Mediaboss Marketing

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and president of the European Council Donald Tusk: met at Ukraine-EU summit in Kiev. Photograph: Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty

The European Union has urged Ukraine to ramp up its battle with corruption if it wants to move closer to the bloc and attract much-needed foreign investment at a Kiev summit that took place during protests demanding tougher action on graft.

Two days after the EU finally ratified a historic trade and political pact with Ukraine, top officials from both sides insisted the countrys future lay with Europe and that it would survive a draining hybrid conflict with its former ally Russia.

There was disappointment, however, that no final declaration was expected after the summit due to disagreement over wording among EU states, and that Brussels watered down demands that Ukraine create a special anti-corruption court.

What we are asking . . . is to increase the fight against corruption, because corruption is undermining all the efforts this great nation is undertaking, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said.

We remain very concerned, he added, alongside European Council president Donald Tusk and Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko.

If you do not destroy corruption at all levels in your society, investors wont come to Ukraine. It should be the most important battle, Mr Juncker was quoted as saying by the Ukrainian presidency.

As protesters gathered outside parliament to demand more judicial and anti-corruption reforms and the creation of a special court to try graft cases, Mr Juncker said that in fact a special chamber devoted to this issue, that will be enough.

It was unclear what powers the chamber would have inside Ukraines supreme court, but anti-corruption campaigners have long insisted that a new court was needed to tackle graft among powerful businessmen and politicians.

Why the EU position is changing so fast? Ukraines Anti-Corruption Action Centre asked on Twitter.

Mykhailo Zhernakov, a legal expert at a Ukrainian NGO called the Reanimation Package of Reforms, said: Theres no way that a chamber in any court will be as independent as a separate court . . . Its not going to help.

Mr Poroshenko and his allies are accused of dithering on legal reforms because they fear that a fully independent judiciary would investigate their dealings and stop them using the threat of prosecution in crooked courts as leverage over rivals.

The Ukrainska Pravda investigative news outlet reported that a final summit declaration had been stymied by opposition from the Netherlands backed by some other member states to any acknowledgment of Ukraines European aspirations.

The Dutch parliament approved the EU-Ukraine association deal only this year, more than two years after it was signed, following a non-binding referendum in which most of the 32 per cent of voters who turned out oppose the pact.

Glossing over the absence of a final statement, Mr Tusk said the key phrase in the historic pact was that the European Union acknowledges the European aspirations of Ukraine and welcomes its European choice.

Your most important taskshould beto builda modern state that is citizen-friendly, resistant to corruption, respectful of the highest standards of public life, he added. If you pass also this exam, nothing and no one will defeat you.

Read more:
EU tells Ukraine to intensify anti-corruption efforts - Irish Times

DevOps darling Docker accidentally cut off the entire country of Ukraine earlier this week following an overzealous effort to enforce US sanctions against Russia.

On Tuesday, the open platform's users based in the Eastern European country started posting to Docker's support forums complaining that they were hitting a block to Docker's AWS-powered download service. "The Amazon CloudFront distribution is configured to block access from your country," read a pop-up on one person's screen.

Others quickly figured out it was a geo-location ban targeting Ukrainian IP addresses and got around the block by using proxies reporting from outside the country. But the question remained as to why Docker had blocked its service in Ukraine.

And the answer, it emerged a few hours later, was renewed sanctions placed against Russia for its annexation of Crimea, which used to be part of Ukraine, in 2014.

Late last month, the US Congress voted to expand existing sanctions and it appears as though those started being applied following the meeting between US president Trump and Russian president Putin at the recent G20 summit.

Trump has previously suggested he would lift the sanctions, but following the meeting it was clear that no agreement had been reached and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov threatened that Russia would take its own actions against the US.

When it comes to sanctions, most people imagine it is only the refusal to sell weapons or fuel to a specific country, or freezing the accounts of individuals. But in reality they often extend much farther than that, and in the internet era often oblige companies under US legal control ie, most internet services companies to withdraw their services as well.

The only effective way of doing that is through geo-blocking, typically by identifying local ISPs and blacklisting their IP addresses. And so it was in this case, except that in trying to cut off Crimea, Docker's over-zealous tech team also managed to cut off the entire rest of the country probably by relying too heavily on Amazon's blocking technology.

To its credit, Docker realized the error within a few hours of receiving the complaints, lifted the block and posted to its tech forum with an apology.

"Hey everyone, sorry for the trouble. The IP restrictions put in place per US embargo rules were too extensive. We've unblocked Ukraine now and I'm glad to see it's working properly again. Thanks for raising the issue!," wrote one employee.

Read more:
U Vlad bro? Docker accidentally cuts off Ukraine - The Register

By Melinda Haring By Melinda Haring July 11

Melinda Haring is the editor of the UkraineAlert blog at the Atlantic Council and a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Walking around Kiev on a sunny Saturday, a visitor could be forgiven for thinking all is well. Billboards advertise a website for registration of new businesses, a process that takes less than an hour. A craft brewery promises home delivery, and markets offer everything from pesto cheese to organic granola. A three-story department store that sells 150 Ukrainian brands embodies a lively fashion scene repeatedly profiled by Vogue. In short, signs of positive change abound, while the war in the east, which has taken more than 10,000 lives, is far away and practically invisible. And yet that may be precisely the problem.

