Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Disbands Business Councils as More CEOs Quit

After President Trump seemed to defend white nationalists regarding the violence in Charlottesville, even more former allies are turning their backs on him. Yesterday, he closed down two business advisory councils as many CEOs quit in response to the president’s comments. The Strategy & Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Council are now disbanded. “Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville,” said the CEO of Campbell Soup, Denise Morrison, as she resigned from the Manufacturing Council. Trump announced the disbandings on Twitter, even though the councils had reportedly decided to call it quits internally before that.

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017

Trump’s blaming of “both sides” also caused military officials and Republicans to issue their own statements condemning the alt-right violence and distancing themselves from the president. Even Fox News hosts criticized him in some broadcasts and revealed that they hadn’t found a single Republican to come on air in defense of Trump.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry apparently spent 22 minutes on the phone last week discussing international energy issues with someone who he believed was Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman. Unfortunately for Perry, the call was a prank from Russian jokesters posing as Groysman. They discussed, among other topics, a fuel that is made from home-brewed alcohol and pig manure.

Perry was duped by Vladimir “Vovan” Kuznetsov and Alexei “Lexus” Stolyarov, who are known for pranking high-profile celebrities. Perry and the duo talked via a translator so the American politician was convinced the man he was corresponding with was Groysman. Besides the alternative fuel, Perry discussed underwater pipelines for gas, cyber attacks on America, natural gas in Ukraine, and even the Paris Accords, according to Bloomberg.

“Our position is that it’s our record that should be looked at, not whether or not we have signed onto some international accord,” Perry said. “We see our record of progress relative to the global environment to be substantially defensible.”

The pair even inquired if Ukraine could strike a deal on American coal exports, to which Perry responded that negotiations are always possible.

(FYI: the entire conversation was uploaded to a Russian video streaming site and can be found here.)

The prank phone call was first reported by E&E News. After the hoax was discovered, Perry’s office commented on the matter in an email to the Washington Post:

Secretary Perry is the latest target of two Russian pranksters.These individuals are known for pranking high-level officials and celebrities, particularly those who are supportive of an agenda that is not in line with their governments.

The duo, known as the “Jerky Boys of Russia,” claims to have pranked celebrities such as Elton John, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and John McCain, but rumor-debunking site Snopes notes that while some instances are true, such as McCain’s call, others remain unverified.

The situation is perhaps even more confusing since Perry and Groysman met in person just last month. On June 20, Perry hosted Groysman and his entourage at the Department of Energy office in Washington D.C., according to the Washington Post. So when Perry’s office received a call requesting a follow-up conversation, they assumed it was the Prime Minister. Instead it was the young Russians scheduling their prank.

After serving as governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015, Perry was the second contestant eliminated on ABC’s “Dancing With The Stars,” (though it’s debatable how much of a star Perry really is.) Besides competing on the reality show, Perry has famously been pretty gaffe-prone throughout his career. During a Republican Presidential Debate in 2011 Perry forgot which government agencies he vowed to abolish. Then, in 2013 Perry was giving a speech in New Orleans when he mistakenly said he was in Florida.

Perry has the political resume to lead the Department of Energy, but these juvenile gaffes should worry some Americans as we enter an era in our country where the debate over climate change is fierce. Citizens can only hope that mistakes like these don’t eventually endanger American interests at home or abroad when it comes to the energy sector.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rick Perry Tricked by Russian Pranksters appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

What You Need to Know About Devin Nunes, the FBI, and Russia

Yesterday, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) shocked everyone by claiming that President Donald Trump might have been under surveillance after all. He said that he had been given reports that showed that intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Trump and his associates. But he conceded that those communications were picked up incidentally by intelligence agencies and that Trump was not the primary target. Nunes then chose to brief Trump and talk to the media before informing his Democratic counterpart, California Congressman Adam Schiff.

Within minutes of #DevinNunes‘s stunt, it was clear he had torpedoed his reputation and that of his committee. That assessment still holds.

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 23, 2017

It’s all very confusing–Nunes said that the information appeared to be part of lawful collections of foreign intel, but that he was still “alarmed.” And he was pretty severely criticized for immediately briefing Trump on the matter, given that he’s also tasked with investigating the president. Nunes defended his decision by saying that the information he told Trump had nothing to do with Russia.

Then, late last night, U.S. officials said that the FBI does have information that indicates that Trump’s associates may have communicated with Russian officials to release information that would damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Accusations have now been levied that Nunes only made the surveillance comments to deflect attention from these more concerning claims. Democrats, and some Republicans, are pretty outraged and are calling for an independent investigation.

The idea that Devin Nunes will investigate Trump/Russia is a farce. It’s time for a real, independent, transparent inquiry.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 23, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 23, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, lobbied on behalf of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to an Associated Press investigation, Manafort began discussing a strategy, as early as June 2005, with Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska to push his business interests in Russia and other former Soviet republics.

One of Deripaska’s goals, as indicated by memos obtained by the AP, was to support Putin’s government and to undermine anti-Putin politicians in Russia and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Georgia. 

In a 2005 memo obtained by the AP, Manafort wrote to Deripaska, whose net worth is $5.1 billion according to Forbes, and described a “great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.” Manafort added: “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success.”

Manafort’s “great service” involved influencing politics, business exchanges, and news not only in Russia and former Soviet states, but in the U.S. as well, according to the AP. Manafort and Deripaska signed a contract to carry out the lobbying efforts in 2006. Deripaska paid Manafort $10 million per year for his efforts, and the two maintained a business relationship until at least 2009.

Last August, Trump asked Manafort to resign as his campaign chairman after reports came out that he lobbied on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had a cozy relationship with Putin. On Monday, FBI Director James Comey revealed that a number of Trump’s campaign associates are under investigation for their Russian ties. And though Comey declined to explicitly name Manafort as one of the associates in question, it is highly likely he is a subject of the probe.

After Comey testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Manafort “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” for the Trump campaign. In fact, Manafort was campaign chairman from March to August, a crucial six-month stretch of the campaign.

Manafort denied any malfeasance in a statement to the AP: “I worked with Oleg Deripaska almost a decade ago representing him on business and personal matters in countries where he had investments,” Manafort said. “My work for Mr. Deripaska did not involve representing Russia’s political interests.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the AP’s report. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Manafort’s lobbying could amount to “basically taking money to stop the spread of democracy, and that would be very disturbing to me.” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the AP report “undermines the groundless assertions that the administration has been making that there are no ties between President Trump and Russia.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Paul Manafort Work to Benefit Vladimir Putin’s Government? appeared first on Law Street.

The town of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine is preparing for evacuation this week as the town has lost electricity and water. After clashes between the Ukrainian army and pro-Russia rebels, at least ten people are dead and dozens have been wounded.

Reports conflict on the exact death toll and more than twenty civilians and soldiers may have died in the past several days. Heavy shelling has decimated the region, with more than 2,300 explosions taking place in a 24-hour period. Both sides have claimed the other has been using Grad rocket systems, an imprecise weapon which disperses multiple rockets across a broad area. This shelling is a blatant violation of the Minsk agreements of 2014, which halted war in the Donbass region (adjacent to Avdiivka), as well as the ceasefire declared earlier this year by Russian separatists.

As temperatures plummet below zero, the citizens of Avdiivka are trapped in homes without any heat supply, unsure if the shelling will begin again during the week. A state of emergency has been declared across the region and unless utilities are restored to the town immediately, the government will evacuate thousands from their homes.

Avdiivka is a somber reminder of the daily struggle for peace in Ukraine, an ongoing battle that many fear will crumble under the Trump administration. If Trump cuts Kiev out of peace negotiations with Russia in order to bolster his own relationship with the Russian establishment, he could undo years of the Ukrainian government’s efforts to unify and stabilize the country. Tenuous connections are being made between the phone call with Trump and Putin the day before the shelling in Avdiivka and a sense of Russian support for escalating violence in Ukraine.

With Trump seemingly positioning himself as friendly to Russia, Putin will likely not feel the same sting that he felt under the Obama Administration, which leveled multiple economic sanctions against Russia in an attempt to dissuade further military action in Ukraine. President Obama also stationed U.S. troops in Poland before leaving office, citing Russian expansionist doctrine as a threat to Polish autonomy.

