Mediaboss Marketing

Russian-backed separatists tried on Tuesday to break through the trench line in the stalemated war in eastern Ukraine, killing one government soldier and wounding four others, the Ukrainian military said.

In the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, the attack was seen more as a diplomatic feint than a military assault, an effort to gain leverage during talks to end the war. In response, Ukraines president, Volodymyr Zelensky, convened an emergency meeting of his national security council. The Kremlin denied any involvement.

After a phase of widespread violence in 2014 and 2015, the war settled into a dreary back-and-forth along a frontier consisting of about 270 miles of trenches.

Despite a negotiated cease-fire, skirmishes break out daily, most of them with long-distance artillery. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported nearly 300,000 cease-fire violations by both sides last year, counting every explosion or burst of gunfire its monitors hear along the front.

The attack on Tuesday, in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine, was unusual in that the separatists tried to overrun a Ukrainian trench line and seize additional territory. It was the first such attack in two years, the military said.

Mr. Zelensky called the action an attempt to disrupt the peace process but did not directly blame the Russian government.

Our course, our commitment to end the war and to international agreements remains unchanged, he wrote in a social media post. As does our determination to repel any manifestation of armed aggression against Ukraine.

In a conference call with journalists, the Kremlin spokesman Dmitri S. Peskov expressed condolences for the dead but said that it would be wrong to say that the Kremlin is responsible for whatever happens there.

The fighting broke out in a remote area of farmland and villages carved by a network of trenches that has been a hot spot in the conflict for years.

The Ukrainian Army said it began with an artillery barrage near the village of Krymske, followed by the unsuccessful attempt to overrun its trenches, but the military provided no further details. The fighting killed one separatist soldier and wounded five others.

The attack, carried out just a few miles from a disengagement zone where Ukrainian troops had pulled back from the front, seemed to have been calculated to create political problems for Mr. Zelensky.

Creating these sites has been a signature policy of the Ukrainian president, who won an election last year promising to negotiate an end to the war. But the voluntary pullbacks have incensed his Ukrainian nationalist opposition at home.

The escalation near the disengagement zone in the town of Zolote was intended to force Zelensky into talks in an unfavorable position at home politically, said Yevhan Mahda, an analyst in Kyiv.

Unfortunately, the Kremlin feels the weakness of Ukraines leadership in its unwillingness to raise the stakes, Mr. Mahda said. Zelensky came to power on a program of peace, and the Kremlin understands this.

The fighting on Tuesday came three days after Mr. Zelenskys government rejected a 12-point plan to reduce tensions, a proposal promoted by former Russian, European and American government officials at a security conference in Munich.

That plan was seen as echoing pro-Russian positions, such as promoting a partial rollback of Western economic sanctions on Russia before a final peace deal and encouraging Ukraine to sign a trade deal with Russia.

It also suggested that Ukraine should engage in a national debate about themes of history and national memory, language and identity that would include Russian perspectives, something also sure to enrage the nationalist opposition.

Mr. Zelensky had been pressing for an end to Russian deployments of weapons and soldiers into Ukraine under a formula that would allow joint patrols by Ukraine, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and local citizens along the Russian-Ukrainian border. The Kremlin has rejected that idea.

The attack came on the fifth anniversary of a major escalation by Russian-backed separatists and regular Russian Army troops that forced Ukraine into the settlement plan known as the Minsk II agreement.

Maria Varenikova contributed reporting from Vinnytsia, Ukraine.

Here is the original post:
To Make a Diplomatic Point, Ukraine Rebels Open Fire - The New York Times

"You'll love Chapter 14," Bolton said in response.

HA HA HA, wait. That's actually not at all funny. It's crass commercialism when patriotism is warranted.

And this isn't the first time that Bolton has quite clearly put his own personal (and financial) interests before the good of the country. While there's been a tendency to lionize Bolton amid all the focus on Trump's pressure campaign to force Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, the man himself has repeatedly conducted himself in less than praiseworthy ways.

Intriguing, right? The sort of the thing that makes you think Bolton, in the interest of our country, might want to, you know, tell someone about what he knew so that lawmakers -- who were in the process of impeaching Trump in the House and then acquitting him in the Senate -- might have all the facts at their disposal.