Ukraine has some genuine achievements to which it can point. Some important reforms have taken place. Macroeconomic fundamentals are good; the value of the currency has stabilized. And Ukraine hasnt lost the war despite the direct involvement of Russia, whose forces are far more powerful.

And yet an air of blithe self-delusion prevails among Ukraines business elites, diplomats, politicians and even some activists. The optimists prefer to avoid addressing the countrys most intractable problems, from the war and the failed cease-fire agreement to the fact that there has been virtually no real foreign direct investment since 2014. Moreover, the next round of reform is likely to be especially tough, requiring a sense of compromise and political maturity that is currently absent. Its easier to keep repeating the governments clever line that the country has accomplished more in the past three years than it did in its first 23 years of independence.

The sad reality is that Ukraines reforms have stalled, and the window of opportunity is starting to close. None of former president Viktor Yanukovychs cronies have been prosecuted. Vested interests have blocked the process of building a clean Supreme Court from scratch. Although the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine has succeeded in bringing charges against two notoriously corrupt officials, former parliamentarian Mykola Martynenko and former head of the State Fiscal Service Roman Nasirov, powerful forces are pushing back. The court considering Nasirovs case refuses to examine all of the evidence. There are growing indications that the director of the anti-corruption bureau could be fired soon, and activists and parliamentarians worry that the bureaus powers may soon be curtailed.

Ulana Suprun, the acting health minister, is courageously pushing ahead with an ambitious revamp of the dismal health system. During his year in office, Finance Minister Oleksandr Danyliuk has managed to plug holes in the budget while pressing for pension and land reform. But the few remaining reformers face a deadline. The current parliamentary session ends on July 14. Once its over, campaign season begins, and all bets are off.

The International Monetary Fund, which pledged $17.5 billion to right the economy, has told Ukraine that it wont get any more assistance until it legalizes land sales, reforms its troubled pension system, creates an anti-corruption court and starts to privatize some of Ukraines 1,800 state-run companies. Of this formidable to-do list, only pension and health reform have a chance of passing before July 14.

Meanwhile, the government has been harassing prominent anti-corruption activists, defending an illiberal law that demands asset disclosures from investigative journalists and activists, and undermining national candidates, such as Lviv Mayor Andriy Sadovyi and former Odessa province governor Mikheil Saakashvili, who might challenge President Petro Poroshenkos party in the 2018 parliamentary elections.

Time is running short. The government that follows this one could be far worse. As parliamentarian and reformer Mustafa Nayyem likes to remind us, these, for all their deficiencies, are the best president and parliament Ukraine has ever had.

The followers of Yulia Tymoshenko, no stranger to the West with her golden braids and fiery rhetoric, have already lined the main thoroughfare in Kiev with red and white tents. She tops polls as the most favorable national candidate, which is troubling, even if her numbers arent more than a modest 10 percent. Tymoshenkos populist policies, which include opposition to sensible land, health and pension reform, could potentially undo the real progress Ukraine has made in the past three years.

Ukraines outspoken activists continue to shine a light on the countrys many problems, and they have played a leading role in almost every step forward in the past three years. But civil society isnt enough.

If things continue as they are, Ukraines most talented will leave. More than 70 percent think the country is going in the wrong direction. The reforms that would better peoples lives materially still havent materialized, and some that have such as restructuring of the natural gas market to eliminate corruption hurt average people badly. As journalist Vitaliy Sych notes, People are tired, their patience is running out, and many are leaving. In 2016, nearly 1.3 million Ukrainians received temporary work permits in Poland, and another 116,000 were working there on longer-term permits. Ukrainians already make up the largest ethnic minority in the Czech Republic, and the second-largest in Italy and Portugal.

The space for meaningful change is shrinking, and fatigue and cynicism are widespread. But the country still has a chance. Kiev must push ahead now with the next round of urgently needed reforms, and the IMF should hold them to it.

See more here:
The window for reform is closing in Ukraine - Washington Post

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Putin's Dangerous New Ukraine Doctrine Wall Street Journal (subscription) Nothing will be done until the Ukrainian & Syrian problems are solved! Hours before the two presidents met, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson underlined this tough line on sanctions by appointing Russia hawk Kurt Volker as chief U.S. envoy on Ukraine. Ukraine welcomes US appointment of VolkerKyiv Post all 8 news articles »

Link:
Putin's Dangerous New Ukraine Doctrine - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Sean Hannitys defense of Donald Trump Jr. during his Fox News interview on Tuesday evening began with a lengthy and muddled pastiche of ways in which the Democrats and Hillary Clinton in particular had behaved just as badly. Or, maybe, worse.

Trump Jr. was there, youll recall, to respond to questions about his having accepted a meeting with an individual who explicitly promised negative information about Clinton offered by the Russian government. That Hannity was his first interlocutor on the subject is hardly surprising; the Fox News host has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to gloss over negative news about the administration. And as the show began, he made that clear.

