A Quiz for President Obama: What Did Ukraine Contribute to U.S. Security?

That last aspect of Paul's character — a sense of empathy — is one that I find myself appreciating more and more as I get older. It is at the heart of my moral code, and it is how I understand the Golden Rule — not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes.

—Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope

After watching President Obama’s “Chicken Kiev 2” speech, I wonder how much he knows about my country and its contribution to U.S. security.

So I decided to put together a short quiz.

1. How many warheads and delivery vehicles did Ukraine give up when disarmed by Washington in the mid ‘90s?
A. Ukraine? Oh, you mean the Ukraine?
B. The Ukraine, uh, sorry, Ukraine, had nukes? Are you serious?
C. Come on! Ukraine had simply inherited those nukes from the Soviet Union!
D. Ukraine sacrificed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal (176+24 MIRVed ICBMs+600 ALCMs+≈3,000 tactical nukes≈5,000 warheads), much of it produced by Ukraine’s industry, labor and environment.

2. What did Ukraine get in return?
A. Ukraine is as prosperous and secure as its neighbors Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (NATO and EU members).
B. The Kuchma family made an overnight billion-dollar fortune and donated $5M to the Clinton Foundation.
C. Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Europe, with a GDP per capita of $6K (PPP).
D. “Sweet harvest”+“change we can believe in.”
Note: More than one may be correct.

3. What did Ukraine get in exchange for walking out on a $50M deal for the supply of nuclear power plant turbines to the Iranian reactor in Bushehr in 1998?
A. In Bush what?
B. Don’t push it!
C. How can you be so ungrateful after all the aid we’ve provided you with? We hired our best consultants and paid them our best rates!
D. Nothing. Losers like you deserve nothing.

4. How much aid did Ukraine receive from the U.S. to process 5,000 tons of highly toxic rocket fuel from its scrapped nuclear arsenal?
A. Some personnel training+$30M+some “open burning” and “detonation” advice from Thiokol Corporation.
B. Once you scrapped those missiles and stopped being a threat to us, it’s your problem.
C. Don’t ever mention it again!
D. OK, we’ll probably give you some more money, but only if you beg.
Note: More than one may be correct.

5. How many troops did Ukraine contribute to the coalition forces in Iraq and how many of them died?
A. Let’s change the subject.
B. 1,650 at peak (deployed 08/03, withdrawn 12/08), 28 dead.
C. Russia contributed more.
D. The war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do in the first place, so STFU!

6. How many U.S. Air Force aircraft used Ukrainian airspace during 10/9/01-03/24/03 alone?
A. 4,358
B. 0
C. Russia will allow us to fly 4,000 sorties per year over its airspace (savings of $133M) and will have the right to inspect them.
D. You’re a neocon puppet!
Note: More than one may be correct.

7. Mr. President, can you reciprocate Ukraine by treating our security on its own merits, not on the merits of your relations with Russia?
A. Yes, I can.
B. No, I can’t.
C. I don’t know.
D. Putin knows best.

Thank you!

Putin to Obama: At Least 17 Million Russians Live in Ukraine

That’s what Putin told Obama as the two enjoyed Russian cuisine at a lunch in Moscow. Putin had quoted that number before, when demanding that NATO stay away from Ukraine.

The only problem is, it’s 17% percent of Ukraine’s population — not 17 million people — who are ethnic Russians.

Of course, the percentage of Ukrainian citizens who speak Russian only or surzhyk is higher, due to the Soviet policy of Russification and its lingering legacy. But these people are not ethnic Russians. Likewise, just because I speak idiomatic English, it doesn’t mean I'm British, Canadian, Australian or American.

I wonder if Obama swallowed Putin’s quote. Getting a sense of Putin’s soul can be fraught with fraud.

Sources:
http://lenta.ru/news/2009/07/07/obama/
http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/05/int4.htm

Obama Mentions Ukraine But Emphasizes Russia

No, he didn't call Ukraine the Ukraine, as he had done during the presidential debates. But he did say Kiev (7:53). So much for Ambassador Taylor's efforts to switch the U.S. government from Kiev to Kyiv (3:59-4:27).

Nitpicking aside, here's what President Obama said in Moscow today, in addition to commending Putin on doing “extraordinary work”:

State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is true for Russia, just as it is true for the United States. Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy. That's why we must apply this principle to all nations -- and that includes nations like Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For any country to become a member of an organization like NATO, for example, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; they must be able to contribute to the Alliance's mission. And let me be clear: NATO should be seeking collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.

(24:47-25:42)

And here's what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on March 5, 2009: “We should continue to open NATO's door to European countries such as Georgia and Ukraine and help them meet NATO standards.”

Sound interesting? Wait until you read what presidential candidate Obama wrote in a letter to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America in October 2008.

He described Ukraine as being ready for a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) and said he would work with U.S. allies to convince them to grant MAP to Ukraine.

Now isn't that change we can believe in?

