Mediaboss Marketing

The political side of globalization.

U.S. politics as an extension of the Russian-Ukrainian war theater sounds mildly ridiculous-- but,as partisan U.S. forces push competing stories of the post-Soviet nations' interference in the 2016 election, I can't help wondering if that isn't the new normal.

The Russian interference narrative is by now part of the mainstream. Ukrainian interference is a newer, less developed storyline, being pushed by Republicans as a response to the Russia allegations and, by some indications, backed enthusiastically by Russian interests.

The first story on how Ukraine allegedly helped Hillary Clinton's election campaign was published by Politico in January. It described how Alexandra Chalupa, apolitical operative of Ukrainian origin who worked for the Democratic National Committee, did opposition research on Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort -- who did a lot of political consulting work in Kiev-- with the cautious help of the Ukrainian embassy.

This didn't amount to direct cooperation between the Clinton campaign and the Ukrainians. President Petro Poroshenko's governmenthad to be careful in caseTrump won, since U.S. support is crucial for the current government's survival. The Clinton campaign, too, wanted to keep a distance between the dirt-digging and the candidate. Still, The New York Times published a story on August 14, 2016 citing information from Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau that a handwritten ledger kept by ousted President Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions showed $12.7 million in payments "designated for Mr. Manafort." Other arms of the Ukrainian government made no move to deny that Manafort received illegal payments -- until long after the election. Last month, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor Nazar Kholodnitskyi said there was no proof Manafort accepted any illicit payments -- probably welcome news to the Trump administration in the midst of the Russia scandal.

Recently, however, the old Politico story has resurfacedthanks toDeputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders: "If youre looking for an example of a campaign coordinating with a foreign country or a foreign source, look no further than the DNC who actually coordinated opposition research with the Ukrainian Embassy." That same day,the conservative publication The Daily Caller ran a "friendly reminder" that a DNC operative worked with Ukrainians to dig up information aboutManafort, and Trump apologist Laura Ingraham tweeted the Politico story. On July 11, Fox News' Sean Hannity joined in, retweeting Donald Trump Jr.'s pick-up of the Daily Caller column. On Wednesday, Senator Lindsey Graham asked Christopher Wray, President Trump's nominee for Federal Bureau of Investigation director, about it.Wray'sresponse? He'd be "happy to dig into it."

The talking point got some enthusiastic support from Lee Stranahan, the former Breitbart journalist who now has a show on the Russian government-funded Sputnik Radio. In a series of tweets, he suggested the Ukrainian government was helping the U.S. Democrats in return for their helpin 2014. He also tweeted a link to an apparently Russian-recorded and -leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland, then an assistant secretary of state, and Geoffrey Pyatt, then U.S. ambassador to Kiev, on how to shape the Ukrainian government immediately after the 2014 "Revolution of Dignity."

At the same time, CyberBerkut, the pro-Kremlin hacker group, whose account had been dormant for months, published a data drop on alleged tied between the charity foundation of Ukrainian billionaire Viktor Pinchuk and the Clintons. This was promptly picked up by WikiLeaks (which, for the sake of fairness, mentioned that CyberBerkut may be a front for the Russian government).

Clearly, people within President Vladimir Putin's propaganda machine would like to give the Clinton-Ukraine story a boost.

The story, however, probably won't cross partisan lines for the simple reason described in a tweet by former Republican National Committee operative Liz Mair: "The big difference between Clinton/Ukraine and Trump/Russia is that Ukraine is not our enemy; Russia pretty obviously is, per common sense." A large part of the Republican establishment regards Russia -- let's face it, not Putin's Kremlin but the country itself -- as a perennial U.S. adversary. This is based on cold war history and habitualintelligence and diplomatic practicesas much as on anything Putin has done. Itjust seems easier for Republicans who share this set notion to side with the Democrats on the Russian story than with populist, pro-Trump Republicans whose views of Russia are more opportunistic.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

Ukraine, by contrast, is a U.S. charity case and a counterweight to Russia in the post-Soviet space. So working with it while almost equating the acceptance of Russian help to treason is not a double standard. Within this context, foreign participation in the U.S. political process is not a problem, but the participation of a foreign adversary is. Is that the right line to draw in an increasingly globalized world with internationalized elections?

It's natural that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is playing out everywhere both sides can reach. The U.S. is an important arena; perhaps Americans should be proud of that rather than worried about it.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Nizza at mnizza3@bloomberg.net

Read more here:
How the Ukraine War Spilled Into the US Election - Bloomberg

By Maxim Eristavi By Maxim Eristavi July 12

Maxim Eristavi is a nonresident research fellow with the Atlantic Council and co-founder of Hromadske International, an independent news outlet, based in Kiev.