Hannity revisited one of the points from his introduction later in the show a point that Trump Jr. himself had made on Twitter on Tuesday morning. What about a Politico report from January, Hannity asked, suggesting that Ukraine was colluding with the Clinton campaign to help her candidacy?

After loosely describing that Politico report, Hannity suggested that the media was ignoring it at their peril.

I pose this question to everybody in the media thats forced to tune in tonight, he asked. Which is worse?

The Russia-Trump Jr. issue is worse. Allow us to explain.

Hannitys argument stems from a January Politico article by Ken Vogel and David Stern, titled, Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.

It centers on a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who worked as a consultant for the Democratic Party throughout the 2016 cycle through her firm, Chalupa & Associates. Her role with the party was outreach to ethnic communities, but, a Ukrainian American herself, Chalupa had been researching Paul Manaforts work in that country even before he was tapped to serve as Donald Trumps campaign chairman in March of last year. Chalupa, Politico said, occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and [Hillary] Clintons campaign though the timing on this sharing isnt clear.

When Manafort began his work with Trump, Vogel and Stern write, Chalupa found herself in high demand. The day after he was selected, Chalupa briefed the partys communications staff on Manaforts background.

More to the point, Chalupa allegedly also worked with the Ukrainian Embassy in researching Manafort and any links between Russia and Trump. In an interview with Politico, she describes the embassy staff as being helpful in trying to answer her questions. A former political officer at the embassy told Politico that an aide to the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States had ordered him to help Chalupa in that regard. He described a meeting in which that aide, Oksana Shulyar, asked him to update Chalupa on an investigation into Manafort being conducted by an American media organization.

Vogel and Stern also report that Chalupa introduced reporter Michael Isikoff, who was working on articles about Manafort, to the Ukrainians. Chalupas work with the party ended in July.

Its worth noting that Chalupa gained some renown after the election for promulgating an unproven conspiracy theory on Facebook. Promoted by a viral tweet from her sister Andrea, who described Chalupa as having led Trump/Russia research at DNC, the Facebook post hinted darkly at Russian meddling directly in vote tallies, speculating about a Justice Department investigation into votes that were manufactured in favor of Trump in heavily Republican counties in key states. No evidence of this happening has been demonstrated in any form.

The Politico story also notes another way in which the Ukrainians allegedly submarined Manafort. He left his position with the Trump campaign last summer after a secret ledger detailing nearly $13 million in under-the-table payments to Manafort from the pro-Russia Party of Regions for which hed been working in Ukraine. The ledger was first reported by the New York Times after being discovered by a Ukrainian government agency and promoted by a journalist who was also a member of the countrys parliament which some argued meant that the countrys prime minister approved of the leak in order to damage Manafort.

The short-hand version of this story Russia helped Trump, but Ukraine helped Clinton! suffers badly from a collapse of scale.

While the Politico story does detail apparent willingness among embassy staffers to help Chalupa and also more broadly documents ways in which Ukrainian officials appeared to prefer Clintons candidacy, whats missing is evidence of a concerted effort driven by Kiev.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directed his intelligence agencies to hack into and release private information from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. That effort included hackers from two different intelligence agencies which spent months inside the DNC network before releasing thousands of pages of documents to the public.

Whats more, they coordinated a widespread campaign to amplifying unflattering stories about Clinton and promote Trump. Russia also repeatedly probed American election systems, prompting an unusual warning to states from the federal government.

American intelligence agencies saw signs that people allied with Trumps campaign may have been aiding the Russians in that effort. Thats why this is all being discussed right now, of course, since Trump Jr.s emails draw the clearest line between the Russians and the campaign weve yet seen. The FBI began a counterintelligence investigation into Russias meddling a year ago.

By contrast, Politicos report details the work of one person who was researching Manafort with help from inside the Ukrainian Embassy and who, at some undetermined point, provided info to the Clinton campaign, though she worked for the DNC as a consultant until shortly before the party conventions. That, coupled with the Manafort ledger revelation, is the full scope of the Ukrainian plot thats been revealed. A weak link to the Ukrainians and a weaker link to the Clinton campaign.

You dont have to take our word for it, though.

Lawrence Noble, general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, spoke with The Washington Post on Tuesday about how Trump Jr.s emails might pose a legal risk to him. Over email, he weighed in on the Politico story as well.

I think the article raises some troubling questions about Ukraine involvement in our elections, Noble said. The difference is that there is not clear evidence of the Clinton campaign coordinating with a foreign national or encouraging or accepting their help.

If the Ukrainian government did oppo[sitional] research in coordination with the Clinton campaign or the DNC and they knowingly accepted the information, he added, there is a possible foreign national contribution. But if Chalupa was gathering the information and passing it on, the question is who did the work and what did the Clinton campaign and DNC know. Thats not clear from the report.

If the Ukrainian government did the same with Clinton as the evidence suggests Russia did with Trump, he said, its just as serious. But we are not there.

To any objective observer, thats clearly the case. Neither Trump Jr. nor Hannity meets that description.

Excerpt from:
Exploring Sean Hannity's defense of Donald Trump Jr.: Clinton and Ukraine did it, too - Washington Post