What Manafort’s indictment means for the U.S. and Ukraine by Anders Åslund, Atlantic Council, October 30 (http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/what-manafort-s-indictment-means-for-the-us-and-ukraine):
The most surprising thing about the 31-page indictment of Paul J. Manafort, Jr. and his business partner Richard W. Gates III by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is that it hardly contains anything that was not known to people who have observed Ukraine. …
the indictment states that “more than $75 million flowed through [his] offshore accounts.” …Since this money originated from the illegal funds of a foreign political party, [Viktor] Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act naturally applies to Manafort and his associates.
Since the money was dishonestly earned, any amount taken to the United States amounted to money laundering, and the indictment claims that Manafort “laundered more than $18 million.” The money that Manafort did not take to the United States he did not report to the Internal Revenue Service, which means a third crime, namely, tax evasion to the order of $57 million. A fourth alleged crime was that Manafort and his colleague lobbied on behalf of then President Yanukovych with U.S. government agencies without registering as foreign agents.
The indictment contains 12 counts. The first is “Conspiracy against the United States.” …
What Mueller tells us in this indictment is that he considers Manafort a pervasive criminal since at least 2006, 10 years before he started working as Donald J. Trump’s campaign manager in 2016. The strange thing is that the FBI had not found any reason to investigate and prosecute this high-profile criminal long before it did.…
“Trump administration stalled on whether to arm Ukraine,” by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, October 29 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-administration-stalled-on-whether-to-arm-ukraine/2017/10/29/f83874da-bb53-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.680361c2e 7af):
After months of internal debate, the Trump administration is stalled on the question of whether to provide Ukraine with the defensive weapons it has long asked for. The de facto result has been to continue the Obama administration’s policy of denying Kyiv what it needs to resist ongoing Russian aggression – and sharpen doubts about President Trump’s willingness to stand up to Vladimir Putin.
National Security Council officials insist the administration is slowly but surely working through whether to provide Ukrainian security forces with the capability to respond to Russia’s infiltration of tanks, artillery and other equipment into occupied parts of eastern Ukraine. …
In 2015, the House voted 348 to 48 to pass a resolution urging Obama to provide Ukraine with defensive weapon systems. The measure was sponsored by Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s ranking Democrat, who told me Trump needs to make a decision now.
“I’ve supported providing Ukraine with defensive weapons for years,” Engel said. “But we’ve failed to act, demoralizing the Ukrainians and signaling weakness to Putin. It’s time for the administration to quit dithering and show whose side we’re really on.” …
The United States failed to prevent Russia from meddling in Georgia, Moldova and Crimea. Trump must now decide if he will help Ukraine fend off Russian aggression or allow Putin to create yet another endless “frozen conflict” while the United States stands by.
“Facing facts: Why the Great Famine in Ukraine still matters today,” by Edward Lucas, Center for European Policy Analysis, August 28 (http://cepa.org/EuropesEdge/Why-the-Great-Famine-in-Ukraine-still-matters-today):
…The new book “Red Famine” by Anne Applebaum (full disclosure: one of my oldest and dearest friends) is an exemplary account of both the mass murder of the Ukrainians in the early 1930s, and of the historical arguments that have raged about it ever since.
… Applebaum and her research assistants scoured the archives for primary sources. The book quotes them in great detail – even when accompanying references to secondary sources – because Russian propagandists habitually claim that the Ukrainian famine is exaggerated or even invented.
Moreover, Applebaum is also quite explicit in her argument that the artificial famine exactly fits the original definition of “genocide.” The Soviet Union lobbied hard after the war to exclude political killings, precisely because the Kremlin worried that its habit of exterminating its opponents en masse might be covered by the original definition.
Applebaum’s book could not be more timely. It is being published just as the able Kurt Volker, the Trump administration’s special envoy to Ukraine, says the United States is “seriously considering” sending lethal weaponry to the authorities in Kyiv.
The two issues, of war and famine, are intertwined. The regime running Russia lies blatantly and systematically about its treatment of modern Ukraine, which it has invaded, occupied and dismembered. And the same regime lies blatantly and systematically about its predecessors’ barbarity in Ukraine. …