Ryanair, Europes biggest budget airline, has just canceled its plans to start regular flights to Ukraine. You might think that many Ukrainians wouldnt care but youd be wrong.

Ryanair is currently the No. 1 trending topic on Twitter and Facebook in Ukraine. Ive been besieged by messages from my depressed friends, all of them bemoaning the airlines decision. So why the fuss?

Its because this story casts a harsh light on the countrys unwillingness to change. After months of negotiations with the government, Ryanair decided to cancel its plans when Kiev Airport, the countrys largest, refused to meet the airlines demands. The companys official statement pulled no punches: Ukraine is not yet a sufficiently mature or reliable business location to invest valuable Ryanair aircraft capacity.

So what does that mean? Its simple. Right now the Ukrainian airline market is for all practical purposes a monopoly, controlled by one oligarch-owned airline. (While some foreign airlines are currently allowed to fly into Ukraine, its politically well-connected Ukraine International Airlines that controls the most lucrative routes and airports, and bans the outsiders from offering lower prices as a condition of entering the market.) By luring Ryanair, the government could have achieved two big goals at once: demonstrating Ukraines openness to foreign investment and showing that foreigners can safely put their money into the country even as it continues to fight a Russian invasion in the east.

But theres more to this story than just another standoff between reformers and oligarchs. It reveals the depth of the economic trap that continues to plague Eastern Europe.

This shows why we never manage to get nice things in Ukraine, as one friend put it. People here exulted recently when the European Union granted us visa-free travel, but the reality is that its often just too expensive to travel there. Because of our market monopoly, ticket prices for the nearest E.U. destination start at $150 to $200 out of reach for many Ukrainians. Allowing low-cost airlines such as Ryanair to enter the market would cut the price in half. Small wonder that many people feel that they are once again being robbed of choice.

Freedom of choice: This is the thing that many of my progressive friends from wealthy countries dont understand about Eastern Europeans eagerness to welcome foreign investment. Progressives in the developed world often identify international business with the ruthlessness of unrestricted capitalism. But for progressives in our part of the world, the presence of foreign companies represents the freedom of choice of which we are so often deprived.

My friends in the United States and Western Europe who assume that those of us in poor nations arent educated about the evils of unrestricted consumerism are horribly patronizing. Yes, of course, there are undoubtedly some multinationals that abuse their market power in developing countries. But if you live in a developed country, you can always choose to boycott their services or goods. You have the luxury of choice. People in places such as Ukraine dont. For us, the entry of foreign companies offers the possibility of freedom from the oligarch-imposed version of slavery.

Imagine a country where most paying jobs are in the business empires of oligarchs, who face zero competition from foreign companies. Your wages will be 10 to 20 times less than in more competitive markets. When you receive your paycheck, at least a third will be deducted for taxes that go to support state institutions that dont work for you but are used and abused by oligarchs for their political and business interests. The rest of the paycheck is spent on buying oligarch-produced services and goods by monopolies that big businesses secured through exploitation of the same state institutions you pay for.

I clearly remember the first time I bought a shirt in a store overseas. It wasnt about the quality of the product. It was, instead, that liberating feeling of being able to buy something that was worth what I was paying for it, rather than having to buy something of poor quality at a high price, as is usually the case at home.

Its not about the pursuit of consumerism its about freedom of choice. Thats why people stood in line for hours at the first McDonalds in Moscow in 1990. Thats why people were willing to die on Independence Squarein 2014 to defend a free-trade agreement with the E.U. Thats why the fight to admit foreign competition in places such as Ukraine is not about just about business. Its about liberation.

See the rest here:
A budget airline backs out of Ukraine and prompts a bout of ... - Washington Post

Some of the happiest campers around right now are the folks who worked for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

And they are in full gloating mode.

Having been stunned that Donald Trump beat their candidatealong with most of the mediathey are quite publicly relishing the latest twist in the Russia investigation and the uproar over the presidents son.

Now its hardly shocking, with Democrats controlling nothing in Washington, that the opposition would want something to cheer about.

But whats fascinating is the snarky and taunting tone that some of them are taking on Twitter. Having dealt with them over the years, they were generally measured and cautious when they were in top government and campaign positions.

They are exuding an aura of vindication after months of talking about Russian interference in the election, sometimes spiking the digital football.