There have been no indications that the Trump Administration plans to enact sanctions against Russia or to provide military support for the Ukrainian military as it battles against the pro-Russia rebel forces. The White House has not issued a formal statement but instead directed a request for comment toward the State Department, which cited the Minsk agreements and called for a ceasefire. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appealed to Russia to exert its influence over the rebels and to request a return to the ceasefire. The UN Security Council has also called for the reinstatement of the ceasefire. However, reports that the rebels are setting up artillery positions in the city center of Donetsk and a significant spike in the amount of shelling in Donetsk this week suggest that the Minsk agreements may already be in tatters. If the Trump Administration continues to turn a blind eye to the crisis, Avdiivka may be just the beginning of the darkest chapter of the Ukrainian war.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Tragedy in Avdiivka: Violence Tearing Through Eastern Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: today marks the beginning of #BlackHistoryMonth. Twitter created a special bot to highlight the occasion, where you learn facts, see content from black creators, and learn about events near you. Check it out, and then read on for today’s rants!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Pick For the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch

President Donald Trump’s choice for the vacant Supreme Court seat is Judge Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has similar views to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch, 49, has clerked for two Supreme Court Justices and spent time in D.C. when he was younger; his mother was a high-level official under President Ronald Reagan. He began his legal career by practicing law in D.C. for a decade. Gorsuch is an originalist, which essentially means he believes in interpreting the Constitution as its words were originally understood.

President Trump picks Antonin Scalia 2.0 https://t.co/9MTVuUZtV2 pic.twitter.com/cu1mGkPWAJ

— POLITICO (@politico) February 1, 2017

Now, Republicans are very happy to potentially gain a new conservative justice. But it is likely that Senate Democrats will filibuster, as the Republicans refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the position for almost a year. Cue more drama.

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Ukrainian forces arrested two men in the Crimean peninsula, Ensign Maxim Evgenyevich Odintsov and Junior Sergeant Alexander Vyacheslavovich Baranov. According to Ukrainian leadership, the men are deserters who defected to the Russian military in 2014 but according to the Russian defense ministry, the pair are Russian servicemen who have been illegally detained. And no one is quite sure what’s going on.

According to a Russian Black Sea Fleets official, the two men were “lured” into Ukraine, incentivized by the promise of receiving higher education certificates. Ukraine’s Security Service has argued that it apprehended the men after they crossed the checkpoint into Ukrainian-controlled territory while Russia is claiming that the men were kidnapped and dragged back across the border. A video was released last week displaying the detentions at the checkpoint followed by the interrogations of the two men, during which one admits to having served in the Ukrainian military–although it is unclear whether that admission was made under duress. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, accused Ukraine of “illegal provocation” and added to the Russian narrative that the confession of the captured soldier was forced rather than genuine. As the Russian army mobilizes at an ever-increasing rate to control Crimea, Ukraine has sought to crack down on deserters. Of the estimated 20,000 Ukrainian soldiers who were in Crimea at the time of annexation, only approximately 6,010 have returned to the mainland to fight for Ukraine in the de facto war sparked by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

It remains to be seen whether the two men in question will be detained in Ukraine for the long term or returned to Russia (or at least Russian controlled Crimea) by diplomatic means. If they are truly Ukrainian deserters, they will undergo criminal trials in Ukraine. However, if they are determined to be political prisoners or illegally detained, there may be an opportunity for a prisoner exchange–several Ukrainian citizens have been held illegally by Russian forces in occupied Crimea. Frantz Klintsevich, a Russian member of parliament, stated that he believes the two men were kidnapped expressly to serve as bargaining chips in a prisoner exchange. The last high profile prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine took place in May, when Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko (captured by rebels and taken to Russia as prisoner of war) was exchanged for two Russian soldiers captured while collecting intelligence in Eastern Ukraine.

Alternatively, the Russians may aim to retrieve the two men by force–which is the true concern that has cast an international spotlight over the capture of these individuals. Neither man appears to be an especially valuable intelligence asset but if Russian forces successfully frame this as a kidnapping, they may justify violent action in order to retrieve their soldiers. Although the evidence presented by the Ukrainian Security Service has so far verified the claim that these men were legally arrested at the checkpoint, Vladimir Putin has condemned the arrest. Putin has spent the past several months building out the narrative he created this summer, when he claimed that Ukraine was planning terrorist attacks against the Russian forces in Crimea, painting Ukraine as untrustworthy and threatening.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Deserters or Victims?: The Mysterious Soldiers Captured in Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

A new Dutch probe into the downed Malaysian Airlines passenger jet that crashed in Ukraine in 2014, leading to the death of all 298 passengers, concluded that the missile used to shoot it down was Russian in origin. Investigators also said that Russia participated in the cover-up afterwards. The report mainly confirmed existing speculation that Russia was somehow linked to the attack and is part of international investigators’ attempts to collect enough hard evidence to build a case against Russia.

“Possibly they will bring charges of murder–and possibly even charges of war crimes,” said al-Jazeera’s Neave Barker who was at the news conference in Nieuwegein, Netherlands.

The incident only increased tensions between Russia and the West, and victims’ families are impatient for details about the truth.

“As a family we are impatient. We want to know what happened, how it happened and why? We want those responsible to face justice,” said Silene Fredriksz to media before the news conference. Her 23-year-old son and his girlfriend were on the plane.

The Evidence

The jet had taken off from Amsterdam and was heading toward Kuala Lumpur when it was unexpectedly shot down in July 2014. Though investigators didn’t say explicitly that Russia ordered the attack or named any individuals, the results of the probe show that the missile system, called Buk or SA-11, was delivered from Russia after a request from Russian-backed separatists just hours before it was used. After a missile had been fired and the plane wreck crashed in a field, the missile system was returned to Russia. Investigators made it clear that their intention is to find who is responsible, name suspects and potentially press criminal charges.

All 298 people on board, most of them Dutch citizens, were killed https://t.co/kBSIRtDuJ9

— Al Jazeera News (@AJENews) September 28, 2016

Among the evidence in the report was the testimony of a Russian rebel who allegedly guarded the missile system when it was sent back to Russia after completing its mission. The discovery of a missile nose cone and fin was also an important factor. One piece of evidence that was revealed last year was a piece of shrapnel in one of the pilots’ bodies, with characteristics unique to the exact type of Buk missiles that Russia uses; that particular model is not used by Ukraine.

In phone conversations included in the evidence, separatists were heard requesting the missile system because they wanted to defend themselves against Ukrainian air attacks. They received word that they would get it the same night. The Buk system was brought in by trucks across the Russian border. Prosecutors have figured out the exact route the missile was transported, where it was fired, and how it got back to Russia.

Russia’s Stance

Additional recordings of phone conversations showed the reaction from a militant to his superior when he realized it was not a Ukrainian plane but a passenger jet: “It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.”

Shortly after the plane was downed, a separatist leader named Igor Girkin appeared to be boasting about having shot down a Ukrainian military plane on a Russian social media website. He also wrote “We warned them–don’t fly in our sky.” The post was soon deleted.

Russia denies all involvement with the crash and calls the accusations “speculation, unqualified and unprofessional information.” Russian officials also have some interesting versions of what they think happened, including a theory that the CIA stuffed some hundred bodies in a drone and crashed it in Ukraine to discredit Russia. Another one is that Ukraine aimed to shoot down Russian president Putin’s plane but accidentally hit the Malaysian Airlines plane instead.

But even if prosecutors find the responsible individuals, what can they really do about it? Russia’s government prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to trial in foreign countries. It is also unclear where, if any specific suspects are found and named, they would go to trial.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Probe Shows Missile that Downed Malaysia Airlines Flight is Linked to Russia appeared first on Law Street.

The lobbying firm run by Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort conducted business in support of Ukraine’s pro-Russia political party that governed the country from 2012 to 2014. According to emails the Associated Press obtained, Manafort’s firm aimed to sway American public opinion in favor of Viktor Yanukovych’s government, through positive coverage in U.S. media outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The firm also tried to undermine American sympathy for opposition politician and democracy advocate Yulia Tymoshenko who was imprisoned by Yanukovych’s government.

As Law Street Media reported earlier this week, Paul Manafort was mentioned in a list of names that received big cash payments from the Ukrainian government, with $12.7 million earmarked for him. Rick Gates, now his deputy, was at the time working for Manafort’s political consulting firm, DMP International LLC. He directed the work of two Washington-based lobbying firms, Mercury LLC and Podesta Group Inc., in trying to bring about a positive impression of the Ukrainian government.

