Replies

Ths most complete info I found about this author in a quick search was actually in an article slamming Robert Spencer (a portion of which I quote below). The author of said article obviously can't stand Robert Spencer. Or maybe it's just anti-Islamists & pro-Eastern Orthodox folks he doesn't like? I don't really know, I just couldn't find anything else fairly detailed about the author when I'm in a hurry.

James Jatras, a Greek American with a long history of pro-Eastern Orthodox and anti-Muslim activism in the Balkans and formerly senior foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee (1998-2002), signed the agreement between Venable and the Serbian National Council of Kosova and Metohija (SNV) on March 22, 2006. Far from being a neutral observer of Balkan affairs, Jatras is a paid lobbyist for the SNV and an Orthodox extremist with deep connections to the Serbian Unity Congress. Jatras has written numerous articles aimed at warning Americans about the threat of militant Islam in Southeast Europe, several of which appear in a magazine connected to Bosnian Serb groups called Chronicles. (Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles’ foreign affairs editor, was formerly the official spokesperson for indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic.) Jatras was the keynote speaker at the 9th Serbian Unity Congress (more on that later) and a principal in the Serbian-American-made propaganda film, “Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War” produced and directed by George Bogdanich. And during the Kosova war, it was Jatras, in his capacity as senior foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, who commissioned and circulated Yossef Bodansky’s outrageously spurious report in the House and Senate, entitled “Kosova: The U.S. and Iran’s New Balkan Front,” (more on the Iranian conspiracy theories later) in an effort to block Congressional support for intervention in Serbia’s war against Kosova and to discredit the Kosova Liberation Army.

The article makes sense to me but read about the author and decide for yourself if he's full of it or not.

I thought Poroshenko had ONE chance to keep the country together, after he was elected. That was wrecked after the Donetsk attack, the renewed Slovyansk Offensive, and the massacre of the wounded, I believe. Now, not only Donetsk, but Lugansk is in full revolt, and the insurgency is moving farther north.

It doesn’t matter anymore if it was his own move, a move by the Generals, or anyone else. The hope that the blood would stop flowing is gone now.

The Kiev government has screwed this up at almost every step of the way. And much of that, I believe, was upon the urging of the Obama Administration. (The Obama Midas Touch strikes yet again)

As predicted, western governments lost no time in proclaiming billionaire Petro Poroshenko’s first-round election win as cementing his “legitimacy” as president of all of Ukraine. Buoyed with what was touted as a national “mandate,” the president-elect of some Ukrainians stated his determination to move forward on what already appears to be a contradictory and unobtainable set of priorities.

I stopped reading literally at this first paragraph. This guy lost his credibility the moment he uttered something as stupid as "president-elect of some Ukrainians." Anyone actually watching the events in Ukraine without their head up Putin's butt would know these four facts:

1) Poroshenko received a majority of votes from all over Ukraine, including the South and East.

2) Turnout broke records, even without the areas where the Islamics and Communists sent from Moscow disrupted the election.

3) Unlike in Moscow, international observers found no problems.

4) The results were consistent with polls in both the East and South that showed that the separatists are a micro-minority, even despite Moscow's propaganda war. The Citizens of Ukraine want a united country and do not want to be torn apart by Moscow. Here is a map that shows all the precincts that went to Poroshenko. The red went to him. The grey color represents those areas where no vote occurred.

By the way, there are a handful of Putinists on this forum (Rashputin is one of them) who have a pathological hatred towards Ukraine. Literally, test every minor thing they say, even if they tell you that the Earth revolves around the sun.

I finally read a bit more of the article. What is this source for the National Guard being made up of "Right Sector," when Right Sector is estimated to only have about 2,000 members in the first place? (Though Right Sector claims they have 10,000.) Looking closer at the source, I realize another problem. This is the American Institute in Ukraine!

This group is wrapped up in a whole sordid web of "institutes" that primarily advocate against NATO and in favor of Russia's interests across the world. They depict themselves as having even support from the CATO institute, which CATO, apparently, denies. They are likely another front-group for Moscow. Its executive director routinely appears on Russian state controlled media, and its deputy, James George Jatras, is a known extremist and was apparently a favorable witness for Slobodan Milosevic. The Communications Director is also an associate of Jatras who has engaged in anti-NATO politicking, though these facts are not mentioned on the website. Despite their claims of being "neutral" on NATO, and being a non-lobbying group, they engage in both lobbying and anti-NATO propaganda.