Mediaboss Marketing

A watchdog group will file a complaint with the Federal Election Commissionon Wednesdayalleging that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) violated federal law by soliciting opposition research on the Trump campaign from a foreign government.

The conservative group Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT), launched in 2014 by former U.S. attorney Matthew Whitaker, will allege that political operative Alexandra Chalupa, in her capacity as a DNC consultant, improperly sought intelligence on President Trumps former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, from Ukrainian officials.

FACT alleges that Chalupa violated the ban by knowingly soliciting a valuable in-kind contribution in the form of opposition research and information on a Trump campaign official from a foreign national on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.

The complaint is based on an investigation by Politico, which found that Chalupa met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia.

Chalupa developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives, according to Politico, and occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC.

Chalupa was a minorities outreach coordinator at the DNC. Officials say she was freelancing and not representing the DNC in her efforts to gather information on Manafort.

The White House has been pushing this narrative to distract from the Trump campaigns willingness to work with a hostile foreign government to interfere in our election. No one is buying it, Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the DNC, said in a statement.

The Trump campaign embraced an offer from a hostile foreign government to interfere in our elections. Trump and some of his family watched for months as the Kremlin attacked our democracy, and did nothing but encourage and celebrate their efforts. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign was involved in these efforts.

A New York Times story on Manaforts work for a pro-Russia group in the Ukraine contributed to him being forced out of the campaign.

Manafort is now the focus of a special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Manafort is cooperating with House and Senate investigators on the matter, but the Washington Post reportedWednesdaythat the FBI raided his home a day after he met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The FACT complaint is part of an effort by conservatives to push back on allegations that Trump officials had improper contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Last year, Trumps son, Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Caitlyn Jenner apologizes for wearing Make America Great Again hat Conway, ABC host tangle over Trump's involvement in son's statement MORE Jr., met with a Russian lawyer and a Russian-American lobbyist, believing they had campaign dirt on Democrat Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonClintons attend private screening of 'Wonder Woman' Rosenstein: Trump did not direct feds to investigate Clinton GOP senator: I wish Republicans had stood up to birtherism MORE.

Manafort was also at the meeting, as was Trumps son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

All of the parties involved have said the offer of informationwas a gambit to land the meeting and that the Russian lawyer instead pitched the Trump campaign officials on changes to a law that sanctions Russians for human rights violations.

Trumps critics have said the meeting is evidence that campaign officials were eager to collude with the Russians, even if that effort failed in this instance.

Ironically, the FACT complaint cites several reports from liberal media outlets, including ThinkProgress, in which experts claimed that Trump Jr. violated campaign laws by seeking an in-kind contribution from a foreign national in the form of opposition research.

FACT is now turning that allegation on the DNC.

Federal law and commission regulations prohibit any person from knowingly soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions or donations of money or other things of value from a foreign national, the complaint says.

Several watchdog groups have filed the same complaint against Trump Jr. FACT says that it took much of the language forits complaint from those complaints.

--This report was updated at 12:20 p.m.

See original here:
Watchdog files complaint alleging DNC worked with Ukraine - The Hill

Alexander Polegenko / associated press Ukrainian armored vehicles are prepared for loading onto a train at a railway station near Simferopol, Crimea.

Alexander Polegenko / associated press Ukrainian armored vehicles are prepared for loading onto a train at a railway station near Simferopol, Crimea.

Charles Kupchan: Why giving Ukraine lethal weapons would be a massive mistake

The Trump administration is in the midst of making a decision on whether to transfer lethal weaponry to Ukraine. This move would be intended to give Ukraines military the ability to impose new costs on the Russians and their proxies engaged in a separatist revolt in the countrys eastern region of Donbass, thereby persuading the Kremlin to give up the fight.

But the result would likely be the opposite - an escalation in the conflict that would lead to further losses of Ukraines territory and compromise its political stability. Russia enjoys insurmountable military superiority over Ukraine. The United States should not encourage Ukraine to engage in an escalatory confrontation with Russia. Washington knows full well that Ukraine cannot prevail.