The emails show that Gates personally scheduled appointments between the Ukrainian foreign minister and American politicians. The foreign minister, according to the emails, did not want to use his own embassy in the U.S. for any coordination of meetings. Gates was also assigned the task of undermining support for Yulia Tymoshenko, even as the U.S. pressured the Ukraine government to free her.

Trump said Tuesday night that if he becomes president he would make sure officials would not be allowed to accept speaking fees from “corporations with a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving office or from any entity tied to a foreign government,” a proposal that seemed to be directed at the Clintons. But now it is clear that two of Trump’s own campaign advisers failed to report their activities as foreign agents, as they are required to by federal law. Not only that, but they specifically denied ever having been involved in such work, a felony that is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Exactly what role Manafort played in the lobbying operations is not clear, other than being the boss of Gates at DMP International. Both he and Gates have previously said that they did not conduct any direct lobbying, and only introduced the two Washington-based firms to a European non-profit which then took over. But the content of the emails seem to contradict that.

Manafort and Gates have been in charge of Trump’s campaign since the spring of 2015, which makes their earlier lobbying activities especially noteworthy. This brings a lot of questions to the surface and coincides with criticism of Trump’s relationship to Russia.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Advisers Led Covert Lobbying Scheme for Ukraine’s Pro-Russian Government appeared first on Law Street.

In early 2014, protestors in Ukraine ransacked and overran the headquarters of the ruling government, the Party of Regions. Ukraine’s president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, fled to Russia, and his former residence has since been turned into a museum. On the third floor of that palace, a 400-page “black ledger” was found, containing hundreds of cash favors from Yanukovych to election officials and others. A recent New York Times report found Paul Manafort–Donald Trump’s campaign chairman–listed as a recipient 22 times throughout the ledger. Yanukovych, who has deep ties to Russia and its president Vladimir Putin, was a client of Manafort’s international political consulting firm.

The investigation into the ledger is spearheaded by Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), an arm of the government that was elected after Yanukovych fell from power. Throughout the “black ledger,” the name “Manafort” appears 22 times and is linked to a total of $12.7 million over five years, from 2007 to 2012. In a statement, NABU acknowledged that this fact does not necessarily mean Manafort accepted off-the-books cash payouts from Yanukovych. The statement said: “the presence of P. Manafort’s name in the list does not mean that he actually got the money, because the signatures that appear in the column of recipients could belong to other people.”

While reading the Manafort Russian payment story, keep in mind we have no idea if @realDonaldTrump is getting paid by Russians. #taxreturns

— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) August 15, 2016

In March, the Trump campaign hired Manafort to help steer its efforts to court delegates. But the veteran Republican strategist’s ties to Yanukovych–and by proxy, Russia–have been media fodder since Trump hired him. On Monday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign jumped on the possibility that Manafort was in the pockets of Ukraine or Putin. “Donald Trump has a responsibility to disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort’s and all other campaign employees’ and advisors’ ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities,” said a statement by Clinton’s Campaign Manager Robby Mook.

Manafort denied any notion that he accepted cash payments from the Yanukovych government. In a statement, he called the claims “unfounded, silly and nonsensical.” He added that all payments received during his time assisting Yanukovych were disbursed throughout his entire local and international staff, including his polling and research, and election and television advertising teams.

How Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chief, benefited from powerful interests friendly to Vladimir Putin https://t.co/sTnyyIK7Dx

— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 15, 2016

According to The New York Times’ article, investigators from NABU–a U.S. and European Union funded investigative unit that shares its findings with the FBI–said the “black ledger” payments were part of an illegal off-the-books system. “It would have to be clear to any reasonable person that the Yanukovych clan, when it came to power, was engaged in corruption,” a former senior official with Ukraine’s general prosecutor’s office told the Times.

It remains to be seen whether these revelations are enough for Trump to cut ties with Manafort. But Manafort’s prominence in the ledger is reason for concern, especially in light of Trump’s soft–and at times reverent–attitude toward Russia.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Trump’s Campaign Chairman Accept Cash Payments from Ukraine? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re new to Law Street’s weird arrests of the week, welcome! Here we count down the strangest, wackiest, and funniest arrests of the week. If you’ve been here before, welcome back, and enjoy!

Karaoke Isn’t Always Fun

Image courtesy of Grant via Flickr

Joshua Fort, 26, was arrested in Florida after he attacked a DJ at a karaoke bar. The reason for his beef with the DJ was that he claimed the sound on his microphone was off. He was brought into custody and the bartender explained to reporters, “That is not a typical night.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

From sorority secrets to celebrity chicken thefts, the Best of the Week from Law Street was truly bizarre. The number one article of the week, from Anneliese Mahoney, details a new lawsuit from Phi Sigma Sigma alleging that a former member, whom they can’t identify because of anonymous online postings, has leaked closely guarded secrets. The number two article of the week, from Alexis Evans, is an interesting look at the increasing–and increasingly weird–school dress codes across the country, and the third most-read article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, is a funny take on Mila Kunis’ continued legal problems over an alleged chicken theft in the Ukraine. ICYMI, here is the Best of the Week from Law Street.

#1 Phi Sigma Sigma Sorority Girl Sued For Releasing These Secrets

Sororities, and Greek Life organizations in general, gain much of their prestige from tradition and history. As a result, certain traditions and secrets are kept under lock and key, and members are trusted to keep it that way. But now, one former sorority girl may have to pay a big price for violating that sacred trust. Read full article here.

#2 Are Schools Going Too Far With These Dress Code Rules?

Fashion is meant to be a form of self expression, but if you’re currently a teenage girl in high school that expression might be seriously limited due to strict dress code restrictions. Of course making sure there are no visible butt cracks, nipples, or genitals is a must for school administrators, but when bare shoulders, backs, and thighs are considered just as taboo there’s a serious problem. Read full article here.

#3 Star’s Legal Battles Over Childhood Chicken Theft Continue

I am a busy person, which means I don’t get to spend hours at a time following the latest Hollywood gossip. I can usually survive without keeping up with the Kardashians and the Bieber and so on. However, every once in a while, I stumble across a celebrity scandal so interesting that I question everything I thought I knew about myself and begin to wonder why I ever do anything other than watch E!. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

I am a busy person, which means I don’t get to spend hours at a time following the latest Hollywood gossip. I can usually survive without keeping up with the Kardashians and the Bieber and so on. However, every once in a while, I stumble across a celebrity scandal so interesting that I question everything I thought I knew about myself and begin to wonder why I ever do anything other than watch E!.

I mean, if I kept up with my star news, I would have known two whole weeks ago that Mila Kunis stole a transgendered chicken from a talking baby in Ukraine. And really, the fact that I am just now learning this is a travesty.

Since it’s a few weeks old, there is a chance you have already heard something about this. But I think it will be just as weird and entertaining to take an in-depth look now as the whole messy legal battle continues to heat up.

The Story in a Nutshell

According to Kristina Karo–and as she told Mr. Immigration Man in what has to be my new all-time favorite music video, “that’s Kristina Karo with a K, a KK. You know, like Kim Kardashian, only with talent.”–she and Mila Kunis used to be best friends when they were younger and were both still living in Ukraine.

However, that friendship ended with a hen-ious crime when the girls were in first grade. Although, as Aston Kutcher points out, since Karo claims to be much younger than the 31-year-old Kunis, she must have been one month old, in first grade, and talking when this all happened, making her the smartest baby of all time. Of course, her publicist tried to downplay her intelligence by saying she is, in fact, the same age as Kunis but exaggerates her age for sarcastic purposes. But, I think the talking baby thing is just as likely as everything else that happened in this tale.

You see, Karo had a beloved pet chicken named, as many a chicken is, Doggie. Doggie was a smart chicken and a good representative of his/her namesake, a dog. You could play fetch with her, and she would bring you the ball. You could call him, and he would come. If you didn’t think chickens did these types of things, you are wrong.

Of course, as good reporters must fact check, they asked Karo to clarify her mixed use of genders. Was the chicken a rooster or a hen? I’m guessing it was transgender because when asked the seemingly simple question, Karo said it was “not something she could go into.” Whatever the gender, one day, Doggie went missing.

Karo did not have to wait long to find out where he/she had gone. Kunis, an honest thief, quickly confessed to the crime, telling Karo she could have any chicken she wanted as a pet since she had an entire chicken farm. Then, Kunis fled the country to live out the rest of her life in hiding in the U.S.

