I think you are using "Bayesian" in a context that does not fit, as it's more towards probability than "concrete" which is fixed and rigid, and there would be no probability in question with concrete evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong
You're absolutely right that Bayesian analysis is probabilistic in nature. Still, I think the context fits. When there is concrete evidence, I take it to mean in Bayesian context that the probability that the claim is true is, for all intents and purposes, 100%. When there is anecdotal, but still relatively strong evidence, I take the probability to be somewhere in the ~90-95%.
Essentially I'm talking about the following probability:
p(bioweapons in Ukraine|evidence)/(!bioweapons in Ukraine|evidence) = p(evidence|bioweapons in Ukraine)/p(evidence|!bioweapons in Ukraine) x p(bioweapons in Ukraine)/p(!bioweapons in Ukraine)
or, in layman terms:
The likelihood that there are bioweapons in Ukraine vs no bioweapons = evidence in favor/against times the prior expectation for/against
and I'm saying that the prior expectation is against any given claim, so the evidence for/against needs to overcome the prior odds against the claim, because it's easy to make unsubstantiated claims that are unfalsifiable (Santa Claus used to exist -- prove me wrong).
The bottom line is that there is no hard evidence besides US' own papers on the "biological warfare protection program" (lol) and the pentagon straight out warning that "Russians are making biological weapons there" in a potential attempt to pin the blame on Russkis like how a kid breaks something then gives the pieces to their brother and blames them for the breakage.
That biological warfare program thing was an interesting read; I took a quick look at the history of the US biological warface program [1]. Unsurprisingly, the program was kept secret, but what I found interesting is the number of alleged uses, for example during the Korean war. It seems like several sources found that at least some of the alleged uses were substantiated and there were even declassified CIA reports mentioning responses to biological weapon attacks. Admittedly, I haven't read the reports in detail. It doesn't seem like a secret that US has, in the past, developed (and likely used) bioweapons.
Yeah it's a bit weird that the US is pre-empting a biological weapon attack in Ukraine. To their defense, though, they made the same warning about potential false flag attack by Ukraine on Russia (which never happened) before the war. Russia's had sort of a history of false flag attacks, for example at the start of the winter war against Finland where they claimed Finland was bombing them, despite not having the capabilities to do so (Russia later admitted it was a false flag attack and that the war was pre-empted with the later-declassified secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany [e.g., 2] that allowed Russia to take over many of the Baltic countries). Still, it raises some eyebrows.
Looking at the US gov fact sheet about these US-funded biolabs [3], it seems they are claiming that:
All member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) must have such capabilities to detect and respond to disease threats. This is a basic capability for national health security.
If this is true, then this seems to suggest that most countries in the world have some labs that research deadly pathogens. So one could, seemingly, make the claim that all WHO countries are developing bioweapons, if the existence of labs like these is sufficient to make the claim. If true, this would be evidence against the claim.
Still, it doesn't explain why, allegedly, the labs are classified. I wonder if this is also true for those other labs that the US gov is claiming exists in all WHO countries. They seem to claim that the activities in these facilities are public, but this seems to be a lie, if what Good said is true. So I suppose I'd be interested to hear what Good has to say about this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_biological_weapons_program
[2] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-molotov-ribbentrop-pact-august-1939
[3] https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/11/2002954612/-1/-1/0/FACT-SHEET-THE-DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE'S-COOPERATIVE-THREAT-REDUCTION-PROGRAM-BIOLOGICAL-THREAT-REDUCTION-PROGRAM-ACTIVITIES-IN-UKRAINE.PDF
I am not seeing Russia deploy those biological weapons though, as they are fighting a PR war more than a conventional war, Russia wants to show America as unhinged dangerous threat to the world and boost Russia's image and present it as rational and peaceful, basically destroying USA's "face" in Chinese culture concept, kind of Israel tried to show Palestine as a terrorist state, and maybe reduce USA's influence around the world
Me neither. Russia is shifting its narrative for the West more and more towards these biolabs, because they noticed that the other claims (nazis in Ukraine, etc) were dismissed. I doubt the narratives will stick in Europe, but I imagine some of the Eastern countries may be more malleable, especially once repeated over enough years. I think some of their PR campaigns will backfire though, as they're caught in obvious lies that can be objectively falsified. Same could be said of US, though.
I do like one thing about Russia, which is that they frequently talk about respecting international rules (except they don't). They're sort of trying to encourage everyone to follow a set of playground rules for what they do.
"If there were bioweapons in Ukraine"
You have to define bioweapons first. Good luck.
I think what matters is how the Russian government defines the word. I was under the impression that a bioweapon is something that is of biological origin and can be deployed as a weapon. For example mosquitoes that have been engineered to carry and transmit highly dangerous pathogens.
"US news sources are not commenting"
USA main stream media is government propaganda. Truth is optional.
Every news source has an agenda. Some are less biased than others. US news sources are some of the worst in the world, as most of them are not even pretending to be objective. RT is the same, but at least they pretend to be neutral in their language.