Now of course its Twitter, and theyre out of office, so theyve got plenty of latitude. And the president, with his wrestling-video approach, has been known to play rough on Twitter.

But theres a real finger-in-the-eye quality to many of these tweets. One might even say they are trolling the Trump White House.

Not all the Democrats are playing this way. David Axelrod and Josh Earnest, for example, tend to be more balanced in their commentary.

Brian Fallon, who was Clintons chief campaign spokesman, reveled in the news about Trump Jr. having met with a Russian lawyer who he was told had anti-Hillary oppo:

Turning his attention to Jared Kushner: It's about the son-in-law, stupid.

And Fallon dragged in a criminal case involving Kushners father, who has nothing to do with this: Jared giving up bro-in-law wld be pretty mean. OTOH Jared's dad went to jail for setting up his bro-in-law w/hooker. Now whos sounding mean?

Jennifer Palmieri, who was Clintons communications director, did a serious tweetstorm on the Don Jr. story:

She also seized on the role of Rob Goldstone, the heavyset British publicist who brokered the Don Jr. meeting, linking to a campaign debate when Trump said the hacking might not have been done by Russians but by some random obese guy:

Think we've found Trump's mythic 400 lb hacker: Goldstone!

Dan Pfeiffer, who was Obamas communications chief and later counselor, took shots at the House speaker and Fox News:

Donald Trump Jr may have arranged the meeting, but let's not forget Kushner broke the law when he lied about it on his security form. Kushner amended the form after numeorus omissions.

Pfeiffer also mocked the presidents penchant for battling the media:

Tommy Vietor, former spokesman for Obamas National Security Council, is the most sarcastic:

Vietor even dragged a notorious murder defendant into his criticism:

Last week it was John Podesta, the former Clinton campaign chairman, who unloaded on Trump, calling him our whack job POTUS and telling him to get a grip man. But that was different, for Podesta was responding to Trump calling him disgraceful and saying from the G-20 summit that he had failed to turn over the DNC server to the FBI. Podesta didnt work for the DNC.

It may be that Twitter is prime ground not just for potshots but for venting. The former Democratic officials often seem to be commiserating and clowning with their liberal compatriots. They sure dont sound like theyre trying to persuade folks who might be more favorably disposed toward the president.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

See the article here:
Twitter taunts: Ex-Hillary and Obama aides reveling in the ...

In her first major appearance since leaving the White House, former First Lady Michelle Obama wore a Cushnie et Ochs dress, Jennifer Fisher jewelry, and Gianvito Rossi shoes Wednesday night in Los Angeles at the 25th annual ESPY awards, where she honored the late Eunice Kennedy Shriver with the Arthur Ashe Courage Award.

It was such an honor to see Michelle Obama return to the public spotlight wearing Cushnie et Ochs,Carly Cushnie and Michelle Ochs said in an email. One extraordinary woman honoring another. We couldnt have asked for a more powerful moment to be a part of! Michelle Obama continues to inspire women around the world- we will always be grateful for the opportunity to dress our former First Lady.

Michelle Obama embodies a level of effortless confidence and personal style that every American woman, no matter her age or demographic, can appreciate and emulate, said Fisher of dressing Obama. In her speech tonight Mrs. Obama said that Eunice Kennedy Shriver changed hearts and minds. Mrs. Obama did the same for the American people and its an honor to see her in my jewelry.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver was a passionate champion for those with developmental challenges, empowering them to fulfill their highest potential, Obama said previously in a statement regarding the honoring. Her work to promote inclusion and acceptance transformed the lives of countless young athletes and inspired us all. I am incredibly honored to present this award to her son to celebrate her lifes work.

Kennedy Shriver, who was the sister of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Ted Kennedy, founded the Special Olympics in 1968. She died in 2009 at age 88.

Obama presented the award to Timothy Shriver, Kennedy Shrivers son, who serves as chair of the Special Olympics. According to ESPN, the Arthur Ashe Courage Award is given out to someone who embodies the spirit of its namesake, tennis legend and longtime human rights campaigner Arthur Ashe.

Her appearance at the ESPYs (the Excellence in Sports Performance Yearly awards) marked one of the first big public appearances the former First Lady has made since leaving the White House. Her embrace of the fashion industry, particularly of American designers, was well documented throughout President Obamas two terms, and it remains to be seen what form her fashion choices will take post White House. She continues to work with stylist Meredith Koop, whom she has worked with since 2009. For the ESPYs she worked with makeup artist Carl Ray and hairstylist Yene Damtew.