Where are they now?

Unfortunately for Kunis, her plans to live on the lam were fowled when she became a mega-success in Hollywood. I’m sure had she realized this would make finding her easier, she never would have begun acting in the first place. But hindsight is 20/20.

A few years ago, Karo came over to the states in the hopes of getting a green card and a music career–as she relays in her hit, “Give Me Green Card”–so they were bound to run into each other.

Karo had repressed the horrible memory of her stolen, beloved pet for years, but when she came to Hollywood and saw the starlet who had betrayed her when they were youths, all of the wretched memories came rushing back.

Where was Doggie? Was he alive? Had he gone to chicken heaven? Had he finally selected a gender? These are all questions to which she would never have the answers.

The Suit

Now that Doggie was once again in her mind, Karo needed to get at least a little bit of closure. That is why she filed a suit in small claims court demanding $5,000 for the emotional distress caused by this traumatic childhood event.

For her part, Kunis has not yet been served. She has apologized for the confusion but says that, as a chicken advocate, she would never steal someone’s chicken nor would she have done so at any time in the past, even as a child. She kind of ruined the good intentions, though, when she followed the apology up with possible slander by hinting that it was no coincidence that this suit came out just as Karo is trying to promote her music video.

This is likely to be a close case when it finally makes it to trial. On the one hand, unless we find the chicken, there may be no evidence. On the other hand, nobody would ever be able to make up such a crazy tale, right? Plus, Karo did get a confession from young Kunis, which could help her case. However, I think Kunis could block this on some statute of limitations argument. We’ll all just have to wait and see.

The Countersuit

Speaking of that music video, Kunis is threatening to countersue for the same $5,000 she could lose. She claims that after watching the video, “my body hurts. My eyes hurt. They’re burning. That requires money.”

I watched the video, and I didn’t think it could be any more perfect than it was; I would not change one second. So I do not know how this countersuit will fare in court. I am looking forward to finding out, though.

Karo is clearly doing this all for the attention (because for some reason I do actually doubt most of this is true.) However, do I feel bad about giving it to her? Absolutely not! If you want attention so badly you’d make up this beauty, then you deserve to get it. And really, how can we not talk about this ridiculous case?

I’m signing off now. I need to go play that catchy song some more. “Give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me green card.”

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Star’s Legal Battles Over Childhood Chicken Theft Continue appeared first on Law Street.

Many people would recognize actress Mila Kunis who is probably best known for her role as Jackie on “That ’70s Show.” She’s now engaged to Ashton Kutcher, and has appeared in a number of movies including the critically acclaimed “Black Swan,” and she voices Meg Griffith on “Family Guy.” Kunis grew up in the Ukraine, and was friends with a girl named Khristina Karo, now a “singer.” When they were seven years old, Kunis allegedly stole a chicken from the Karo family chicken farm. Now Karo is suing Kunis under claims of emotional distress that arose out of the chicken theft.

Karo apparently had one favorite chicken misleadingly named “Doggie.” Kunis also loved to play with Doggie, and when the actress was over one time, Doggie mysteriously went missing. According to Karo, the nefarious 7-year-old Kunis owned up to the chicken theft, saying to her friend, “Kristina, you can have any other chicken as a pet, you have a whole chicken farm.”

Karo claims that sought therapyafter this betrayal. When she moved to Los Angeles, the memories of her supposed friend’s theft came back to her, and she entered therapy once again. She claims that this emotional distress is preventing her from pursuing her dream of being a successful singer in the United States. She’s now suing Kunis for $5,000, which seems to be a pretty low request given that Kunis has an estimated net worth of $30 million, and her fiancé has a net worth of over $140 million.

The lowball request would seem to indicate that either Karo is sincere–which is unlikely, but possible–or that she’s doing this for the attention. Given her hopes of becoming a singer, this news pretty much screams publicity stunt.

If you’re interested in Karo’s music, check out her newest song, “Give Me Green Card,” below.

It also contains the immortal line, “Mr. Immigration Officer it is Kristina Karo with a K. A K, K. You know, like Kim Kardashian, only with talent.”

Karo’s publicity stunt does seem to be working, at least to some extent. Her YouTube clip of “Give me Green Card” had almost half a million views when I watched it. I can almost guarantee you that it wouldn’t have nearly that many had news outlets not picked up the story of her lawsuit against Kunis.

It’s pretty doubtful that this lawsuit will actually go anywhere, but Karo certainly seems to have gotten what she is looking for–“Give me Green Card” is sure to get really annoyingly stuck in all of our heads.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mila Kunis Sued Over 25-Year-Old Ukrainian Chicken Theft appeared first on Law Street.

Winston Churchill famously said that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” While the quote may be well worn, it is still surprisingly appropriate when discussing Russia today. Just a few years ago, old Cold War rivals Russia and the United States seemed to finally bond over their shared struggles against terrorism and to be on the path to real cooperation. But then, Russia changed course. Instead of trying to ingratiate itself into the international community, Russia took some steps that can be labeled as aggressive. Aside from a long-brewing conflict with Chechnya, it fought a war against the Republic of Georgia and is now slowly devouring Ukrainian territory. Those moves left many wondering: why did Russia feel the need to make such a drastic change in its global political relations. Read on to learn about Russia’s origins, historical political relationships, and foreign policy.

Russian History

Rise and Imperial History

While the area today known as Russia had been populated by steppe nomads for thousands of years, eastern European Slavs moved into the area only about 3,500 years ago. The Vikings also sailed into modern day Russia and founded the city of Kiev in the late ninth century. Early Russians adopted many of the practices of the Byzantine Empire, including the Orthodox religion. Following the fall of Constantinople, Russian leaders declared Moscow as its successor. Russia’s leaders adopted the title of tsar, similar to that of Caesar.

Russia continued to grow, but this growth was nearly undone when the Mongols conquered Russia in the thirteenth century, burning Kiev and sacking Moscow along the way. The Mongols then held sway over Russia for the next 200 years until the end of the fifteenth century when Russian rulers finally were strong enough to throw off the Mongol yoke.

Following this emancipation, the new rulers of Russia–the Romanovs–continued expanding, reaching the shores of the Pacific in 1649. Russia also attempted to gain further footholds in Europe, mainly by acquiring seaports in the Baltic to the north and Mediterranean to the south. As it did so, Russia came into greater contact with Europe and participated in a number of wars, including the defeat of Napoleon. Contact with Europe also forced Russia to confront its many backward policies. In the early twentieth century, reactionaries inspired by communism began to gain traction. During World War I, the Romanov family was overthrown and the Soviet Union was established.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was the successor to Romanov rule in Russia, but not without a fight. It was established after the victory of the Bolshevik Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Following their ascent to power, the Soviets enacted a series of purges and five-year plans that left the country weak and starving heading into WWII. The Soviets initially allied with the Nazis in exchange for several eastern European countries and a partition of Poland; however, the truce was broken in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the Soviets were able to withstand the attack, push back the Nazis, and establish themselves as one of two superpowers along with the United States after the war ended.

Following the war, the USSR and U.S. engaged in a protracted Cold War. Both sides competed against the other in arms and space races. While they never engaged directly in wars, several times during this period their proxies faced off against one another. Following the Cuban Missile crisis, cooler heads began to prevail, the rhetoric surrounding nuclear war was reduced, and several arms control treaties were signed. Beginning in the 1980s, the USSR started to liberalize as its economy and empire began to crumble. Finally, in 1991 the USSR dissolved into a number of independent countries with Russia as its leading member.

Post-USSR

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was in disarray. Struggling to deal with the shift from communism to free market capitalism, inflation soared. The Russian economy, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, was barely able to avoid total collapse and reached the point of needing to import food to stave off starvation. Following the resignation of Yeltsin and the rise of Putin, the country began to stabilize and the course of foreign policy began to take its present shape. The following video gives a brief summary of modern Russian history.

Current Foreign Policy

Russia’s current foreign policy can be summed up in one word: aggressive. The reason for this shift toward conquest, oppression, and authoritarianism can be linked to two things. First is the desire of many Russians to return to the prestige of the Soviet Union. Second is the man leading that change and the nation itself, Vladimir Putin.  The video below looks at Russia’s current foreign policy.