The urge to give Ukraine lethal arms - most likely in the form of anti-tank weapons - is understandable. Since 2014, the Russians have occupied and illegally annexed Crimea and sustained a separatist rebellion in Donbass that has claimed more than 10,000 lives. Moreover, Russia has engaged in these acts of aggression in order to block Ukraines desire to leave Moscows sphere of influence and join the community of Western democracies.

Under these circumstances, the United States should continue helping Ukrainians defend themselves by assisting with defense reforms and training Ukrainian forces. So why not take the next step and give Ukraine lethal weapons?

For starters, the notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin would give up his hold on Donbass if a few more Russians come home in body bags is to dramatically misread the Kremlin. Putin is a master at manipulating the Russian public, especially when it comes to the Ukraine conflict and would hardly fold his hand if Russian casualties were to increase.

On the contrary, he would likely double down, blaming the United States and Ukraine for the intensified fighting and taking steps to offset the improvement in Ukraines military capability. The Russians have so far effectively countered Ukrainian military successes - in some instances, retaliating with devastating effect. When Ukrainian forces in the summer of 2014 advanced into Donbass and took the strategically located city of Ilovaisk, Putin promptly called in his own crack troops, which quickly decimated the Ukrainian unit that had taken the town.

Should Putin decide to escalate in response to a U.S. decision to transfer lethal weapons to Ukraine, Washington would have few arrows in its quiver. Even if the Trump administration were to take another step up the ladder of escalation, Russia would go at least one step further. Russia shares a 1500-mile land/sea border with Ukraine, making the Kremlin far more invested in the fate of Ukraine than Washington. Russia has greater interest in putting skin in the game.

Rather than playing to Russias principal strength - its military advantage over Ukraine - the United States should continue to play to Russias main vulnerability - its economic weakness. On this front, the United States and its European allies, not the Kremlin, hold the cards. The loss of income due to the low price of fossil fuels and the international sanctions imposed in response to its aggression in Ukraine have taken a serious toll on the Russian economy. Keeping sanctions in place and, if necessary, increasing them, is the Wests best source of leverage for pushing Russia to a diplomatic solution. Congress seems to realize as much, having just imposed on the White House legislation tightening U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Sending lethal weapons to Ukraine has one further downside - it would cause a rift between the United States and its main European allies. Germany and France have been leading diplomatic efforts to find a diplomatic solution for Donbass - and both have long opposed sending lethal weapons to Ukraine because of its potential to escalate the conflict.

The United States and Europe have moved in lock step since the beginning of the conflict, closely coordinating non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine as well as economic sanctions against Russia. Trans-Atlantic solidarity has arguably been the Wests strongest suit, confronting Putin with a united front and keeping Russia in the penalty box despite pressure from parties on both sides of the Atlantic to drop sanctions and reap the accompanying commercial benefits.

Europeans are already on edge due to Congresss recent sanctions legislation, which imposes measures not coordinated with the European Union and that have the potential to cause undue harm to European companies. If Washington decides to head off on its own and send lethal weapons to Ukraine, solidarity on Ukraine may well come to end.

Putin has been working hard to achieve just this end. Washington would be making a serious strategic mistake if it hands to the Kremlin the trans-Atlantic bust-up for which Moscow has long been hoping.

The conflict in Ukraine promises to poison Russias relations with the West until a diplomatic resolution is reached. But sending lethal weapons to Ukraine is a recipe for military escalation and trans-Atlantic discord. The best way to bring peace to Ukraine is through transatlantic unity aimed at maintaining Russias political and economic isolation until it makes a deal at the negotiating table.

Courtesy of The Washington Post

Read more:
Charles Kupchan: Why giving Ukraine lethal weapons would be a massive mistake - New Haven Register

Crimean border guards have rescued a Ukrainian teenager who spent three days drifting in the open sea after falling asleep on an inflatable trampoline.

Mykhailo Doroshenko, a 19-year-oldlifeguardin Lazurne, a resort in southern Ukraine, decided to spend the night on an inflatable trampoline that was attached to a pier on the beach.

When he woke up the next morning, he found himself in open sea.

The incident took place on Saturday but was only reported by Russian media this week.

At first, I saw it as a fun adventure. [I thought] Id drift for a couple of hours, and then some vessel would rescue me, Mr Doroshenko was quoted as saying by the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.

