Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2022-07-20-at-4.08.33-pm

Ukraine far outperforms Russia — on the lobbying front, in Washington

Both sides had been battling it out long before Moscow's invasion, but it turned out money was no match for message in the end.

Analysis | Europe

Long before Vladimir Putin’s disastrous invasion began, Ukrainian and Russian forces had been waging a furious battle over a coveted prize. But, this fight didn’t take place on any battlefield, it was waged in our nation’s capital and the combatants weren’t hardened soldiers, they were lobbyists hired by Russian and Ukrainian interests. 

The prize they were fighting for was influence over U.S. foreign policy.

As chronicled in a brand new Quincy Institute brief by Research Fellow Ben Freeman, “The Lobbying Battle Before the War: Russian and Ukrainian Interests in the U.S.,” Russian interests spent $42 million on Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) registered firms, compared to a paltry $2 million by Ukrainian interests. While much of the Russian spending (around $38 million) was for Russian state media in the U.S., like RT, Russian interests still spent more than double what Ukrainian interests spent on traditional lobbying and public relations firms. 

Aided immensely by former members of Congress working on their behalf, Russian banks and energy companies leveraged this advantage in an attempt to lobby against sanctions and for the Nordstream 2 pipeline. Even right up until the invasion of Ukraine, former Senator David Vitter (R-LA) and former Representative Toby Moffett (D-CT) of Mercury Public Affairs lobbied on behalf of the Russian bank Sovcombank, with Vitter insisting that Russia’s ninth-largest bank would be an “extremely counterproductive sanctions target.” This strategy seemingly worked for Russian interests before, so there was reason to believe it could work again.

But, while the Ukraine lobby might have been small in terms of spending, it was most certainly mighty and, above all, extraordinarily zealous. The paltry financial investment made by Ukrainian interests led to an astounding 13,541 political contacts on behalf of Ukrainian clients in 2021, a feat that far surpasses even the most active lobbies in Washington. 

The biggest clash between the two lobbies revolved around the issue of Nord Stream 2. Russian firms representing the pipeline company Nord Stream AG were led by Roberti Global in an attempt to block “potential financial sanctions affecting the project.” Roberti Global — described by GQ Magazine as the “Hollywood ideal of a Washington power broker” — had some successes, including pushing for the Biden Administration’s decision to lift sanctions on the pipeline in May of 2021.

But, the pro-Ukraine lobby was not about to back down. May 21, the day after Biden waived sanctions related to Nord Stream 2, was the single-busiest day in Congressional outreach by the pro-Ukraine lobby. Four separate lobbying and public relations firms representing the Ukrainian Federation of Employers of the Oil and Gas Industry (UFEOGI) worked overtime to effectively make halting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline synonymous with Ukrainian national security. These firms, spearheaded by Yorktown Solutions, contacted Congressional offices, think tanks, media outlets, and government agencies like the State Department and Department of Energy to discuss “U.S.-Ukraine Energy Issues'' over 12,000 times. In one, Yorktown Solutions warned that a failure to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2 “rewards Russia for its military hostility.” 

Firms representing Nord Stream AG nearly doubled their spending in the first quarter of 2022, but even this proved insufficient. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the pipeline was quickly sanctioned by the Biden Administration. One by one, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine became the death knell for Russia’s lobbying objectives and a boon for Ukraine’s. 

Military support, another key objective of the pro-Ukraine lobby, ballooned after Russia’s invasion. Since the start of the war, Ukraine has secured more than $50 billion in U.S. economic and military support and every weapon on their wishlist, including thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles as well as armored vehicles, drones, helicopters, howitzers, anti-artillery rocket systems, and small arms and ammunition. One Wall Street Journal article written by former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul and distributed by Yorktown, argues that Biden should “announce major new military assistance” including “anti-tank Javelins as well as upgraded radars.” 

Think tanks played a central role in the pro-Ukraine lobby’s push for U.S. military support, with nearly six hundred reported contacts with the Atlantic Council alone. In one piece for their “UkraineAlert” series, the Atlantic Council released a survey titled “Western public backs stronger support for Ukraine against Russia.” The survey in question was commissioned by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation and Yalta European Strategy, but fails to mention that the foundation contributes $250,000 to 499,000 a year to the Atlantic Council, or that Pinchuk himself — the second wealthiest man in Ukraine — is on the international advisory board of the Atlantic Council. The pro-Ukraine lobby stopped short of getting a no-fly zone, a position advocated by several experts at the Atlantic Council including John Herbst, Senior Director at the Eurasia Center. 

Today, the pro-Ukraine lobby has expanded to more than double the amount of registrants it had in 2021. In a stunning turn of events, some of the lobbying and public relations firms that previously represented Russian interests began to work for Ukrainian clients, even working on a pro-bono basis. Mercury Public Affairs, the same firm that represented a Russian bank right up until the invasion, is now cleansing its public image by doing gratis lobbying for Globee International Agency for Regional Development for Ukraine.

While Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine effectively ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and led to historic increases in U.S. military support for the Ukrainian military, this new Quincy Institute brief shows that these outcomes were anything but inevitable. They were at the heart of a fevered battle between lobbying, public relations, and other firms working for Russian and Ukrainian interests. While Russian interests flexed their juggernaut lobbying operation in the hopes of preventing sanctions from being levied, it was Ukraine’s small, yet powerful lobby that won the day.  


Volodymyr Zelenskyy the President of Ukraine (Shutterstock/Dmytro Larin); Russian President Vladimir Putin(Harold Escalona/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.