Nope! See, Bolton, through his lawyer, rejected an invitation from House investigators to talk about all of the "many relevant meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far." Bolton's stated reason? Concerns about executive privilege.

And Bolton was never called during the Senate trial because Senate Democrats couldn't get the 51 votes they needed to authorize witnesses.

Now Bolton could have, easily, told his story through some other means. He could have granted an interview with a network to document his interactions with Trump in regard to Ukraine... He chose not to do that.

"President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton."

Big deal! The kind of thing it would have been helpful to hear directly from Bolton in some sort of public setting -- whether before Congress or in a media interview. Right? Right????

Except that, well, Bolton wants to sell books. (And, yes, I am purposely not naming his book here. I am sure you can find it.) So he's spent months teasing to his book while not actually saying much of anything that would be helpful to the public interest of knowing exactly what happened related to Ukraine.

And now Bolton would like your (and our) sympathy, because he and his legal team are in a fight with the White House over which parts of the book, if any, are censored.

"I hope it's not suppressed," Bolton said at Duke on Monday night. "I say things in the manuscript about what he (Trump) said to me. I hope they become public someday."

Man, I really want to get a look at that book! I better sign on to Amazon right ... wait a minute.

So you see what's happening here, right? Bolton, who purposely passed on several opportunities to tell what he knows to the public, is now trying to get the public behind him in his fight against alleged White House "censorship." (To be clear: Any attempt by the White House to unnecessarily suppress information in Bolton's book that makes Trump or his senior officials look bad is obviously not a good thing. But Bolton claiming that he is being silenced is a little bit rich.)

Read this article:
John Bolton isn't the hero of the Ukraine story - CNN

After seven years overseeing the Kremlin's policy regarding Ukraine a period which included Russia's seizure of Ukraine's Crimea region and the unleashing of a conflict in parts of eastern Ukraine that has left more than 13,000 people dead -- Vladislav Surkov has been dismissed.

His departure has sparked speculation that Russian President Vladimir Putin could be ready for compromises with Kyiv and the West, and bodes well for an end to the war in the Donbas. But some analysts are skeptical, suggesting that the change may be more a shift in symbolism and style than in substance.

Following weeks of rumors that Surkov was leaving, the Kremlin on February 18 issued a terse decree making it official.

It followed one week after an announcement that Dmitry Kozak, a deputy head of Putins administration, had been tapped as the Kremlin's point man on Ukraine.

The Cardinal And The Cat

"In his new role, Kozak is in charge and will continue to be in charge of Ukrainian issues," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists in Moscow.

In a nutshell, Surkov known in Russia as "the gray cardinal" for his behind-the-scenes political machinations has been replaced by Kozak, known as "the Cheshire Cat" for his inscrutability.

When the rumors of Surkov's departure emerged last month, Aleksei Chesnakov a Kremlin insider who is close to Surkov was quoted as saying Surkov was leaving because of a Kremlin "change of course on Ukraine."

In Ukraine itself, many were skeptical.

"I'm not sure this is a change," former Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Vysotskiy told RFE/RL's Russian Service. "Ukraine is such an important country for President Putin that there won't be a change of course. The course is gradual movement to the complete absorption of Ukraine as a state."

However, observers in Russia said that replacing Surkov with Kozak could mark a symbolic end to the ambitious Novorossia project, which was associated with Surkov and envisioned the absorption into Russia of considerable swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine.

Putting Kozak in place, some said, does not suggest that Putin is ready for a real compromise but that he is focused on securing a status quo that could stymie Kyiv's integration with the West and create opportunities for Moscow to reassert its influence over its neighbor.

Moscow-based political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin placed the change in the context of the domestic political situation in Russia as Putin's current term comes to an end in 2024 and the constitution bars him from seeking a new one -- the so-called "2024 problem."

As Putin prepares to substantially amend the constitution in what may be a ploy to maintain his political power in Russia beyond that date, Oreshkin says, the Kremlin is seeking stable or improved relations with the outside world.

'Negotation, Fear-Mongering, And Blackmail'

"Politically, I think, we are entering into a period when Vladimir Putin wants to reconcile with the outside world in these new conditions," Oreshkin said.

