Human Rights – All Humans’ Righteous Battle

In a perfect world, the comprehensive range of human rights would be a universal standard with widespread acceptance. However, in today’s imperfect global society, compliance with human rights norms must be championed, monitored, protected, refined and adjudicated every day in generally recognized autocratic states as well as democratic ones.

Throughout modern history, societies have attempted to define human rights principles, which were meant to guide humans’ relationships with their peers – individually and collectively. Among these documents have been the Magna Carta (1215), the US Bill of Rights (1791), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Final Act of the Helsinki Accords (1975).

The periodic re-publication, refinement, reemphasis and expansion of accepted human rights values does not indicate a flawed original attempt at delineating human rights but rather demonstrates mankind’s evolution, the appearance of new needs, as well as continuing violations of human rights.

“Whereas, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” states the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights principles not only dictate mankind’s one-on-one conduct with other humans as well as governments’ conduct with their citizens, but they also serve as a reminder of the horrors mankind has perpetrated against its fellow humans. In recent history, the fight for human rights was a direct reaction against horrible crimes such as the Holodomor murder of Ukrainians by Russia and the Holocaust killings of Jews by Nazis while the battle for those principles continues to be an endless universal endeavor.

Over time human rights have been expanded to include concepts such as national, religious, cultural, academic and civil rights.

Karel Vasak, initial contributor to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and former legal advisor to UNESCO, alluded to the expanding notion of human rights by noting: “Since 1948 we have drawn up other human rights, we haven’t just stayed in 1948, there are other human rights, the right to development, the right to the environment, the right to peace and the right to humanitarian assistance.”

Indeed, promoting human rights also means defending the right to think differently, the rights of women, the right to peace, security, health, education, media, Internet, untainted ecology and gender. This unexhausted list dovetails aptly with President Roosevelt’s vision of four freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear – including the fear of being invaded by a neighboring superpower or being shot intentionally or unintentionally by a police officer, and freedom from unwarranted arrest, kidnapping and imprisonment as happened with Nadiya Savchenko.Roosevelt’s words inspired Ukrainian Americans to establish in 1946 the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedom for Ukraine to explain to Americans the battle for independence being waged by Ukrainians in Ukraine and the Diaspora.

Adherence to human rights creates a level playing field for everyone to enjoy a life of dignity and rights. “The approach bolsters accountability by clarifying the duties and responsibilities of governments, donor countries and non-governmental organizations regarding action taken or committed,” observed Navanethem Pillay, former UN high Commissioner for Human Rights. She also said several international human rights instruments even categorize health as a human right that must be pursued in tandem with all other human rights.

Kenneth Roth, a former federal prosecutor and executive director of Human Rights Watch, updated this observation in his comment in the December 28 edition of The New York Times by saying, “Treaties are effective even when courts are too weak to enforce them because they codify a public’s views about how its government should behave. Local rights groups, working with their international partners like Human Rights Watch, are able to generate pressure to respect these treaties by contrasting a government’s treaty commitments with any practices that fall short. The shame generated can be a powerful inducement to change.”

Arguing against needless attention to human rights, some have said that they cannot be precisely sculpted in the human mind or legal statutes. Despite this mistaken observation, they are recognizable. To paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s observation about obscenity in 1964, we all know what human rights are when we see, hear, speak, abuse or defend them.

The backbone of the fight for human rights is civil society or non-governmental organizations. Simone Veil, former Minister of State of France, pointed out in a speech at the 61st Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference that “NGOs have a vocation to focus attention upon those whose rights are insufficiently protected. Because of their diversity, because of their independence, it is easier for them to defend different points of view, different interests even when those points of view are contradictory.”

Indeed, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, rights activists in Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere took advantage of the tenets of the Final Act of the Helsinki Accords to raise their fight for freedom to a global legal level.

Apart from international human rights covenants, the practical guarantor of the entire range of rights that men and women should enjoy is the national government. However, when citizens and civil society give up on their governments and cease making their voices heard, democracy and human rights are sacrificed for the benefit of the ruling elite. Semper vigilant is the all-important watchword.

