Mediaboss Marketing

The last two months have not been easy for Andrey Artemenko.

On Feb. 19, the right-wing Ukrainian member of parliament was sucked into the scandal surrounding President Donald Trump and his alleged ties to Russia when the New York Times reported that Artemenko had served as a back channel between Moscow and Trump associates.

In the aftermath of the report, Artemenko was forced out of his political faction in Ukraine, the far-right Radical Party, and the Prosecutor Generals Office of Ukraine has opened an investigation into whether his diplomatic outreach, which was done without Kievs approval, constitutes treason.

Despite the political firestorm, Artemenko is still shopping his proposal in Washington and insists that now is the time to find a resolution to the nearly three-year war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed more than 10,000 lives. In an interview with Foreign Policy, Artemenko denied any connections between him and the Kremlin, praised the early stages of the Trump presidency, and rebuffed elements of the Times report, saying he was unfairly caught up in a fight between the U.S. president and the liberal media. The lawmaker also accused Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of not being interested in ending the war in the Donbass and said he was using Russia as an excuse to scapegoat his critics.

Anyone who has a personal opinion in Ukraine is automatically named a Russian spy, Artemenko said. But I dont have any connections to Russia. Thats why Im trying to involve the Trump administration on this issue and not the Kremlin.

Artemenkos peace plan episode is just one small part of a rapidly mushrooming investigation in Washington over possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence to tilt the 2016 U.S. presidential election in Trumps favor. But its also emblematic of another political fight unfolding against the backdrop of U.S. politics: the power struggle for the future of Ukraine.

Since the 2014 Maidan revolution that ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, Washington has played an outsized role in Ukrainian domestic politics, where recognition and support from influential U.S. figures can make or break a politicians career back home. The importance of these ties has taken on a new but uncertain dimension since the election of Trump in November 2016; a lack of clarity about the administrations policies toward Kiev has been both a source of anxiety and opportunity for Ukraines political class.

With key policy positions still unfilled at the State Department, many high-profile Ukrainians have sought back channels to the Trump administration to push for a solution to the war in Ukraine.

Thats what Artemenko apparently did to pitch his loosely defined plan, which calls for Russian separatists to return eastern territory to Kiev, and the holding of a national referendum on leasing Crimea to Russia for an undetermined amount of time.

Maybe its dual management of Crimea, or maybe its a lease like the Panama Canal and Hong Kong, said Artemenko, who prefers to call his proposal a road map for peace rather than a set plan. It should be obvious that there is no military solution, only a diplomatic one.

Tall and brawny, Artemenko is a populist politician with ties to the far-right Ukrainian military-political group Right Sector and a member of the pro-Western opposition parliamentary coalition led by former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenkos party. In Kiev, hes known for being outspoken and politically ambitious.

The lawmaker also professes an affinity for Trump, saying he wants to make Ukraine great again and has been trying to make inroads with the real estate mogul since he was a presidential candidate. In July 2016, Artemenko traveled to Cleveland for the Republican National Convention and later attended Trumps inauguration in January.

Artemenko used these connections in late January to arrange a meeting with Michael Cohen, Trumps longtime personal lawyer who currently works at the Republican National Committee, to pass his peace plan to Mike Flynn, who served about three weeks as Trumps national security advisor. Flynn was forced to resign in early February over a separate Russia-related controversy, but the Times reported that Cohen said he had hand-delivered the plan in a sealed envelope to the now former national security advisor.

Artemenko confirmed to FP that Trump associate Felix Sater had arranged a meeting with Cohen and that he was told details of the plan were relayed to Flynn, although he says no physical documents were passed at the sit-down in Manhattan.

The Kremlin denied any knowledge of the plan, and Cohen walked backhis initial comments, saying he hadnt delivered the plan to Flynn or discussed it with anyone in the White House. The Times has stood by its reporting.

The Times also reported that Artemenko said he received encouragement for his plans from top aides to Mr. Putin and that he emerged from the opposition nurtured in Ukraine by Paul Manafort, Trumps former campaign manager who previously worked as political operative in Ukraine.

Artemenko told FP that he had no contacts with any Russian officials and has never met or dealt with Manafort. Trumps former campaign manager made millions of dollarsin assisting the rise of Yanukovych and lobbied for several pro-Kremlin causes in Washington.