The Kremlins conditions, he said, are that Crimea is part of Russia but the areas held by Russia-backed separatists in Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions are up in the air, subjects of negotiation, fear-mongering, and blackmail."

Putin is not interested in reconciling with Ukraine at all. Ukraine is a means for reconciling with the West."

"The main thing is maintaining 'business as usual,' reducing the sanctionskeeping things quiet," he added. "Now [Putin's] task is to settle things with his own population and, to do that, he needs to somewhat smooth relations with Europe and, maybe, even with America. In this situation, he made a knight sacrifice of Surkov."

Oreshkin noted that Ukraine and the outside world see Surkov as "responsible" for the creation of the Russia-backed separatist formations in parts of eastern Ukraine.

"They have no love for him in Ukraine," Oreshkin said, and the moment seemed ripe to present a new interlocutor to Kyiv and the West.

Political analyst Leonid Radzikhovsky offered a similar analysis.

"Putin is not interested in reconciling with Ukraine at all," he told RFE/RL. "Ukraine is a means for reconciling with the Westso that the new power construction that emerges in Russia will be recognized as legitimate in the West -- which is both loathed and revered in Russia."

Kozak, 61, was born in Soviet Ukraine and served as deputy prime minister before moving over to Putin's presidential administration. He is reputed to have good working relations with Andriy Yermak, who was appointed presidential chief of staff by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on February 11. Yermak told Ukrainian television that he considered Kozak an improvement over Surkov.

The Moldova Factor

Earlier, Kozak controlled Moscow's policies in Moldova and, analysts say, achieved results there that probably impressed the Kremlin. When he took the reins, Moldova's government was controlled by an unstable but decidedly pro-Western coalition government. It was a successful participant in the European Union's Eastern Partnership program and had been granted a visa-free travel regime with the bloc.

In 2016, however, former Socialist Party head and outspokenly pro-Russian politician Igor Dodon was elected president of Moldova. In June 2019, Dodon struck an agreement with Moldova's pro-Western parties to form a coalition against oligarch Vlad Plahotniuc.

This unlikely alliance of pro-Western and pro-Russian forces was broken in November when the Socialist Party filed a successful no-confidence motion against the coalition government voting together with Plahotnuic's party to oust the coalition government. Dodon was able to install technocrat Ion Chicu as prime minister and more than half of Chicu's cabinet seats were filled by former Dodon advisers.

Analyst Radzikhovsky said the Kremlin may be hoping for similar incremental results from Kozak in Ukraine.

"The instrumentation of reconciliation [with the West] is the end of active military action in Ukraine, which has already largely been achieved," he said, despite frequent cease-fire violations in the ongoing war between Kyivs forces and the Russia-backed separatists. "And also some sort of solution of the political situation in Ukraine. We should see the replacement of Surkov by Kozak in this context. But the essential thing is not about Surkov or Kozak. Both Surkov and Kozak are capable, energetic management bureaucrats. They do not set policy."

Putin is "symbolically demonstrating a change of course," he added, by "replacing the man who symbolizes one approach with a man who symbolizes the other."

Excerpt from:
The 'Gray Cardinal' Has Left The Kremlin. What Does That Mean For The War In Ukraine? - Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty

Former Vice President Joe Bidens son Hunter, who is at the center of controversy surrounding conflicts of interest related to Ukraine, served on the board of a trade coalition that lobbied the Obama administration for additional aid to the eastern European country, according to the Daily Caller.

Hunter Biden worked from 2012 to 2018 on the board of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC), which pushed for increased spending and assistance to Ukraine, while his father dictated U.S. policy toward the former Soviet nation.

Hunter Bidens technical role was director of the Center for U.S. Global Leadership. Its firm, Rosemont Seneca, made up a part of the coalition.

While on the board of the USGLC, Hunter Biden was also recruited by one of the countrys most notoriously corrupt energy companies, Burisma, for upwards of $50,000 a month despite no prior experience in the industry in 2014. A Federalist analysis of Hunter Bidens pay reveals just how much he was being showered with excess compensation from Ukrainian elites seeking White House access. For example, executives on the board of Exxon Mobil, a company worth billions more than Burisma, only pay its members little more than half of what Hunter Biden was raking in.