Some governments, even those that preach human rights, have unfortunately violated them but the righteous ones endeavor to correct their transgressions. At least they encourage an uninhibited public discussion of the wrongdoings that condemn or exonerate the participants.

Others, despotic regimes, talk about human rights but habitually violate them and deny freedoms to all perceived enemies, including civil society, women, press, intellectuals, faithful, LGBT and others.

To reach the highest level of human rights acceptance, society should engage in a lifelong educational process that must begin with the youngest of its members in the earliest years of education. It has been said that this form of human rights inculcation will fulfill humanity’s aspiration to attain universal human rights compliance.

Ukraine Fulfills National Destiny

As 2014 draws to a close, Ukraine has finally laid the political foundation for fulfilling its national destiny. It has expelled Russian saboteurs and minions, as well as domestic traitors and criminals, beginning with Viktor Yanukovych and his cabal. In recent elections Kyiv and the Ukrainian nation have charted a course to accede to the European Union, nullify its former detrimental nonaligned status and position itself for eventual membership in NATO. The Verkhovna Rada also adopted a budget for 2015.

At the same time, Russia has been busy solidifying its despotic policies of shackling opposition, waging a war against Ukraine to restore the Russian prison of nations, and adopting a hardened revised military doctrine that reaffirms NATO and all of its member-states are Russia’s No.1 enemy.

Vladimir Putin signed on December 26 revisions to the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Called “clarifications,” these amendments had been approved by the Security Council of the Russian Federation on December 19.

The current doctrine, which comes during the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014, reflects the Kremlin’s readiness to take a stronger, more aggressive posture in response to what it perceives as US-led efforts to isolate and weaken Russia. The doctrine mirrors the belligerent tone and warnings issued by Putin in his three-hour press conference on December 18. See my post of December 19.

The 29-page doctrine outlines Russian’s perceived top threats to its security and its possible responses, excluding nothing. It is the third edition of the Military Doctrine since Putin was first elected president in 2000. I discuss its warlike military and security doctrines in a post on November 15. None of the versions offers the United States or NATO an olive branch. All of them condemn the free world’s threats against the existence of Russia and its military and political advances against the former captive nations, which Russia still regards as its backyard. Washington and other national capitals should not belittle the implications of any version of Russia’s Military Doctrine while they prepare their own defense.

The doctrine places the blame for heightened global tensions and the war in Ukraine squarely on NATO and the USA. “A build-up of NATO military potential and its empowerment with global functions implemented is in violation of international law, as well as the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure to the Russian borders,” the doctrine said.

Demonstrating Russia’s historical paranoia of the non-Russian world, the doctrine stresses that the deployment of foreign military forces on the territory of Russia’s neighbors could be used for “political and military pressure.”

The doctrine’s greatest threat against mankind is its clarification of the use of nuclear weapons. Despite the predominant global belief that nuclear weapons should be banned, Russia did not consider it necessary to echo that conviction.

“Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies, as well as in the case of an attack with conventional weaponry that threatens the very existence of the state," the doctrine says.

As Putin stressed in his press conference, it is “us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. That is what we should all realize.”

Consequently, Russia announced that it will defend itself with any weapon against any attack by anyone.

A threat to Russia is also described as the “establishment of the regimes in the neighboring countries threatening the national security of Russia, including the regimes formed as a result of the illegitimate governments’ overthrow.”

Just as Putin elaborated, the Military Doctrine also alludes to the importance Russia places on an allied Ukraine, not a potential new member of NATO. The Kremlin leaders realize that the only way that Ukraine – and the other former captive nations – will remain a loyal buffer zone that protects Russia will be in a restored Russian prison of nations.

The doctrine reiterates Putin’s notion that Yanukovych was ousted in a US-inspired revolution and the current government of President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatseniuk are probable enemies.

The doctrine lists among major foreign military threats “the creation and deployment of global strategic antiballistic missile systems that undermine the established global stability and balance of power in nuclear missile capabilities, the implementation of the ‘prompt strike’ concept, intent to deploy weapons in space and deployment of strategic conventional precision weapons.”

