During the Cold War, the United States applied the Roosevelt Standard to foreign rulers: “He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” Paul Manafort made a very good living by helping improve the image of some very bad people. He represented Jonas Savimbi, Ferdinand Marcos, and Joseph Mobutu in the corridors of power. All of this activity aligned with American foreign policy. Then the Cold War ended. Suddenly, the “sons-of-bitches” had to swim for it. So did Manafort. He found an apparent new gold-mine in working with the post-Soviet Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Much of this work focused on Ukraine.
Ukraine had escaped from the Soviet Union upon the collapse of the evil empire. However, old antipathies and affinities survived in the new country. Basically, the farther west you go, the more Russophobe the people become and the farther east you go the more Russophile the people become. From 2004 to 2010, Manafort found work trying to improve the political chances of the Russophile presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovitch. It should have been obvious that this work aligned with post-Soviet Russian foreign policy. Reportedly, sometime between 2006 and 2009, the American Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, told Manafort that he was working against the interests of the United States. Apparently, Manafort did not heed this warning. In 2010, Yanukovitch won the presidency in an election judged fair by international observers. In 2014 he aroused massive opposition among the Russophobes by reversing course on an application to join the European Union. He certainly did this at the behest of Vladimir Putin. Soon, Yanukovitch was both out of office and out of Ukraine. According to one account, the FBI then opened a criminal investigation of Paul Manafort. It was still running when the FBI began its investigation of suspected conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign in Summer 2016.
What did the FBI investigation launched in 2014 discover? Did it discover that Manafort had scored big-time, but hadn’t reported his earnings to the IRS?
Michael Flynn had an impressive career in military intelligence during the “Global War on Terror.” In April 2012, his ascent peaked when President Obama nominated him to lead the Defense Intelligence Agency. Two years later, Flynn announced his retirement. Normally, it seems, people get three years in that position, so he was leaving early. Why?
On the one hand, there’s the whispering campaign. It was “leaked” to the press that Flynn had a chaotic management style; he didn’t play well with others; he abused his staff; he wasn’t a team-player; and he had a loose grip on facts. These seem like personality traits. Nobody noticed them before while promoting him from Lieutenant to Lieutenant-General? So I don’t think this is very credible.
On the other hand, there’s the counter-whispering campaign. It has been suggested that Flynn repeatedly told the Obama White House that much of the opposition to Bashir al-Assad came from conservative-to-radical Muslims. The “moderates” weren’t much present on the battlefield. This seems to have contradicted the “narrative” preferred by the White House. Eventually, the White House got fed up.
Then there’s this. In February 2014, Flynn attended the “Cambridge Intelligence Seminar,” run—in part–by Stefan Halper. Reportedly, Halper found it alarming that Flynn seemed very close to a Russian woman who also attended the seminar. Someone else shared these concerns with American “authorities.” The woman involved was Svetlana Lokhova. She denies that she spoke with Flynn for any extended period or that they had a personal relationship. Did American authorities believe that Flynn had been caught in what John Le Carre novels call a “honey trap”? The Director of the CIA at the time was John Brennan, subsequently an engaged participant in countering President Donald Trump’s allegations about the intelligence community.
 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
 Why not? Perhaps because he was making a lot of money and the American government wasn’t offering him an alternative income. Perhaps because he was trying to get his guy elected president of a new democracy. America is all about exporting democracy. What’s more important, democracy or getting the American candidate elected?
 See: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukovych-ukraine-president-election
 See: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-paul-manafort-michael-flynn-russia-robert-mueller-turkey-620215 One might be forgiven for wondering if the investigation was pay-back for Manafort having ignored Ambassador Taylor’s warning. If it was pay-back, it soon hit pay-dirt.
 If so, then what—exactly—was Robert Mueller doing with his time for two years? The Russian hacking information came from the NSA and pretty damn quick at that. Carter Page and George Papadopoulos were low-hanging fruit easily plucked.
 On the larger framework of the Seminar, see: https://thecsi.org.uk/ NB: The reported views of Sir Richard Dearlove are interesting. For a recent iteration of the Seminar, see: https://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/seminars/intelligence
 See: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-informant-russia-investigation.html
 Her version of the encounter can be found at https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39863781 See also: https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/28/lawsuit-suggests-spying-trump-campaign-started-early-2016/