Artemenko insists that his intentions in pushing a peace plan for Ukraine are in the countrys best interests. But political observers see his freelance diplomacy as part of a rising groundswell in Kiev against Poroshenko by opposition forces ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled for 2019.

Alliances are shifting in Ukraine right now against Poroshenko, said Balazs Jarabik, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All this diplomatic maneuvering in Washington needs to be viewed through this lens.

Artemenko has emerged as a vocal critic of Poroshenko and says he has evidence showing corruption by the Ukrainian president. Moreover, Artemenko claims to have offered to organize a meeting between Trump and Valeriy Chaly, Ukraines ambassador to Washington, during the campaign. Chaly refused, Artemenko told FP, saying the Ukrainian government was backing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at the time.

They said they didnt want to meet Mr. Trump, Artemenko said.

The Ukrainian Embassy has denied the charges and said it did not support any candidate in the U.S. election.

Frustration at the slow pace of change in Ukraine has seen Poroshenkos approval ratings plummet, allowing rivals to try to fill the void. Artemenko, who is a staunch ally of Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a former head of Ukraines security service with lofty political ambitions, has aligned himself with other West-leaning populists like Tymoshenko. While its not saying much, shes currently Ukraines most popular politician, with polls showing about 18 percent support for her party.

Tymoshenko carried out some freelance diplomacy of her own on Feb. 2 when the former prime minister metTrump in Washington, before ever meeting Poroshenko or speaking with him on the phone. The conversation, which took place at the National Prayer Breakfast, was reportedly short and consisted of her seeking assurances that the Trump administration would not abandon Ukraine or lift sanctions on Russia. But the meetings worked to send a message back home that Tymoshenko was ascendant.

Despite the backlash he has faced, Artemenko is still optimistic about his proposal, saying he has discussed it with the office of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who has sponsored a resolution reaffirming support for Ukraine and outlining measures to stop the conflict. Artemenko says elements of his plan influenced the Portman measure. A spokesperson from Portmans office confirmed meeting Artemenko but told FP that his peace plan is not part of the resolution.

Back in Kiev, Artemenko has his sights on the upcoming elections, saying he will continue to push for a resolution to the war in the Donbass and that he plans to start his own political party.

I am clear and sure that I am going the right way, Artemenko said.

Photo credit:Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Read the original post:
Ukraine's Back-Channel Diplomat Still Shopping Peace Plan to ... - Foreign Policy (blog)

Moldovas first African Swine Fever (ASF) outbreak in 2017 was reported recently in a backyard farm in Rublenitsa village, Soroca district, in northern Moldova. The country points to Ukraine as the source of the virus.

The outbreak, discovered in mid-March, affected seven pigs, according to the countrys National Agency for Food Security.

Vsevolod Stomaty, the head of the National Agency for Food Security, told the regional media Sputnik that presumably the new outbreak is related to infected products, delivered from Ukraine. The situation was very similar to what happened last year, when the first outbreaks of the disease in the country could be explained by the human factor and problems with ASF in Ukraine.

The National Agency for Food Security said that some Moldova citizens consumed infected pig meat in Ukraine, and had subsequently travelled into Moldova, bringing in the virus on their hands and clothes. Stomaty did not disclose exact details as to how he thought the virus had been imported into the country.

Officially, pig and pork imports from Ukraine into Moldova are forbidden. Nevertheless, there is quite a lot of illegal cross-border traffic. There are known cases of customs staff discovering trucks trying to bring in pig-derived produce into Moldova from time to time.

Stomaty feared that the spread of the virus in the country might bring enormous problems for pig producers. He said that his service set up a quarantine area in Rublenitsa village, where 17 pig farms with 3,000 pigs are located. The restrictive measures, associated with a quarantine, could impact the regional trade, because the village supplies pork to all over the region, including to the city of Soroca.

Photo: Vincent ter Beek

At the same time, the situation regarding the spread of ASF in the country is under personal supervision of the Moldova prime minister Pavel Filip, Stomaty indicated - as this is a real threat for the countrys pig farmers. He stated that Moldova now accounts for nearly 500,000 pigs in total and the consequences of the virus spreading across the country could be very serious.