Another new point in the doctrine is that one of the Russian military’s goals is to protect national interests in the Arctic region. Evidence of Russian militarization has also been visible around the world. Last Friday, Moscow successfully test-fired the RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plesetsk launchpad in northwestern Russia. Naval adventurism in open seas has also been recorded.

The direct and indirect threats of the doctrine were not lost on the former captive nations, which are already concerned for their own independence and sovereignty due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Karl Altau, managing director of the Joint Baltic American National Committee, said Putin’s move is more evidence that he continues on the road to entrench and isolate himself and his regime. “His threats against perceived enemies, particularly NATO, are surely meant to both cow the West and to ramp up chauvinism for an already propaganda-infused domestic audience in the Russian Federation,” he said.
Altau said Russia’s entrenchment is both worrisome and dangerous for Russia’s neighbors, such as the Baltic countries. “The Baltics, and all other Central and Eastern European countries, were absolutely correct in sensing that perhaps one day, a revanchist Moscow would be back [after the collapse of the Soviet Union].”
Carl Haglund, Minister of Defense of Finland, said in the Helsinki Times that despite references to nuclear retaliation, the doctrine reaffirms long-standing warnings to the free world not to threaten Russia. “This changes nothing in Finland, [but] it doesn’t mean that we aren’t awake. It has become obvious over the past 12 months that the approach of Russia has become more aggressive,” Haglund said.

With an aggressive, threatening neighbor that has already sent its soldiers and mercenaries into its territory, can Ukraine be blamed for nullifying its nonaligned status and hastening its dream of acceding to European geopolitical arrangements?

Signing the law on the abolition of the nonaligned status of Ukraine, Poroshenko said last week: "I think it was a strategic and fundamental mistake in 2010, when Ukraine acquired the non-aligned status. Having done that, Ukraine has destroyed its Armed Forces.”

Answering journalists’ questions on holding a referendum regarding Ukraine’s accession to NATO, Poroshenko credibly emphasized that Ukraine must first reform so it can comply with the criteria for joining the EU and NATO. “These standards are 99% the same. When Ukraine will meet these criteria, the people of Ukraine will decide on NATO membership. Probably, these criteria will be achieved within the implementation of the Strategy of Reforms – 2020 in the course of the coming five to six years,” Poroshenko noted.

NATO did not reject Ukraine’s vote and by implication its aspiration to become a member of the alliance at some time in the future. The alliance said it respects Ukraine’s decision to abandon its non-aligned status and confirms that Ukraine will be a member of the organization if it requests membership and complies with all alliance standards and principles, NATO headquarters said last week, according to UNIAN.

“We respect the decision of the Ukrainian parliament. Ukraine is an independent and sovereign state and it is the one who can make decisions on its own foreign policy,” the statement said. “As it was agreed at the summit in Bucharest in 2008, our doors are open, and Ukraine will become a member of NATO if it requests this and if it complies with [NATO] standards and adheres to its principles. If Ukraine decides to apply for membership of NATO, we will assess its readiness to join the alliance in the same way as we do with any other candidate.”

Russia was quick to denounce the Ukrainian vote. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, in a Facebook post last week, said the vote to drop Ukraine’s nonaligned status is tantamount to its application to join NATO and therefore makes Ukraine a potential enemy of Russia.

The comment was the strongest Russian reaction to date to Poroshenko’s decision to reverse Yanukovych’s 2010 choice to formally declare the country to be non-aligned.

“[The] Ukrainian president has submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a bill on dropping Ukraine’s non-aligned status,” wrote Medvedev. “Essentially, this is a bid to join NATO, which turns Ukraine into a potential enemy of Russia.”

Medvedev also reiterated Russia’s objections to the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, signed by President Obama, authorizing military aid to Ukraine and additional sanctions against Russia in response to its intervention in eastern Ukraine.

“Our relations with America will be poisoned for decades to come,” he wrote, equating the Ukraine Freedom Support Act with the Jackson-Vanik amendment.

The 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment linked trade ties with Russia to free emigration for Jews and other religious minorities. Obama signed the law repealing it two years ago and perhaps in hindsight that move was premature.

