US strikes during the 12-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025.

“Then, Operation Epic Fury successfully destroyed the conventional shield that Iran sought to create over a nuclear program, including their ballistic missiles, production facilities, and navy,” Kelly said, referring to the war launched by Israel and the US against Iran on February 28 this year.

Meanwhile, the Hebrew-language daily Maariv reported Saturday that in recent weeks, the US had been pushing Israel to launch strikes on Iran on its own, without its military joining in.

The report, which did not cite any sources, said Trump wanted Israel to take the lead on striking Iran, amid reports that Tehran is quickly rearming, since he did not want to take political heat in the US for restarting the war right before the November midterm vote.

The daily said IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir pushed back, warning that such action would likely lead to the postponement of Israel’s October 27 Knesset election.

It said Washington had backed off from the proposal for now.

The Maariv report came a day after Channel 12 reported that senior US officers told Zamir earlier this week that the White House and Pentagon had instructed them to prepare for a massive attack on Iran within three weeks, a timespan that ends shortly before the midterms.

The outlet similarly said Zamir had told his American counterparts that such an attack could cause the Israeli election to be postponed. It cited a senior US official and another official. Jerusalem reportedly assesses that Iran would respond to an American strike with massive missile fire at Israel.