But on the second day, it wasnt fun at all.

The young man spent three days on the trampoline without food or drinking water,exposed to 40C heat.

At some point I saw a ship far away, Mr Doroshenko told Komsovolskaya Pravda. I started waving and shouting, but they didnt see me. Then another yacht passed by without noticing me. At times, I was feeling really desperate.

On Saturday, Crimean border guards received a reports about a man on an inflatable vessel in need of assistance.

Visit link:
Ukrainian lifeguard drifts to Crimea after falling asleep on inflatable trampoline - Telegraph.co.uk

Donbass Media Forum, Svyatohirsk, 2017. Source: DMF. More details on the forum here. When armed conflict broke out in Ukraines Donbass in spring 2014, many Donetsk journalists found themselves on the frontline by chance. Some of the citys editorial offices changed their addresses, while others had to close down their operations entirely. Other editors and journalists have stayed in their profession, but are now bound by the demands made by the new rulers of Donetsk and Luhansk. Since the beginning of the Russian Spring, the new authorities main rule of thumb has been to suppress independent media. Indeed, there are no local journalists in the Donbas whose fates did not change after April 2014. In order to figure out whats become of our profession in the region and to retain our ties weve been holding the Donbass Media Forum for several years now.

Facing aggression from the authorities of the so-called Donetsk Peoples Republic, the editorial staff of the News of Donbas left Donetsk in small groups. Our first reaction to this situation was: we need to tell the truth about whats happening in Donetsk, and the truth about those people who had suddenly declared a republic in our region. In our broadcasts for Donbas Public Television, we shed light on the DNR and its leaders, in order to inform as many people as possible about the situation.

At some point, I started receiving invitations to appear on every TV programme imaginable, as an expert on the Donbas. On air, Id hear the same information which Id published elsewhere. It seemed as though some media outlets werent interested in my knowledge of the current situation, but instead my interpretation of information which Id been collecting since 2006, and my status as a witness in a criminal case into the activities of the Donetsk Republic organisation, which was banned in 2007.

Thats when I decided to conduct an experiment of my own. When I was invited to speak on Ukrainian television channels, I started asking uncomfortable questions on topics which are often considered taboo in our media. For example, why do Ukrainian newsmakers have a critical attitude to any peace process (if there were people clearly antagonistic toward this idea in the studio) or how they view the realisation of the Minsk Agreements (if there were people calling for peaceful reintegration on air). That is, I changed the tone of the debate from the affirmative (transmitting new facts about the DNR and my interpretation of the situation in Donetsk) to the interrogative. Because thats a journalists job. After all, if Im already sitting beside the countrys VIPs, when why shouldnt I use them just as other journalists have used me in their own talk shows?

Wikimedia Commons. Some rights reserved.I started asking even more questions and, every time, I observed how the reactions of the guest speakers and hosts changed towards me. As a result, one of the presenters declared me to be working for Viktor Medvedchuk. She continued that my interest in such issues as Minsk or even worse, the peace process, amounted to clear evidence for my close ties to strange circles and apparent desire for the capitulation of Ukraine to Russia. This TV presenter, whom I know well, later took me to one side and told me that since it was so clear why we dont need Minsk, there was simply no point discussing them on the air. That is to say, as it seemed so clear to her, she believed it must be the same for everybody else.

Well, as a journalist, I always have my doubts. Doubt courses through my entire life. Perhaps thats the reason why I decided to become a journalist in the first place, rather than a political analyst, a course which was always open to me given my Masters degree in political science.

Was it right for our editors to insist on calling those on the DNR side terrorists? Was it right to react to the conflict solely with excessive patriotism that flooded our newsfeeds?

I also had my doubts in 2014. Was it right for our editors to insist on calling those on the DNR side terrorists? Was it right to react to the conflict solely with excessive patriotism that flooded our newsfeeds? What will actually change from the medias employing the terminology used by Ukrainian military commanders, soldiers or simply online haters? Will the war really grind to a halt if some strive to make their insults twice as potent as their opponents?