Vladmir Putin

The man who holds responsibility for many of Russia’s decisions since the fall of the USSR is its longtime leader, President Vladimir Putin. Putin was born in Stalingrad during the height of the Soviet Union’s glory; however, he was coming of age professionally just as the empire was disintegrating.   Even after the USSR collapsed around him, Putin was determined to restore Russia to its status as a global power. Below is an excerpt from a speech Putin gave when he was a candidate for Prime Minister in 1999:

Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest abroad in both the former Soviet lands and elsewhere. We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored.

Since Putin was elected prime minister and subsequently president following Yeltsin’s resignation, he has done everything in his power to live up to these words. His first order of business was finally crushing the independent state of Chechnya. Chechnya, a small area in the southwest Caucasus region of Russia, had actually defeated the Russian army in the 1990s and formed a short-lived nation of its own.

After reestablishing Russia’s military strength, Putin also moved to curb the power of the oligarchs who became fabulously wealthy when they took control of state-owned industries following the fall of the USSR. He arrested and silenced critics, such as the fallen oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. This policy has only continued as Putin’s strangle-hold on power has intensified. Along with leading the country since his ascent in 2000 as either president or prime minister, he has also engaged in further military actions including dispatching soldiers to crush Georgian troops and annexing Crimea. Recently Russian troops have also been implicated in separatists’ movements in Eastern Ukraine as well. The video below discusses Putin’s life.

Foray into Ukraine

While outsiders may view Russia’s recent foreign expansion into Ukrainian affairs as aggressive, the majority of its citizens hold the opposite opinion for several reasons. First, to many Russians, Ukraine is part of their historical empire and thus it is only natural that it be restored to Russia.

The conflict in Ukraine started when Russian-backed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was ousted following his unpopular decision to remain aligned with Russia instead of integrating with the European Union. In response, Russian troops invaded an area called Crimea, occupied the area, and Crimea eventually voted in a referendum to become part of Russia. After the annexation of Crimea, Russia has continued supporting ethnic Russian Separatists in Eastern Ukraine, where they are the majority. This has aroused great controversy because despite several ceasefires, Russia has continued to provide separatists with weapons and possibly soldiers.

Many Russians also believe the entire uprising in Ukraine is the result of Western actions. A common argument is that Russia has actually intervened to protect Russian speakers the same as many western countries do for other minority groups. However, the opinions of everyday Russians are heavily influenced by the Russian media, which is indiscriminately run by the state and thus broadcasts the state’s message.

Russia’s next course of action remains up in the air. Economically it would seem obvious that Russia has to stop being so aggressive and work toward appeasing its Western creditors and consumers. Economic sanctions placed on Russia following its actions in Ukraine are beginning to be felt. The main effects of the sanctions have been in denying Russia credit and access to markets. Nonetheless, as yet another breached ceasefire implies, Russia doesn’t seem content to return Eastern Ukraine–and certainly not Crimea–back to the original status quo.

Other Foreign Policy Concerns for Russia 

Along with sanctions, an even greater problem for Russia suggests it should curtail its recent aggressive maneuvering–falling oil prices. At the beginning of the year, the price of oil dropped below $50 a barrel. This is devastating to a Russian economy that is dependent on oil as its main export.

From an economic standpoint this has been disastrous to the ruble, which has dropped by 17.5 percent compared to the dollar in just the first two weeks of 2015. The economy in general is hurting, as well, as it’s projected to retract by three to five percent this year. What this means for people on the street is also troubling. Lower crude prices mean higher prices for other goods, in particular food stuffs.

All of these economic woes have negatively impacted another grand Putin endeavor, the Eurasian Union. As the name implies, it is an economic union made up of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan that is supposed to rival the EU. However, with falling prices in Russia and declining currencies at home, all of the members are already discovering the side effects of allying with a troubled Russia. The member countries are also wary of sovereignty violations by Russia as well, similar to the ones that have already occurred in Georgia, Crimea, and now Eastern Ukraine.

It seems unlikely that Russia will stop pursuing such an aggressive approach, however. As a de facto dictator, it is crucial for Putin that he keeps his people happy enough so that they will not revolt. In this regard Putin seems to have been very successful. In December 2014 he was elected Russia’s Man of the Year for the fifteenth time in a row. Putin’s popularity level in fact has hovered at around 70 percent his entire time in office, spiking even higher during the invasion of Georgia and following the annexation of Crimea. It actually seems to Putin’s benefit to maintain his strong appearance in the face of alleged western aggression. While people in the West may question the authenticity of these ratings, any western politician would love to have the same kind of popularity.

Putin has also increased spending on the military. Even with the economy in crisis, military spending actually increased for this year rising to $50 billion. The effect of this spending has been evident in increased navy patrols, air maneuvers, improved equipment and greater activity. It also included the purchase of dozens of new state-of-the-art nuclear weapons to replace obsolete models from the Cold War.

So, Russia’s policies are working, at least in part. While they have proven very costly to the average Russian and the economy overall, it has not dissuaded Putin from his desire to restore Russian prestige. Frankly it should not be surprising either, with his high approval ratings and the West’s resistance to anything more than soft power tactics. The real question going forward is how much further Russia will go down this path. Will it stop with Eastern Ukraine or go further and risk overstretching? At some point the West will likely draw a line in the sand and if Russia crosses it, what will be next for Russia and the international community it refuses to abide by?

Resources

BBC News: Vladimir Putin

History World: History of Russia

The New York Times: Why Russians Back Putin on Ukraine

Business Insider: How Do We Know Russia Economic Crisis Has Officially Arrived?

Foreign Policy: Putin’s Eurasian Dream is Over Before it Began

Atlantic: Putin’s Popularity Much Stronger Than the Ruble

PBS: What Has Been the Effect of Western Sanctions on Russia?

U.S. News & World Report: Putin Defends Actions in Ukraine.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia’s Aggressive Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

The world has a complicated relationship with non-renewable resources. Large chunks of these resources are controlled by just a few countries. The United States has long worried about its ability to help our allies obtain these resources. One proposed way has been to pass the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Read on to learn about the underlying energy crisis, and the arguments for and against this legislation.

Background of the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

As the Ukrainian crisis continues to wage on, the question of oil dependence has emerged as a relevant and pressing issue that could impact geopolitical events. Currently, Russia provides one third of Western Europe’s natural gas, and an even higher percentage of Eastern Europe’s, leaving countries such as Ukraine locked under the power of Russian oil prices. As oil and gas prices rise as a result of political tensions in the region, these countries will look to import their natural gas from other sources, hoping that wider options in the market will drive prices down for their manufacturing and private sectors.

Meanwhile, the United States currently has large reserves of natural gas that amount to more than enough for domestic consumption for the foreseeable future. The natural assumption here would be to export US natural gas to these countries seeking independence from Russian energy. However, in order to export natural gas, it must be processed and liquefied at cryogenic temperatures, creating a liquid that can be shipped. The application process for creating export facilities that create Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which must pass through both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is convoluted and delayed; only seven applications have been approved since 2011, with 24 applications still pending.

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and through the House in full, would remove these restrictions by federal agencies and expedite the process for approving applications for the construction of LNG export facilities. However, fierce opposition has risen against this bill. Opponents argue that the bill will inadvertently raise domestic oil and gas prices while providing funding to energy production methods that wreak havoc on natural environments.

What’s the argument for the legislation?

The goal of the act is clear: provide Ukraine with American natural gas, thus breaking their dependence on Russia for energy and balancing the scale of global power in region. Until former satellite nations are able to break their dependence on Russian energy, many argue, Russia will be able to economically, and therefore politically, control these countries. The U.S. State Department recently announced, “The United States is taking immediate steps to assist Ukraine, including the provision of emergency finance and technical assistance in the areas of energy security, energy efficiency, and energy sector reform.” This, in short, is an announcement that US natural gas reserves will be shipped to Ukraine in order to regulate the balance of power that has tipped in that region.

Exporting US natural gas to these areas would, advocates argue, create a number of benefits for the United States and its citizens, in addition to benefits for Ukraine. The act would make the US the world’s top producer of natural gas, thus reinstating America’s dominance in energy production and improving its trade deficit. Shipping natural gas overseas requires the construction and operation of natural gas liquefaction installations, which could create roughly 450,000 jobs by 2025. The main impediment to the export of natural gas, which the bill addresses, is the application process for constructing these new facilities. Both the DOE and FERC have to sign off on any natural gas liquefaction projects, where environmental factors, the LNG buyers’ Free Trade Agreement status, public interest, and a number of other factors must be taken into account. During the FERC phase of the approval, over 20 government agencies become involved in the review process, creating a bottleneck effect in the long line of applications. Advocates argue that this act, designed to expedite this review process and enable LNG buyers to begin exporting American natural gas, will strengthen both America’s economy and the economy of nations such as Ukraine that are heavily dependent on Russian energy.