Related Links:

Dear Michelle: Designers Write Thank You Notes to the First Lady

Michelle Obamas Makeup Artist Looks Backward and Forward

Michelle Obama Wears Narciso Rodriguez for Final Speech as FLOTUS

First Lady Michelle Obama Wears Brandon Maxwell Dress for State Dinner for Singapore Prime Minister

The Obamas Continue Their Magazine Blitz With Essence and InStyle

Continued here:
Exclusive: Michelle Obama Returns to the Limelight at ESPY ...

A revised Senate Republican health care bill will likely retain a pair of tax boosts President Barack Obama imposed on wealthier Americans that have helped finance his law's expansion of coverage, a leading Senate Republican said Tuesday.

The two levies one on investment income and another on the payroll tax that helps finance the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly are among the biggest that Obama's 2010 statute imposed. Some of the money would be used to increase a fund the GOP bill would disperse to states to help insurers contain consumers' premiums and deductibles, said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas.

Preserving those taxes "seems to be where we're headed," Cornyn told reporters. He said the reworked bill will also provide $45 billion over a decade to help states combat abuse of drugs including opioids, and make it easier for states to get federal waivers to decide how to spend money under their Medicaid health programs for the poor, elderly and nursing home patients.

Cornyn spoke after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced he will introduce his party's altered health care bill Thursday and begin trying to muscle it through the Senate next week. The effort comes with the fate of the GOP measure in doubt, with internal divisions threatening to mortally wound their top-tier goal of repealing much of Obama's overhaul.

"Hopefully everything we're doing now helps another member get to 'yes,'" Cornyn said. "There's really no other reason to tweak this thing."

In the face of unanimous Democratic opposition, the health care bill will crash if just three of the 52 GOP senators oppose it. McConnell suddenly canceled a doomed vote last month on an initial version of the legislation, and at least a dozen Republicans have said they oppose the initial package or distanced themselves from it.

Since his June retreat, McConnell has been reshaping the measure in hopes of winning GOP votes. Even so, no GOP leaders were yet predicting passage.

McConnell also said he will delay the chamber's August recess for two weeks, a rare move he said would give lawmakers time to break logjams on health care, defense and executive branch nominations. Growing numbers of Republicans, chagrined at Congress' failure to send any major bills to President Donald Trump, had called on McConnell to make that move.

The GOP bill would ease coverage requirements Obama's 2010 statute placed on insurers, like paying for maternity services; erase his tax penalties on people who don't buy policies and cut Medicaid. The measure will also eliminate most of Obama's tax increases, including boosts on insurers, pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device makers.

Obama's law has added around 20 million to the ranks of the country's people with health insurance. An analysis of McConnell's initial bill by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would increase the number of people without coverage by 22 million by 2026.

The updated legislation is also expected to ease some of its earlier Medicaid cuts, a move aimed at assuaging GOP senators from states that expanded the program by millions of people under Obama's law.

According to Cornyn, the refashioned GOP measure will probably keep Obama's 3.8 percent tax boost on investment income for couples earning over $250,000 annually. It would also retain a payroll tax increase of 0.9 percent on the same earners that helps finance Medicare.

Together, retaining the two levies would produce $231 billion over the next 10 years, according to Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

Republicans generally oppose tax boosts, and it was unclear whether preserving those tax increases would threaten support by any conservatives for the health bill. But Cornyn said some of the money perhaps around $50 billion would be used to buttress around $100 billion already in the measure for states to help insurers hold down insurance costs, and he said the move might help defend against Democratic attacks that the GOP package will help the rich and hurt the poor.

"We're trying to take at least one sharp stick off the table," Cornyn said. "I don't think it will change the narrative."

A study released Tuesday by two bipartisan groups estimated that the country's poorest families would lose more than $2,500 in average annual health care benefits once the GOP legislation was fully phased in. Families making more than $1 million a year would get tax cuts averaging about $50,000, according to the analysis by the Health Policy Center and the Tax Policy Center.

Still at issue is a plan by conservatives led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to let insurers sell low-price policies with bare-bones coverage if the company also sells a policy covering a list of services like maternity care that Obama's law mandates.

It's received pushback from GOP moderates warning it would inflate premiums for sicker people buying generous plans because younger, healthier customers would flock to skimpier policies. To ease the price boosts people with serious illnesses might face, some Republicans said changes were being discussed that would link the premiums insurers would charge for both types of coverage.

Associated Press reporters Erica Werner, Andrew Taylor and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

Visit link:
New GOP health bill likely keeping Obama tax boosts on rich ...