Speaking at a press conference in Chisinau a month before, Stomaty stressed that the first outbreaks of ASF were reported in the country in 2016, and which had withdrawn any export potential for Moldovas pig industry. He expressed hopes that in the future the country would be able to restore exports, saying that this would require the absence of new outbreaks until the end of 2017.

Stomaty emphasised that Moldova faces a huge ASF threat further penetrating into the country through its neighbour Ukraine. He recalled that since the beginning of the year there were nearly 162 outbreaks of the disease on the east border, claiming that in fact almost every day new outbreaks could be registered, including in the bordering Vinnitsa region.

Read the original:
Moldova complains about ASF threat from Ukraine - Pig Progress (registration) (blog)

"Why should US taxpayers be interested in Ukraine?" That was the question that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was heard to ask at a meeting of the Group of Seven foreign ministers, America's closest allies, a day before his visit to Moscow last week. We don't know what he meant by that question, or in what context it was asked. When queried, the State Department replied that it was a "rhetorical device", seeking neither to defend nor retract it.

If Mr Tillerson were a different person and this were a different historical moment, we could forget about this odd dropped comment and move on. But Mr Tillerson has an unusual background for a secretary of state. Unlike everyone who has held the job for at least the past century, he has no experience in diplomacy, politics or the military; instead he has spent his life extracting oil and selling it for profit. At that he was successful. But no one knows whether he can change his value system to focus instead on the very different task of selling something intangible - American values - to maximise something even more intangible: American influence.

The switch is harder than it seems: Values and influence cannot be measured like money. They cannot be achieved through cost-cutting or efficiency; they cannot be promoted using the tactics of corporate PR. On his first trip to Asia, for example, Mr Tillerson refused to take the usual contingent of journalists (who have always paid their own way) on the grounds that if he took fewer people he could use a smaller plane and return faster. If he were still a chief executive, that might have been a great decision. For the secretary of state it was an embarrassing mistake. Authoritarians around the world saw further evidence that the Trump administration intends to undermine journalism; Americans learnt less than they should have about a visit that was covered mainly by foreigners.

Mr Tillerson's question, rhetorical or otherwise, therefore deserves a response. For the answer is yes: US taxpayers should be interested in Ukraine. But not necessarily for reasons that would make sense to an oil company's CEO.

Why? It's an explanation that cannot be boiled down to bullet points or a chart, or even reflected in numbers at all. I'm not even sure it can be done in a few paragraphs, but here goes. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 were an open attack on the principle of border security in Europe. The principle of border security, in turn, is what turned Europe, once a continent wracked by bloody conflicts, into a safe and peaceful trading alliance in the second half of the 20th century. Europe's collective decision to abandon aggressive nationalism, open its internal borders and drop its territorial ambitions made Europe rich, as well as peaceful.

It also made the United States rich, as well as powerful. US companies do billions of dollars of business in Europe; US leaders have long been able to count on European support all over the world, in matters economic, political, scientific and more. It's not a perfect alliance but it is an unusual alliance, one that is held together by shared values as well as common interests. If Ukraine, a country of about 43 million people, were permanently affiliated with Europe, it too might become part of this zone of peace, trade and commerce.

Mr Rex Tillerson has an unusual background for the job of US secretary of state. PHOTO: REUTERS

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an aggressive, emboldened Russia increasingly threatens European security and prosperity, as well as Europe's alliance with the US. Russia supports anti-American, anti-Nato and indeed anti-democratic political candidates all across the continent; Russia seeks business and political allies who will help promote its companies and turn a blind eye to its corrupt practices. Over the long term, these policies threaten US business interests and US political interests all across the continent and around the world.

Mr Tillerson's question, rhetorical or otherwise, therefore deserves a response. For the answer is yes: US taxpayers should be interested in Ukraine. But not necessarily for reasons that would make sense to an oil company's CEO.

But I must concede: There is no calculation, no balance sheet that can prove any of this. There is nothing that would appeal to a CEO or his shareholders. Whatever we have "invested" in Ukraine - loans, via the International Monetary Fund, or aid - will not show an immediate profit. To see the value of a secure, pro-Western Ukraine, you have to see the value of an alliance going back 70 years. And to preserve this alliance, you have to advocate it, work on it, invest time and maybe even money in it, too.