While Ukraine is endeavoring to rid itself of Russian influence and shackles in order to embark on a progressive and democratic course of national development, Russia is hardening its long-held belligerently imperialistic policy of threatening countries in its region as well as those that have stood on the barricades of defending freedom of the captive nations.

While Ukrainian leaders are realistic in assessing their country’s ability to apply for membership in NATO now or in the near future, that application cannot be denied by anyone. Some in the West and everyone in the Kremlin have said Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO, arguing that it would destabilize global relations.

However, the question of Ukraine’s membership in NATO would be better addressed by looking at what would befall the international community if Russia fulfills it manifest destiny, re-subjugates Ukraine and the other former captive nations, and restores its empire. Would security and stability of the free world be enhanced then?

Putin Sharpens Sabers; Heralds New Jihad

In the final analysis, Vladimir Putin again demonstrated his undying commitment to actively defend Russia, rebuild its military and political strength, and restore the holy Russian empire even if it means a Russian jihad.

In a three-hour press conference (almost 24,000-word transcript) yesterday that served as a stage for his soliloquy about the past, present and future of Russia, defiant and assertive Putin warned countries near and far that he will not tolerate any military, physical, economic, literal or cyber encroachment against Russia. With deception and outright lies that Russian reporters in attendance were expected to swallow, Putin pressed his case that Russia has been encircled by enemies since the fall of the Berlin Wall that have been ceaselessly trying to vanquish Russia. Invoking typical Russian chest-beating chauvinism, he brazenly declared that he will not allow any country to declaw what he called the Russian bear.

Putin conveyed this and similar thoughts in the same evenhanded tone that he used in the summer of 2013 to warn Ukrainians that their efforts to join the European Union would lead to a catastrophe.

His most ludicrous explanations about current events surfaced when he spoke about Ukraine. It should be recalled that in February 2014, one week after the conclusion of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia invaded Ukraine – first Crimea and then the southeastern corner of the country.

Putin sees the evolution of these events differently. Indeed, he admits there is a battle in Ukraine but it is a “punitive operation.” An operation that Russia did not initiate and in his mind it did not invade Ukraine. The punitive operation was launched by Kyiv against the population of southeastern Ukraine – meaning Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

“Russian public opinion holds that what is now happening in southeast Ukraine is actually a punitive operation, but it is conducted by the Kyiv authorities and not the other way around. The self-defense fighters of the southeast were not the ones who sent troops to Kyiv. On the contrary, the Kyiv authorities amassed their military forces in the southeast of Ukraine, and are using multiple rocket launchers, artillery and fighter jets,” Putin fabricated in the course of his response to a question posed by Roman Tsymbalyuk of the Ukrainian news agency UNIAN.

The Russian public could consider the war in Ukraine as a punitive operation because of the sparse amount of true information that is available to them. They may glean something from the Internet, they may hear mothers’ bereaved laments about their KIA sons or they listen to Putin and Lavrov’s propaganda.

Putin’s masterful lying flew in the face of accumulated data that testifies that Russian mercenaries, sent from Russia and Chechnya, seized southeastern Ukraine after successfully invading and annexing Crimea. Afterward they were reinforced by Russian regular troops, tanks and artillery.

Putin’s fairy tale about what sparked this punitive action stems from his denunciation of the EuroMaidan revolution, which he calls a coup. I’ll give him that much. Evicting, ousting, expelling, or just getting rid of his lackey Yanukovych was a coup. His sudden and longed-for departure set Ukraine on a better course toward stability.

After Yanukovych wisely fled Ukraine, Putin said the new government’s leaders did not take into account southeastern Ukrainians’ disagreement with Yanukovych’s departure and the country’s new course. If anyone disagreed with it, it was the few Russian-inspired rabble rousers that ignited a full-scaled bloody Russian war vs. Ukraine for all the world to see. There was never any noticeable discontent in eastern Ukraine. As I’ve written in the past, Russian-speaking Ukrainians gave their lives during the EuroMaidan revolution and today are revered for being martyrs of the Heavenly Hundred.