What’s the argument against the legislation?

Opponents, however, argue that the infrastructure required to ship gas to Ukraine has not yet been built, making it years before any gas would actually reach Ukraine (which, coincidentally, does not have any LNG import facilities, as it gets almost all of its natural gas via pipeline from Russia). Approving applications now to construct LNG export facilities, opponents state, is a long-term solution to an immediate problem. Many believe that exporting natural gas reserves would also negatively impact the US economy in a number of ways, creating more economic problems than the current geopolitical situation is worth. Some experts believe exporting America’s natural gas reserves will increase domestic gas prices, which have been kept low, internationally speaking, by its abundant reserves. Exporting natural gas and creating scarcity would drive up domestic oil and gas prices, hurting commercial interests and everyday consumers. This would also stifle what many refer to as the “American manufacturing renaissance” that has been occurring as a direct result of these gas reserves.

The great quantity of easily accessible natural gas has drawn energy-intensive companies to the U.S. to invest in manufacturing facilities across the country. Recently 97 energy-intensive chemical manufacturing companies invested roughly $72 billion in the U.S., spurring job growth and economic strength. Opponents argue that it is this type of economic growth that America must seek, instead of distant, fleeting profits from the sale of our natural gas. Were America’s natural gas to be exported, rising energy prices and a growing scarcity of domestic energy would smother the manufacturing renaissance and would place economic growth in the unstable hands of the oil and gas industry, instead of the diversified and profitable chemical manufacturing industry.

Lastly, opponents have been joined by environmental advocates who have voiced their concern over the environmental impacts of increased drilling and exportation of American natural gas. If the demand for natural gas export increases, opponents argue, then the demand for natural gas would also increase, which would lead to expanded drilling projects using controversial methods such as fracking to extract more natural gas. The construction of LNG export facilities and expanded drilling projects would also place more wildlife areas at risk that environmentalists have struggled to protect. The pressure for more natural gas recovery would also lead to increased carbon emissions and higher risks of spills and accidents that could dramatically damage an ecological area. Instead, many economic experts argue that the US should export drilling technology and raw materials to countries such as Ukraine to enable them to produce their own natural gas and free themselves from the bonds of Russian energy. In this way, the US could immediately profit from international trade and provide economic aid to its ally, the Ukraine.

Conclusion

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act passed the House this summer, and now is waiting in the Senate. While the bill is subject to much debate, it does begin to deal with the question of how nonrenewable resources are transferred internationally, and the political implications that accompany such transfers.

Resources

Primary

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee: Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Additional

Fuel Fix: U.S. LNG Exports Could Ensure European Energy Security

Energy Collective: Exporting U.S. LNG to Prized Non-FTA Countries: Bottlenecks in the Approval Process

Oregon Catalyst: Walden Presses Obama to Stop Natural Gas Export Delays

Roll Call: LNG Exports: An Opportunity For America

Deseret News: Liquid Natural Gas Exports Threaten U.S. Jobs

The New York Times: Foreseeable Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas

Sierra Club: Stop LNG Exports

Reuters: The Case Against Natural Gas Exports

Greeley Tribune: Colorado’s Delegation Pushes to Fast-Track LNG Exports to Non Free-Trade Countries

Lexology: Congress Turns Its Attention to LNG Exports

The New York Times: U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

Hill: DOE Approves Natural Gas Export Terminal

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Politicization of Natural Gas Exports appeared first on Law Street.

Western countries agree that they do not condone the aggressive actions taken by Russia in Ukraine. Their response? Sanction Russia. Rather than resort to military action, countries now use sanctions as the foreign policy tool of choice. The United States and European Union are united in the belief that the best way to encourage Russia to behave in the international arena is to increase pressure on the country by way of this penalty. So what exactly are sanctions, how do they work, and will they be effective in the case of Russia?

What has been happening in Ukraine?

The conflict began at the end of 2013 when former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych rejected an association agreement with the European Union (EU) and instead accepted a deal with Russia. Thousands of protesters took to the streets to voice their disapproval of the deal and perceived government corruption. In response to the protests, Ukrainian forces took aggressive action. Tensions escalated and eventually in February 2014, protesters overtook the capital and sent the president scrambling for Russian protection. Russia quickly moved to secure its interests by invading and annexing the Ukrainian province of Crimea. Russia still has troops stationed along the border in Eastern Ukraine and is accused of sending weapons to aid pro-Russian forces. The issue is complicated by the fact that many people in Ukraine, especially in Crimea, are ethnically Russian and would like to become a part of that country. Watch the video below for further explanation of the conflict:

Western countries declared Russia’s actions to be a clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law. The White House called Russian intervention in Ukraine “illegal and illegitimate.” The United States sees the actions as a violation of the United Nations Charter regarding the prohibition of force and of Russia’s 1997 military basing agreement with Ukraine. Russian leader Vladimir Putin, however, continues to disregard the demands of the United States and European Union. With the collapse of a recent ceasefire, the future of the conflict remains unclear.

Western countries hope sanctions will deter Russia from future aggression in Eastern Ukraine and force the country to abide by its international obligations.

What are sanctions?

Sanctions are a foreign policy instrument applied to a country to pressure it into changing its actions. Sanctions institute deliberate government withdrawal or threat of withdrawal from trade or financial relations. Typically sanctions are used to force a country to cooperate with international law, or to contain a threat to the peace of other countries. Ideally sanctions send a strong message of condemnation and entice countries to comply with international rules in order to avoid further harm. Sanctions can be issued by individual countries or by an entire group, such as the European Union, United Nations, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are several different types of sanctions:

• Diplomatic sanctions sever diplomatic ties, such as by removing embassies from the offending country.
• Economic sanctions can include a number of trade and financial punishments, including a ban of trade, imposing tariffs or embargoes, freezing assets, banning cash transfers, and restricting travel.
• Military sanctions include military intervention, targeted strikes, or supplying arms and aid to military.

A long-term study by the Peterson Institute found that economic sanctions are partially successful only one-third of the time. The study showed sanctions are most successful when they are used to reach a limited, modest goal. Using sanctions to influence a more ambitious policy change drops the rate of success to just 30 percent. For example, the Cuban embargo, in place since the 1960s, is largely seen as a failure; however, the more recent blockades and financial sanctions in Iran were extremely successful in forcing the Iranians to negotiate with the United States. The success in Iran may have emboldened the United States to now apply economic sanctions to Russia for its role in the Ukraine conflict.

What kind of sanctions have been used?

So far, sanctions have been limited to specific targets to impose a cost aimed at those responsible for the situation in Ukraine and Crimea. The economic sanctions have been described by Forbes as a “new breed of financial warfare,” which the treasury has been honing as a way to lock terrorists out of the global financial system.

Specific Targets

On March 6, 2014, President Obama signed Executive Order 13660 to authorize sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. More sanctions followed. Currently the list of those sanctioned by the U.S. government includes 23 government officials and 18 companies. The individuals are members of the Russian elite and have significant control over the Russian economy, including its banks, railroads, and media. The E.U. and other European countries also released lists of those sanctioned, which includes many of those targeted by the United States. Watch President Obama’s declaration of sanctions below:

Consequences

The sanctions of the United States and European Union currently only impose asset freezes and travel bans. Essentially those targeted are blacklisted. For those listed in the U.S. sanctions, all assets held in the United States are frozen. Furthermore, Americans are prevented from doing business with the listed individuals or entities and are prevented from making any funds available to them. The individuals listed will also be denied visas to enter the United States. The United States will cut off exports of American products to those companies and prevent exports of high-tech items that would contribute to Russia’s military capabilities.

Potential Problems

One of the problems with sanctions is that many feel they unfairly harm a country’s innocent civilians for a government’s actions. The idea is that sanctions may harm the people, but these people will then pressure their government to change its actions. In the meantime, the effects are felt most by ordinary citizens rather than the intended government officials. The current targeted sanctions , however, were enacted to apply pressure only on the elite rather than on the entire economy. Until more major banks are targeted, ordinary citizens may not feel the impact.

Have they had the intended effect in Russia?