Mr Tillerson's boss isn't going to be an advocate for America's alliances. Will he? It would help if he could start by understanding that their stability, not their value for money, are the most important measure of success in his job.

WASHINGTON POST

Read the original here:
Why US taxpayers should care about Ukraine - The Straits Times

This article first appeared on the Atlantic Council site.

Russias hybrid war against Ukraine is now entering its fourth year, but there was a time when few expected it to last even four weeks.

The virtually bloodless seizure of Crimea, which fell to Russian troops in early 2014 without a fight, led most observers to conclude that Ukraine was effectively defenseless and at Moscows mercy.

This was the consensus view in Moscow, where many of the bolder voices began speaking of celebrating the traditional May holidays in Kiev itself. Such swagger seemed perfectly reasonable; Ukraine was still reeling from months of anti-government protests that had spread chaos across the country before culminating in the flight of President Viktor Yanukovych and the collapse of his entire administration.

The interim Ukrainian government that hastily replaced Yanukovychs administration lacked constitutional legitimacy and was in no position to risk a military confrontation with the mighty Russian Federation.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko meets with servicemen in the Luhansk region of Ukraine on April 12. Peter Dickinson asks, Why did Putins ambitious plans for a new empire in mainland Ukraine fall so dramatically short of expectations? Russia blames a motley crew of phantom fascists, CIA agents and international villains. Mikhail Palinchak/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS

A clear window of opportunity had opened for Moscow to reassert itself in mainland Ukraine. Encouraged by the stunning success of his initial gamble in Crimea, President Vladimir Putin decided to raise the stakes and take arguably the biggest risk of his entire career.

The subsequent operation that unfolded in March and April 2014 envisaged the conquest of half of Ukraine through a series of localized uprisings supported by hybrid Russian forces. These newly acquired territories were to become Novorossiya, or New Russia.

Leaked telephone conversations and hacked emails of senior Kremlin advisers, including Vladislav Surkov and Sergey Glazyev, have since provided considerable detail on Russias efforts to seize control of regional administrations in key Ukrainian cities throughout the south and east of the country, including Dnipro, Kharkiv, Kherson and Odesa. These leaks track closely with the events that took place on the ground in Ukraine during that turbulent spring.

For a few precarious weeks, Ukraines chances of survival as an independent state appeared to be rapidly receding. However, the much-feared Russian march to the Dnipro never materialized. Instead, Russian uprisings were stifled across southeast Ukraine, and the Kremlin found itself restricted to a small bridgehead within the boundaries of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Ukraines easternmost borderlands.

Three years on, they are still there, stuck in a quagmire of their own making.

Why did Putins ambitious plans for a new empire in mainland Ukraine fall so dramatically short of expectations?

Related: Why is Putin swallowing the spiraling costs of his Ukraine adventure?

Perhaps understandably, Russian planners underestimated Ukraines capacity to fight back. Ukraine had only 6,000 combat-ready troops available in spring 2014. This was a ridiculously threadbare force that was incapable of protecting the countrys borders, never mind defending its towns and cities.

What Moscow failed to anticipate was the wave of patriotic emotion that surged across Ukraine in the wake of Russias hybrid assault. Thousands of Ukrainians took up arms in the spring of 2014, forming volunteer battalions that bolstered the countrys paper-thin defenses and stopped the Russian advance in its tracks.

Behind them stood an army of civilian volunteers who provided improvised logistical support in the form of everything from food and uniforms to ammunition. This military miracle saved Ukraine and left the Kremlin in its current predicament.

It is hardly surprising that Russia failed to predict the backlash its attack would provoke. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kremlins Ukraine policy had been driven by a toxic and self-defeating blend of wishful thinking and colonial condescension.

This approach became increasingly entrenched during Putins reign; he made no secret of his desire to reassert Russian hegemony throughout the former Soviet Empire. In this revanchist worldview, Ukraines separation from Russia was artificial, while the entire settlement of 1991 was a grave historical injustice.

In 2008, the Russian leader reportedly told U.S. President George W. Bush that Ukraine was not even a country. Over the years, Putin also repeatedly stated that Ukrainians and Russians were one people.

These beliefs were by no means limited to the upper echelons of the Kremlin. Many in Russia still struggle to accept the reality of Ukrainian independence, seeing the country as a core component of a greater Russian world that is centered on Moscow.