Sources:
http://london.usembassy.gov/obama089.html
http://twitter.com/GlobalEurope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKBYoJ2fJ5I

Obama, Clinton, Chavez, Putin et al. in a Ukrainian-Made Cartoon

Political humor gets even more political and even more (or less) humorous when it crosses cultures.

Channel 1+1 presents...Barack Obama Superstar: The Untold Story.



As President Obama visits Russia, it’s important that the olive branch he brings to the table does not hit the dove on the head.

Naturally, the Obama-Forrest Gump-Che Guevara-Larry King-Chavez sequence may entertain U.S. conservatives and irritate U.S. liberals. Anyway, to a Ukrainian like me, the Putin part looks very close to home.

The cartoon was produced by CFC Consulting, “a Ukrainian company with a global sense of humor,” in partnership with Future Media Arts.

Video embedded from:
http://video.oboz.ua/movie.php?aWQ9MjcyNzYmdnQ9MCZ2YT0xMQ
Original sources:
http://tsn.ua
http://www.cfc.com.ua
http://www.mupotoon.com/eng/obama/

The American Institute in Ukraine: A Yanukovych-Friendly Appeasement Think Tank

You’d think that the only Washington spin doctor to promote Yanukovych and his anti-NATO/pro-Kremlin platform would be Paul Manafort. You shouldn’t. Meet the American Institute in Ukraine!

In his recent article, Ukrayinska Pravda’s Serhiy Leshchenko exposes this pseudo-independent organization, whose talent did business with Yanukovych as early as in 2003.

What’s in a name?
James George Jatras. The American (read: Appeasement) Institute in Ukraine (AIU) lists him as one of his associates, and so does Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC. (Public advocacy...hmmm...sounds so much sweeter than lobbying, doesn’t it?)

Jatras’ profile at Squire Sanders credits him with a wealth of experience:

• Serving on the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee and as an American Foreign Service Officer in the Office of Soviet Union Affairs;
• Engaging in versatile legislative advocacy and international projects;
• Participating in panel discussions at the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the International Strategic Studies Association.

Specifically, Jatras assisted in the defense of Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague Tribunal. His organization, the American Council for Kosovo (ACK), opposes Kosovo’s independence. All of which makes the American Institute in Ukraine look like a clone.

That’s not an accident. Darren Spinck, another key AIU figure, happens to be an officer of ACK.

On March 6 and March 24, 2003, Jatras and his partner Patrick O’Donell at Venable, LLP inked two public relations deals with Alex Kiselev, a Yanukovych representative. Under the deals, Yanukovych was supposed get a dose of favorable publicity and networking in Washington, including, possibly, a meeting with then-President Bush. Price tag: $20K+$60K (for the meeting with Bush, if arranged).

Ukrayinska Pravda offers copies of the agreements:




For some reason, Yanukovych rescheduled his visit. A third agreement with Jatras and McDonnell was signed on November 24, 2003.

Cooperation between the Jatras and Yanukovych camps continued well into the fateful year of 2004. In December 2004, amid the Orange Revolution, Spinck put his signature on the addendum to a $23K+$15K Yanukovych-related consulting agreement with db communications, LLC.



What does AIU do?
“AIU is a privately funded U.S. nonprofit organization and neither receives, solicits, nor accepts funds from any government,” so they say, without disclosing their donors

“The activities of AIU are strictly informational and educational. AIU does not engage in lobbying, either in the United States or abroad.” But AIU talent has engaged in lobbying in the United States on behalf of Ukrainian clients, and the website fails to mention that, right?

Besides, if their current activities encompass “producing and distributing monographs, commentaries, analyses, news, bulletins, press releases and other informational and educational materials,” then why do they tilt to one side only? Does AIU offer a single monograph, commentary or analysis that explores the benefits of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, both for NATO and Ukraine?

If you click “About Us,” you will find this:

AIU takes no position on NATO per se. But whatever NATO's future may be, AIU questions the wisdom of further expansion without clear and convincing evidence that it would directly enhance U.S. security interests, defined as defense of American territory and the American people; protect the territorial defense of its member states, consistent with the sole mission of the alliance as specified in the North Atlantic Treaty; contribute to the security of countries considered for expansion, beginning with Ukraine; and not injure relations with Russia, which must be an ongoing priority of American foreign and security policy. There is reason to question whether any of these criteria exists now or will exist in the foreseeable future.

So if you “question whether any of these criteria exists” and have some foreign policy credentials to support your skepticism, here’s your chance! According to Ukrayinska Pravda sources, you can make $3K in speaking fees, travel and hotel expenses covered. In other words, Western scholars and policy makers who strongly oppose the idea of Ukraine’s membership in NATO and want make a few bucks would be more than welcome!

Ironically, had AIU been around in 2003-2004, then-PM Yanukovych would have probably sent trainloads of his supporters to rally outside its office. At that time, he firmly stood for NATO membership and his party rubber-stamped pro-NATO legislation. In fact, he even authored a white paper that called for NATO membership by 2008.