It is difficult to judge the exact impact that the limited sanctions have had. Outwardly Putin still seems unfazed, yet in recent weeks he has tempered Russian aggression. The Russian economy was struggling before the sanctions, so these penalties have only furthered the decline. The Russian central bank predicts growth will slow to just 0.4 percent this year. A report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says that Western sanctions have had a “chilling effect” on investment. The IMF claims that the future strength of the Russian economy lies in greater global integration, which is currently hindered by the sanctions.

Effect on the Elite

Vladimir Yakunin, Putin’s close friend and head of Russian Railways who is on the saction list told the Financial Times, “I did not intend to travel to the U.S.  I have no assets.  So it does not bother me at all.”

These sanctions have much broader implications, however, even if they do not directly affect Yakunin. All financial institutions are discouraged from interacting with him in any way. The U.S. financial system is extremely pervasive, and the U.S. dollar is the world’s numéraire. Every financial institution needs a relationship with a U.S. bank to do business. Since Bank Rossiya appeared on the U.S. sanction list, it can no longer do business with any bank that deals in dollars either. Major credit card companies Visa and Mastercard even severed their business with the bank.

Effect on Public Confidence

Thus far the major impact of the sanctions has been psychological, impacting consumer and business confidence. No one knows who will show up on the sanction list next, so others are hesitant to do business. The entire Russian economy is effectively isolated. The sanctions lead to capital flight, inflation, and limit future investment in the country. Goldman Sachs reports that $45 to $50 billion was taken out of Russia in the first three months of 2014 as compared with only $63 billion in all of 2013.

Effect on the Future

Experts say the sanctions are likely to push Russia toward increased self-reliance. The economy ministry is already pushing to use state funds to aid lagging economic growth. Major effects of the sanctions have already been seen through cancelled IPOs and two cancelled government bond auctions. Standard & Poor’s recently downgraded Russia’s credit to one level above junk status.

Russia has responded by imposing like-for-like sanctions and threatens greater future sanctions. Russia banned nine prominent American politicians from the country, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NC), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). McCain responded in a March 20 tweet:

I guess this means my spring break in Siberia is off, Gazprom stock is lost & secret bank account in Moscow is frozen http://t.co/TgwZneD4HY

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 20, 2014

Do sanctions hurt the U.S. economy?

The typical argument against economic sanctions is that they can harm the U.S. economy, especially for the companies that do business with the targeted country. The U.S. economy will not be significantly affected simply due to the fact that the United States and Russia do not do much business with one another. Trade between the United States and Russia amounted to $40 billion last year — only one percent of total U.S. trade. By comparison, EU trade with Russia is 11 times that of the United States. Even tougher sanctions, like those applied to Iran, would only have a limited effect on the American economy due to limited ties between the nations. Watch the video below for the debate over who will be harmed by the sanctions:

Concerns are growing, however, that Western jobs are at risk if sanctions increase. For example, Boeing uses Russian titanium, General Electric leases aircraft to Russian airlines, and Exxon, Coke, and Pepsi all do significant business in Russia. If Russia sanctions in return, these companies could see a loss in profits. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are preparing an ad regarding the harmful potential impacts of the sanctions. The groups are particularly concerned if the United States were to impose unilateral sanctions that would single-out American business and put them at a disadvantage. However, recent data shows that the United States exported more goods and services to Russia in May, after the sanctions, than for any other month in 2014 so far.

What’s next?

The idea is to gradually increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions. Many expect more sweeping measures to come in the near future, as both the United States and European Union indicated a stronger response will come soon. President Obama recently agreed on a phone call with British Prime Minister David Cameron that if Russia does not take steps to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, the United States and European Union would roll out further sanctions. It is likely that targeted bans on key sectors of the Russian economy, such as gas and banking, are next. The options are nearly limitless. The United States could revoke Russia’s favorable tariff rates, which would increase taxes Russian firms have to pay to sell goods in the United States. Other alternatives include quotas, a trade embargo on certain goods, or further limiting Russian access to U.S. financial markets. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses what could be next below:

Unilateral sanctions are rarely effective, and the limited business ties between the United States and Russia means the European Union and United States must impose coordinated sanctions; however, Russia is the largest energy supplier in Europe and among the top three oil-producing countries in the world. Russia supplies roughly one third of the oil and gas in the European Union. This dependency complicates sanction efforts. Europe is hesitant to sanction because it could prohibit E.U countries from purchasing Russian oil, which would then lead to higher prices and potential shortages. Experts agree that ultimately any effective sanctions on Russia in the future must be coordinated and far-reaching.

Resources

Primary

Treasury Department: Treasury Sanctions Russian Officials

Treasury Department: Announcement of Additional Treasury Sanctions

Additional

Washington Post: The West Can’t Afford to Make Empty Threats on Russia Sanctions

Wall Street Journal: Western Sanctions Likely to Push Russia Toward Increased Self-Reliance

Guardian: Ukraine Crisis: Any EU Sanctions Are Unlikely to Make Impression

BBC: Ukraine Crisis Timeline

Politico: The New Russia Sanctions: Stalled Tax Talks

Forbes: Here’s How Obama’s Russia Sanctions Will Destroy Vladimir Putin

CNBC: Russia Sanctions: Who’s Losing Out So Far

BBC: The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Russia

Investopedia: Sanctions Between Countries Pack a Bigger Punch

USA Today: Business Groups Oppose Any New Sanctions on Russia

New Republic: These Sanctions Against Russia Will Hurt

Forbes: U.S. Exports to Russia Rise Despite Tensions

The New York Times: Western Businesses in Russia, Watchful and Wary

The New York Times: Obama Steps Up Russia Sanctions in Ukraine Crisis

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Are Sanctions the Answer? appeared first on Law Street.

I love the Olympics. I always have. Summer or winter, it doesn’t matter. I will dutifully watch hours of Olympic coverage, get weirdly into obscure sports (curling!!!!!!) and stay up until ridiculous hours to watch my favorite games. That being said, the Olympics aren’t just all about fun. Over the years, the games have served, often unwillingly, as a backdrop for powerful political statements. For example, the American 1980 Summer Games boycott and resulting Soviet Union 1984 Summer Games boycott were both obviously politically motivated. Individual athletes can also turn the Olympics political — the 1968 Olympic Games Black Power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos made headlines and eventually got the two spectacular athletes banned from that year’s Olympic games.

Controversies in the Olympics are common, but this year’s games in Sochi seem particularly fraught. Here are the five most important political and social reasons to care.

5. Stray Dogs

Sochi is home to a lot of stray dogs. Nice, stray dogs, like peoples’ abandoned pets, or the offspring of those pets. According to passersby, most of the dogs seem quite friendly.  But I guess it looks bad to just have stray dogs wandering the Olympic grounds, so the Russian government paid a firm to have them rounded up and killed. The firm hired to do so called the dogs “biological trash.” This move sparked international outrage, people are now trying to adopt these dogs, and a Russian billionaire and big time Putin supporter is actually donating a ton of money to save the dogs.

Now I have…conflicting thoughts on the issue. Don’t get me wrong, I was incredibly outraged by the attempt to kill the dogs. I love dogs — they’re hands down my favorite animal, and come on, how can you resist a face like this?

I’m horrified that they would try to kill the dogs, and I would love for those dogs to be saved, but there is something amazing about the global reaction to Russia’s attempt to kill the stray dogs. This Guardian piece sums it up well, but case in point is that people do seem to care more about dogs than humans. There have been numerous stories of human rights abuses, yet this Sochi-stray-dogs story has made tons of headlines. I love the dogs too, and it breaks my heart that any would be killed, but it’s concerning that people are so focused on this issue. My best guess is that it’s easier to take a stand against animal abuse than more contentious political issues, such as…

4. The Ukraine Conflict 

While the Olympics happen, everyone is kind of tacitly ignoring the fact that there’s a major civil conflict going on essentially next door in the Ukraine. For all intents and purposes, Russia’s next step in the conflict has been on “hold” — most pundits are speculating that they will wait until the games are over to make a big move. So far, the entire conflict has been thoroughly messy though, and not just in the Ukraine. It’s become an almost miniature proxy war between the US and the EU and Russia. And believe me, both sides have the potential to play dirty. Russia is the most likely culprit to have leaked an incredibly embarrassing voicemail from a US diplomat dissing the EU. It seems like as soon as these Olympics end, things will start getting global in the Ukraine.