Kiev was the center of the Kievan Rus civilization that todays Russia and Ukraine both see as their predecessor, while the Russian Orthodox Church traces its origins to Kiev and the 10th-century conversion of the Eastern Slavs to Christianity. This makes many in Russia prone to blaming any manifestations of Ukrainian national identity on a radical nationalist minority.

As a new generation emerged in Ukraine with no personal experience of the shared Soviet past, Russian policymakers consistently refused to acknowledge changing tides of opinion or recognize the growing importance of Ukrainian identity.

Famously, they have attributed Ukraines two post-Soviet popular uprisings almost exclusively to insidious Western influences, despite the decisive role played by millions of ordinary Ukrainians in both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 Euromaidan.

Related: Putin's supervillain adventures have cost him dear

These comforting fictions led Russia to the disastrous miscalculations of the Novorossiya campaign. Based on its own carefully curated vision of Ukraine, there was every reason to expect a warm welcome when Kremlin agents seized control of entire regions and began calling for Russian military support.

When this welcome did not materialize, Russia placed the blame on a motley crew of phantom fascists, CIA agents and other international villains. In reality, the Kremlin had failed to appreciate the strength of the Ukrainian national spiritespecially among the countrys millions of Russian-speakers and those with no ethnic Ukrainian heritage. This failure was the direct result of decades of Russian denial about Ukraine.

Russias Novorossiya project has plunged the world into a new Cold War and caused untold suffering to millions of Ukrainians, but it has also consolidated Ukraines sense of national identity and hastened the psychological split with Russia begun in 1991.

Putins hybrid attack was supposed to end what many in Moscow continue to see as the aberration of Ukrainian independence. Instead, it has cemented Ukraines place on the European map after centuries in Russias shadow.

Peter Dickinson is chief editor of the UATV English-language service and publisher of Business Ukraine and Lviv Today magazines.

See the original post:
Ukrainian Patriotism Has Halted Putin's Ill-Conceived Invasion - Newsweek

By Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ukraine has partnered with global technology company the Bitfury Group to put a sweeping range of government data on a blockchain platform, the firm's chief executive officer told Reuters, in a project he described as probably the largest of its kind anywhere.

Bitfury, a blockchain company with offices in the United States and overseas, will provide the services to Ukraine, CEO Valery Vavilov said in an interview on Wednesday.

Ukraine's blockchain initiative underscores a growing trend among governments that have adopted the technology to increase efficiencies and improve transparency.

Blockchain is a ledger of transactions that first emerged as the software underpinning digital currency bitcoin. It has become a key global technology in both the public and private sector given its ability to permanently record and keep track of assets or transactions across all industries.

Ukraine and Bitfury signed a memorandum of understanding on Thursday.

Though Vavilov said he was unable to estimate the cost of the project, he said it was by far the biggest government blockchain deal ever. It involves putting all of the Ukraine government's electronic data onto the blockchain platform.

"A secure government system built on the blockchain can secure billions of dollars in assets and make a significant social and economic impact globally by addressing the need for transparency and accountability," said Vavilov.

There are other countries that have started blockchain programs, but they are smaller in scope involving one or two sectors, such as land titles and real estate ownership. Countries that have launched blockchain programs include Sweden, Estonia, and Georgia.

"This agreement will result in an entirely new ecosystem for state projects based on blockchain technology in Ukraine," Oleksandr Ryzhenko, head of the State Agency for eGovernance of Ukraine, said in an emailed response to Reuters questions.

"Our aim is clear and ambitious -- we want to make Ukraine one of the world's leading blockchain nations."

Ukraine's deal with Bitfury will begin with a pilot project to introduce blockchain into the country's digital platform. The areas being explored for the pilot project are state registers, public services, social security, public health, and energy, Vavilov said.

He expects the pilot scheme to launch late this year.

Once the pilot is complete, the blockchain program will expand into all areas, including cyber security.

This is Bitfury's second government blockchain project. In April last year, Bitfury signed an agreement with Georgia to pilot the first blockchain land-titling registry.

(Reporting by Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss; Editing by Tom Brown)

Go here to read the rest:
Ukraine launches big blockchain deal with tech firm Bitfury - Yahoo Finance