In February 2014, Joe Biden played a role in securing additional aid to Ukraine following the ouster of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych. Two years later, with Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma and the USGLC, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billon in assistance to Ukraine, provided by legislation for which the trade coalition had lobbied.

Hunter Bidens business dealings with Ukraine have come under heightened scrutiny in recent months after the failed impeachment coup launched against President Donald Trump brought the Bidens interactions with Ukraine into the spotlight.

Weeks after Trumps exoneration in the Senate, two top Republican senators have pivoted their focus on Hunter Bidens work in Ukraine, conducting a probe of the perceived conflicts of interest. Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the Finance Committee, have formally requested records from federal agencies as part of their ongoing probe. Earlier this month, the Treasury Department confirmed the presence of Suspicious Activity Reports filed in relation to Hunter Bidens overseas work.

See original here:
Hunter Biden Served On Board Of Coalition Pushing For Aid To Ukraine - The Federalist

Years after O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, he wrote a book called If I Did It, in which he basically explained exactly how the two were killed with a level of detail that only someone who participated in the murders could possibly have been privy to. Now that Donald Trump has been acquitted by Republicans for extorting Ukraine for personal gain, hes kind of doing the same thing, except (1) he freely admitted to many of the details of the alleged crime even before his Senate trial, and (2) hes not even doing the people who let him get away with it the courtesy of throwing an if in there for plausible deniabilitys sake.

In a podcast interview with Geraldo Rivera that aired on Thursday, Trump was asked, Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that? Rather than stick with his previous denials of ever having dispatched Giuliani to Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in the first place, Trump happily copped to it all, responding: No, not at all...I deal with the Comeys of the world or I deal with Rudy, the former of whom, per the president, left a very bad taste in his mouth due to the whole Russia investigation. So when you tell me, why did I use Rudy, and one of the things about Rudy, number one, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor, Trump said. But also, other presidents had them. FDR had a lawyer who was practically, you know, was totally involved with government. Eisenhower had a lawyer. They all had lawyers. FDR and Eisenhower didnt use their personal lawyers to uncover nonexistent dirt on their political rivals, but, sure, great history lesson.

In the new interview, Trump defended the decision to use Giuliani, even though U.S. diplomats previously testified that Giuliani had undermined long-standing U.S. policy toward Ukraine.... Multiple witnesses described how Giuliani met with former Ukrainian officials in search of dirt against Joe and Hunter Biden. Other key players described how Giuliani and his allies pressured Ukraine to announce investigations into the Bidens. Trumps past denials came in November, when the House of Representatives was investigating the presidents conduct with Ukraine.

Trump, of course, has insisted up to this point that he never sent Giuliani to Ukraine, claiming last year that didnt direct the former NYC mayor to take a fact-finding trip to the Eastern European country, and that the great corruption fighter had taken the initiative himself.

Obviously, the president didnt exactly try to hide his corrupt ways prior to the formal impeachment proceedings, having stood in front of the White House last October and calledon camera!for Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens. But now that hes free of the fear of impeachment, hes apparently just going for broke with the admissions, in addition to getting revenge on the individuals who had the audacity to cooperate with the Houses inquiry, like Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who was escorted out of the White House last week and whom Trump has asked the military to further punish for disrespecting the king. (In other just coming out and saying it news, Trump tweeted this morning that hes never asked Attorney General William Barr to do something underhanded in a criminal case but totally could if he wanted to, which means he probably has already.)

Anyway, the many lawmakers who chose to acquit the president while insisting that hed totally learned his lesson have not yet commented on the fresh confessions, but presumably theyre feeling pretty stupid right now (and will continue to let Trump get away with whatever his heart desires moving forward).

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

After acquittal, Trump plots revenge on Bolton and other impeachment enemies Behind the scenes of Trumps secret birther implosion Why Bernies message and media machine could be potent against Trump With accused wife-murderer Fotis Dulos on life support, a look inside the grim end of a perfect couple The hedge fund vampire that bleeds newspapers dry now has the Chicago Tribune by the throat The most deranged moments from Trumps post-acquittal press conference From the Archive: If Donald Trump is the political equivalent of a pathogen, whos responsible for letting him wreak havoc in the national bloodstream?

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

See more here:
Trump Just Comes Out and Admits to Entire Ukraine Scam - Vanity Fair