More Appeasement from the American Institute in Ukraine

After making Reagan roll over in his grave by misusing his famous quote, they’re back.

• Back with a quote about the “nationalist” Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Ministry;
• Back with less prevarication about their views/connections;
• Back with a noble mission of educating Ukrainians about NATO; and
  
• Back with more appeasement toward the good old benevolent Kremlin.

Discover these fresh offerings in Say No to NATO, an article by Graham Stack at Russiaprofile.org.

I found this article thanks to a French-language anti-NATO site that calls my blog “Ukrainamania” and puts it in the ranks of neocon public relations. What can I say? I’m flattered! Just get my blog’s name right, OK?

In Say No to NATO, the American Institute in Ukraine (AIU) finally abandons any pretense of neutrality and nonalignment: “Ukraine’s NATO membership is not in Ukraine’s interests. Nor is it in U.S. interests. All that it will create is a nuclear trip wire at the heart of Europe.” What took you so long, guys?

Now that you’re so brave, straightforward and openhearted, let’s examine the Kremlin’s hymnbook quote by quote:

Anthony T. Salvia, AIU Executive Director: In Ukraine, U.S. opinion is often represented as being monolithically in favor of Ukraine’s future membership of NATO. We’re here in Kiev to show this is definitely not the case.

Do you have any scientific — and independent — U.S. poll numbers? I, for one, can’t argue with the poll numbers in Ukraine. According to various polls, support for NATO membership clocks in at 20-30%, nowhere near the 77% found in Georgia. Which brings us to the question of why you’re here. You gave up on Georgia and focused on Ukraine. You’re here to tell us what to do with our security. Moreover, you think that our security has nothing to do with your security. Well, think again.

Doug Bandow, a guest speaker at AIU: The U.S. should refrain from making promises to Ukraine it cannot honor, but which might embolden Ukraine to provoke a conflict. The Ukrainians should realize that the US will never fight Russia over Ukraine. Ukraine must learn to rely on its own resources for securing its sovereignty, and not to trust to U.S. promises.

Would the U.S. fight Russia over Latvia or Poland under Article 5? (Just curious.) At any rate, thank you for disarming and disowning us! Indeed, today, we Ukrainians only have ourselves to rely on if attacked by our friendliest neighbor in the universe, Russia. If and when that happens, you shouldn’t expect us to control our missile technology as we promised you in 1998. We’ll be too busy. See if you can intercept a bootleg SS-18 with the “reset button.”

Salvia: Ukrainian NATO membership, by ruining relations with Russia, would make Ukraine less secure than it is, not more. And it would also harm U.S. security, by ruining the chances for cooperation with Russia over vital issues such as Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran, all issues that the new administration has said it will prioritize.

If you ruin our security with your art of appeasement, your cooperation with Russia over Iran and North Korea will become a joke. And the Kremlin will have no regrets.

Salvia: There are other mechanisms available for strengthening Ukrainian security. One is a new European security treaty, similar to that being proposed by Dmitry Medvedev. The other is for European Union membership. The Kremlin is basically open toward Ukraine’s future EU membership, especially if it is an alternative to Ukraine’s NATO membership.

A new European security treaty? You mean, a new Yalta Conference? The EU is a security organization and the Kremlin is open toward Ukraine’s future EU membership? Really? Can you call the Kremlin again and come back with the details?

Yelena Biberman, a U.S. Embassy policy specialist engaged in research on Ukraine’s foreign ministry (according to the article): Foreign ministry officials are ideologically anti-Russian and nationalist to the extent that they may not always be able to objectively assess Ukraine’s real national interests. They believe that Russia is inherently imperialistic and bent on regaining control over Ukraine as a step to rebuilding its empire, and NATO membership is the only way to stop this. Even for a new Ukrainian president, it will be very hard to change their perspective.

So, to restore objectivity, the new Ukrainian president should by all means try to change their perspective, as in “change Putin believes in?” That’s a very insightful perspective from an FSO trained at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). Has the U.S. Embassy outsourced some of its staff to AIU or vice versa? What’s next? A garage sale of “reset buttons” and “Made in USSR” memorabilia? Clientitis classes? There’s nothing new about the fact that Russia hasn’t refreshed its historiography since the Brezhnev era — if not for a brief moment during perestroika. But, for State’s sake, aren’t there any post-Soviet history textbooks on Amazon.com or at Brown? Doesn’t Prof. Sergei Khrushchev have any?

Salvia: We don’t engage in lobbying, but work exclusively in the public field holding conferences, talks and round table discussions. What we are trying to tell Ukrainians is simply that you can be pro-America and pro-European without having to want to join NATO.

Tell it to the Poles. Tell it to the Czechs. Tell it to the Slovaks. Tell it to the Hungarians. Tell it to the Romanians. Tell it to the Bulgarians. Tell it to the Lithuanians. Tell it to the Latvians. Tell it to the Estonians. Tell it to the Georgians. Tell it to the IRS.

Sources:
http://www.aminuk.org
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1247513208

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