I think it actually says a lot about the symbolic power of the Olympic games (especially games set in Sochi) that Russia, the United States, and others, are willing to put some political maneuvers on hold.

3. Irina Rodnina 

Irina Rodnina was a prolific figure skater when she was younger, and now she is a Russian political figure. As one of the country’s most recognizable winter athletes, she was a seemingly natural choice to light the torch. But after Rodnina’s name was announced, it came to light that she had retweeted this disgustingly racist and obviously doctored photo this fall (as seen below in journalist Terry Moran’s tweet).
https://twitter.com/TerryMoran/statuses/431870114258878464

Rodnina wouldn’t even apologize at first. She just said that “Freedom of speech is freedom.” More recently, she claimed that she was hacked, although she had never said so in the past. But even after the tweet was discovered, Russia made no effort to get her to apologize or remove her from the torchbearer’s post.

2. The Economy

As much as I love the Olympics, this is a point that I will make every time the Games occur in a non-major city (and sometimes even when they do occur in a big city). Before any Olympic games, the infrastructure gets ridiculously built up, and often after the Olympics end, the new buildings, hotels, and stadiums are abandoned. Here is an incredibly creepy collection of pictures from abandoned Olympic villages.

The Olympics provide a big economic boost, but after that, nothing. That’s a facet of every Olympic games. But the Sochi games have taken extravagance to a whole new level, and in a medium-size city like Sochi (52nd largest in Russia), things had to be built completely from scratch. Supposedly protected natural habitats of animals were destroyed, and an entire village had to be relocated. Like I said, I love the Olympics, but the pragmatist in me wonders if the cost is worth it, and I have never wondered about that more so than during the Sochi games.

1. Gay Rights

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, but obviously Russia’s attack on gay rights is the biggest political story of these Olympics. As has been demonstrated over the last few months, being gay in Russia is incredibly difficult and oppressive. We’ve heard these stories for a long time, but the international spotlight on Russia this winter has given them a particularly haunting voice. President Obama and Vice President Biden, French President Hollande, and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, among others, have all declined to attend. In general, the Olympic games in Sochi have shed light on the human rights violations that occur there, and led to international pressure, but so far there’s been no real tangible signs of change. If the international community, the United States included, is serious about helping the very real problems of the LGBT community in Russia, the pressure on the country needs to increase substantially. Otherwise, the issue will be forgotten, as so many international causes have, and that’s just not acceptable.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [U.S. Army via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Top 5 Reasons to Care About the Sochi Olympics appeared first on Law Street.

Ukraine is a country in turmoil. There’s no other way around it. Protests have flared up in the nation’s capitol, and other cities in the northwest region of Ukraine. The movement is being called Euromaiden, and these protests are fiery, violent, and for at least five protesters at this point, deadly. The images coming out are powerful, moving, and frankly, horrifying. This one below is of a protester in Kiev with the fire that has been set by his compatriots to prevent government forces from breaching the barricade line. This is what’s happening in Ukraine right now.

So what’s going on? What we know is that the catalyst for the protests appears to be a decision made by Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. For years, the Ukranian government has been attempting to move closer to the European Union. The proposed political and economic association pact would allow Ukrainian citizens to travel through the other EU nations without visas, leading to significantly more opportunities. The EU would gain an ally, and Ukraine would have to institute new laws as mandated by the EU. It truly seemed like a win-win by both sides.

But in November, Yanukovych backed out of the agreement. This was just the tip of the iceberg, because since then, things have gotten dramatically worse in Ukraine. The government has begun to pass laws that are being described by the protesters as draconian and dictatorial in nature. Protests have been outlawed, and protesters are being tracked. The government is using satellites to pinpoint the phone of everyone who visits the square in Kiev where dissenters are the thickest. Those numbers are being recorded, monitored, and being sent messages from the government condemning the actions of the phones’ owners. Other laws include but are no means limited to: participation in “mass disruptions” will incur 10-15 years imprisonment; it’s illegal to drive a car in a column more than 5 cars long; it’s illegal to set up a sound system without permission; setting up a tent is punishable by 15 days in prison; and the government can disable the internet at will.

This is not just a shallow protest based on the EU situation, but rather a grand debate about the future of Ukraine and the cultural ties that split the country in two. The Washington Post’s Max Fisher made an incredibly interesting infographic map that illustrates this perfectly.

This map shows the divide in Ukraine. The country is literally split in two. The northwest area is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has close ties to Europe, tends to have mostly Roman Catholics, and did not vote for Yanukovych. They are instead being led by a few main opposition leaders, Vladmir Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleg Tyagnybok. The southeast area is mostly Russian-speaking, is economically and culturally linked to Russia.

And that right there is the crux of this issue. Ukraine is a nation that’s facing an identity crisis. It’s pretty clear that Yanukovych caved on the EU deal because of the pressure from the Russians–Yanukovych has admitted that himself. After all, Russia has cut off gas exports and other important economic ties when Ukraine’s actions have moved outside of their interests.

This is a big international political issue for a lot of reasons. Obviously, Ukraine is not the only country to face severe protests, civil strife, and dictatorial policies this year and it would be disingenuous not to recognize that. But the reason that this situation, in particular, has caught my attention is because it is symbolic of a larger conflict. The Cold War is over but there’s still a fundamental struggle between Russia and Western Europe. There’s still a systemic distrust.

I majored in international affairs, specifically, security. That means that I have taken way too many classes on war, genocide, and civil conflict. And while, I can by no means call myself any sort of expert, I do have a background in the topic. The thing is, every theorist will tell you differently, but we don’t know why outbreaks like these happen. Theorists will weigh grievance vs. greed, identity issues, systemic issues, and external issues, such as the interplay between Europe and Russia. And the international affairs student in me wants to digest all of that, and give you a reason why this is happening. But I can’t. And that’s not just because this entire situation has yet to play out. It’s because I want to respect the protesters who are risking their lives in the name of something in which they believe so strongly. What happens in Ukraine has the potential to fundamentally transform Eastern Europe, and by extension, global politics. Again.

Editor’s Update:

Ukraine’s president accepted the resignation of his Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, and cabinet of ministers, today, in concession to the opposition leaders and demonstrators who are currently protesting his rule. Additionally, parliament voted to scrap the laws previously mentioned above that have provoked the violent escalation in the country’s political crisis.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Mstyslav Chernov via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No End in Sight for Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.

Are you missing some excitement in your love life? Do you and your significant other look for different ways to bring that excitement back into your lives? Well if you are thinking about having sex on top of railroad tracks, think of something else.

In an attempt to spice up their sex life, a middle-aged Ukrainian couple decided to make love on top of some railroad tracks near central Ukraine. Aside from giving a whole new meaning to “working on the railroad,”the couple decidedthat reaching their sexual climax was more important than moving out of the way of an oncoming train. A switcher locomotive ran over the couple in the city of Zaporozhye in the early morning of Saturday, September 28, 2013. The woman died instantly and the man lost both of his legs. The man claimed that he and his girlfriend simply wanted to, “…experience an extreme sensation near the railroad tracks,” since they had, “failed to overcome their natural passion.”

It is completely understandable that couples who have been together for a long period of time want to find new ways to experience each other and find “extreme sensations,” (Trojan gets it) but you should be able to do so without risking life and limbs. Are the vibrations of the oncoming train worth losing your life? What do I know, maybe they thought they were dreaming within a dream.

The story unfortunately does not end there. The man could be facing trespassing charges for being on the tracks. It is unlikely that the man has a viable legal defense to the trespassing charges but it made me wonder about the penalties for the same crime elsewhere. In the United Kingdom, trespassing on railway tracks is considered a criminal offense and carries with it a penalty in the form of a fine for £1,000. They go on to explain why it is never a good idea to hop onto the train tracks. For example, they tell you that trains do not stop quickly (DUH!), that by simply standing near a train as it passes the wind turbulence could drag you under the wheels, and that the train runs on electricity and is never switched off (and if you touch it you will be frozen to it).

The United States has similar laws to the UK and the fines are just as expensive if not more. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) takes railroad safety and trespassing prevention seriously. They claim that over 430 trespassing fatalities and nearly as many injuries occur each year. They offer a workshop to address Right-of-Way fatalities and trespass prevention. They even offer this fact sheet to explain why it’s a very bad idea to trespass on railroad tracks. I guess they forgot to send it to this kid.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Lorenzo Gaudenzi via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have You Ever Had Sex on Railroad Tracks? Well Don’t! appeared first on Law Street.