In 2016, a wonderful book fell into my hands, published by the OSCE and freely accessible on their website. It concerns conflict-sensitive journalism, and I still read it once a week, whenever I look back over the content produced for News of Donbas. I almost remember it by heart. That very year at the Donbas Media Forum in Mariupol, one of the speakers called on journalists working in the conflict zone not to make things worse than they already are. That phrase, and the OSCEs book, allowed me to answer those questions I raised earlier.

By following its recommendations, as well as the experience of journalists from other countries who lived through other events, I like to think that Im helping the media outlets I work for to become more balanced and produce work of a higher quality. This in turn opens them up to wider audiences on both sides of the frontline, which after all is at the very heart of the goal which the Donetsk Institute of Information has set for itself. The institute, which administers News of Donbas and Donbas Public Television, promotes the establishment of democratic, humanistic values across Ukraine through the dissemination of fact-checked news and quality analysis.

Scenes from Maryinka, a town just east of Donetsk which is under Ukrainian state control. Source: "Lives on the Line" film by Iryna Solomko / Center for Civilians in Conflict.The result of all the discussions, debates and, of course, arguments weve held over the past three years has drawn me to the following question: is it possible for journalists to dial down the toxicity of their work? If my hypothesis is correct, this could lead to a dialling down in the aggression which has swept society an aggression which divides society ever more with each passing year, along various lines of discord.

The longer this war drags on, the deeper the sense of frustration and alienation. This can be easily seen in discussions in social media and among journalists themselves. My colleagues even receive threats simply because they, as journalists, permit themselves to consider and pose uncomfortable questions, to put journalistic ethics into practice and perfect what they produce, which is becoming more and more critical.

For some reason, many now appear to feel that media has a duty to serve a certain position on current affairs. That is to say, their position. Ill only trust sources which view things as I do. Why, then, cant media outlets become trusted for every audience? They dont even have to be trusted 100% the doubting reader is the most valuable kind of reader. How can a media outlet become the kind of resource that provokes confidence in its readers (even if they may disagree with some of its materials), one which does not countenance distortions and sticks to standards and dedication to balanced reporting? That is to say, a truly mass media organisation? Only journalists themselves can answer this question, by producing high-quality materials, generating and maintaining an impeccable reputation.

The key question that must be asked regarding the last three years of war in the Donbas is this: what can the media do to de-intensify this conflict that has engulfed our country?

Were often told that this war was unleashed by the media, that the medias role in this conflict is greater than ever before, and that we must react to the wave of information aggression before us. But to my mind, the key question that must be asked regarding the last three years of war in the Donbas is this: what can the media do to de-intensify this conflict that has engulfed our country?

I ask myself this question every day, and my search for a compelling answer continues. All I can repeat to myself in response is this: Dont make the situation worse than it already is.

This article originally appearedat News of Donbas.

Go here to see the original:
What is the meaning of journalism in Ukraine today? - Open Democracy

Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A. (ABI.BT) on Wednesday said it reached an agreement to merge its Russia and Ukraine businesses with those of Turkey-based brewer Anadolu Efes Biracilik ve Malt Sanayii A.S.(AEFES.IS).

Under the deal, each brewer would own an equal share of the combined company, AB InBev-Efes. The deal would see AB InBev halt further consolidation of its operations in Russia and Ukraine. AB InBev-Efes will be included in Anadolu Efes's financial accounts. No financial details of the deal were disclosed.

The board of AB InBev-Efes will have equal representation from its parent companies and is to be chaired by Tuncay Ozilhan, the current chairman of Anadolu Group and Anadolu Efes.

Both companies have in principle agreed to nominate Dmitry Shpakov, AB InBev's president for Russia and Ukraine, as chief executive of AB InBev-Efes.

AB InBev and Anadolu Efes said they expect the deal to be completed by the end of the first half of 2018. Until then, both companies' businesses in Russia and the Ukraine will remain separate and operate as normal.

The agreement follows AB InBev's acquisition of a 24% stake in Andolu Efes as part of the Belgium-based brewer's combination with SABMiller in October 2016.

Successful completion of the transaction depends on satisfactory due-diligence checks, as well as regulatory approval in Russia and Ukraine.

Read the original post:
AB InBev, Efes merge Russia, Ukraine units - MarketWatch