Serhiy Leshchenko says his interest in AIU began with an invitation to participate in one of the events held at that organization — front organization, as it turned out. Guess who called him? Dmytro Dzhangirov, a blatant Kuchma-Yanukovych propagandist whose two-minute-hate-style programs had blasted Yushchenko during the dystopian 2004 presidential campaign. Today, Dzhangirov mainly works for Kyiv mayor Leonid “Kosmos” Chernovetsky. But...you never know.

Apparently, AIU has found Dzhangirov to be an asset to their ill-concealed “disarm and disown,” “putting Putin first,” “quid pro-Kremlin” campaign.

Among AIU’s recent guest speakers was Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and...of the American Council for Kosovo.

Bandow’s association with the Cato Institute was supposed to lend credentials to the one and only view promoted by AIU: that Ukraine is bad for NATO and that NATO is bad for Ukraine. The fact that in the mid ‘90s Ukraine had sacrificed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal on the altar of U.S. security gets the silent treatment.

Back to Bandow: Leshchenko called the Cato Institute and asked whether Bandow represented their official policy views. Chris Kennedy, Director of Media Relations, said Bandow represented his views only.

Last, but definitely not least, Leshchenko notes, the Russian version of the AIU web site spells the organization’s name as Американский Институт на Украине rather than Американский Институт в Украине. What’s the difference? It’s the Russian way of saying the Ukraine (province, territory) as opposed to the Ukraine (independent country).

In this regard, I hope U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gets some polit-savvy toponymical tips before he visits Ukraine at the end of July. But my hope already lacks audacity. The siren calls of appeasement artists are getting stronger day by day. Some of them, such as Anthony T. Salvia of AIU, even couch their propaganda in romantic Reagan-era terms. Apparently, the Appeasement...uh...sorry, the American Institute in Ukraine has a busy work schedule.

President Obama will visit Russia on July 6-8, and all Ukraine will get is Vice President Biden two weeks later. As a Ukrainian, I think my country is being marginalized by this Eurasian pecking order.

It’s almost as if the current U.S. administration gets advice from AIU, forgets about Ukraine’s contribution to U.S. security, and ignores Ukraine’s missile technology.

As for Bill Clinton, a huge friend of the Kuchma family, he’ll probably stay out of AIU — unless they seriously rethink their budget.

Sources:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2009/6/25/97288.htm
http://www.aminuk.org

An Appeasement Article With a Reagan-Themed Pitch

He says: “Mr. Obama, for Ukraine's sake, tear down this wall!”

I say: “Mr. Obama, for America's sake, tear him a new one!”

Sources:
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op_ed/44039

Yulia in the Sky With Diamonds

Q: What’s the difference between middle-class Ukrainians and upper-class Ukrainians?

A: Middle-class Ukrainians make up about 5% of the population. By contrast, upper-class Ukrainians run the government (or have friends/relatives there) and often report middle-class incomes.

Take PM/gasocialite Yulia Tymoshenko.

She cloaks herself in her Louis Vuitton attire and flies off to Luxembourg, begging for a $4B loan to compensate for her Putin-leaning gas deal.


She dresses to impress.



She puts on a $550 Louis Vuitton scarf, complete with the LV logo, as if to tell the EU how badly she needs the money.


No wonder, she gets the finger (as of this writing).

By the way, until April 2009, when she filed her 2008 tax returns, she had reported lower-middle-class earnings (by European standards).

According to her 2004-2007 tax returns, she had owned neither cars nor stock nor real estate. Not bad for someone who lives in a splendid mansion worth several million dollars. Initially, she claimed to have bought it but then claimed to have rented it, with no rent whatsoever quoted in her tax returns.

Now, take her aide, Olha Trehubova.


This government official obviously wants to keep up with her boss — or even surpass her boss. While in Luxembourg, she wore a waterproof Ulysse Nardin watch — 18 carats of gold plus a diamond-laced dial — worth $25,430.






The two ladies go way back — back to Tymoshenko’s “Gas Princess” years: In the mid ‘90s, Tymoshenko’s company, United Energy Systems of Ukraine, was trading billions of dollars in natural gas.

A longtime confidante of Tymoshenko, Trehubova has been the definition of success for a Ukrainian government official. Thanks to Ukraine’s overblown MP perks — and contrary to Tymoshenko’s sweet promises — she became the proud owner of a taxpayer-paid apartment in an upscale Kyiv neighborhood. Her son landed a spot on the BYuT party list and became an MP. That’s what friends are for, right?

Oh, I forgot to mention the model name of her watch: Lady Diver.

Come Election Day, I hope both ladies take the dive they deserve.

Sources:
http://tabloid.pravda.com.ua/brand/4a3f955cb98d6/
http://tabloid.pravda.com.ua/brand/4a391ace277c4/