“Instead of at least trying to engage in dialogue with them, Kyiv started by sending law enforcers, the police force, but when that didn’t work out, they sent in the army, and since that didn’t work out either, they are now trying to settle the issue by using other forceful methods, the economic blockade,” Putin said.

Actually, the so-called men in green without insignia who landed on Crimea and seized the Ukrainian peninsula soon began appearing in southeastern Ukraine ahead of mass infiltration by Russian soldiers and tanks from Russia. Some news sources reported recently that they’ve been seen in Belarus.

Putin said in the so-called press conference that a military solution will not bring peace to the region. He calls for dialogue but as with all previous instances of dialogue with Russia, they terminated with Russian subjugation. Even discussions about ceasefires have ended with Russian violations.

Probably in Putin’s view Tsymbalyuk had the obnoxious temerity and integrity to pointedly ask the Russian despot: “It’s an open secret that it is Russian servicemen and Russian militants who are fighting there. Question: How many Russian servicemen and units of equipment have you sent there, and how many of them have been killed in Ukraine? What would you as the Commander-in-Chief say to the families of the Russian servicemen and officers killed there?”

Putin’s closest response was to say “all those who are following their heart and are fulfilling their duty by voluntarily taking part in hostilities, including in southeast Ukraine, are not mercenaries, since they are not paid for what they do.” Someone armed this rabble with automatic weapons, APCs, tanks and surface to air missiles like the one that brought down the ill-fated Malaysian airliner killing some 300 innocent men, women and children.

Tsymbalyuk also asked about the fate of Ukrainian military pilot Nadiya Savchenko, who was clandestinely kidnapped by Russians and imprisoned in Russia, as well as other prisoners of war.

Putin preposterously replied that Savchenko is being held on charges of calling in an air strike that killed Russian journalists. She is a soldier in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and therefore a prisoner of war. Despite numerous photographs showing Russian journalists with their press insignia clearly visible on their apparel shooting at Ukrainians, Putin denied this has ever happened, saying “You can see in this audience the colleagues of our journalists – they are also your colleagues – who have died in the line of duty in southeast Ukraine. I want to stress that they did not take part in fighting for any of the sides, and they were unarmed.”

Putin then explained: “According to our law enforcement agencies, Ms. Savchenko called in artillery fire via radio. If it is reliably established during the pretrial investigation and the subsequent trial that she was not involved and is not guilty, she will be released immediately. But if they prove that she was indeed involved in the journalists’ murder, a Russian court will issue a proper ruling, as I see it, and she will serve her sentence in accordance with the verdict. However, no one has the right to hold anyone guilty of a crime on account. I mean that Russian legislation includes the presumption of innocence. So we’ll see how the pretrial investigation proceeds, and what conclusions the Russian court will make.”

In the last parliamentary elections in Ukraine, Savchenko was elected to the Verkhovna Rada from the Batkivshchya Party. Today, Lt. Nadiya Savchenko can expect to be hauled into a new Russian kangaroo courtroom and be tried on one or another trumped up accusation and convicted just to satisfy Putin’s goals and minions. That’s presumption of innocence Russian style.

As for the other Ukrainian prisoners of war, including film director Oleh Sentsov and at least 30 others, Putin said they are being held on suspicion of terrorist activity. Is this what all ethnic Ukrainians in Russia can expect? All of them will be dubbed terrorists, arrested, tried, jailed and incarcerated according to a new criminal code that criminalizes ethnic agitation.

The onetime KGB officer’s explicit clarification about Russia’s defensive posture and warnings not to tread on it emerged during this answer to a Russian reporter’s question about Crimea. The questioner asked if Russia’s annexation of Crimea led to the country’s economic problems but Putin explained the seizure of Ukrainian territory from another angle. Paraphrasing Hitler’s policy of lebensraum, Putin said Russia needed to do that to protect itself. Using the bear as a recognizable symbol of Russia, he elaborated: “You see, if we continue the analogy, sometimes I think that maybe it would be best if our bear just sat still. Maybe he should stop chasing pigs and boars around the taiga but start picking berries and eating honey. Maybe then he will be left alone. But no, he won’t be! Because someone will always try to chain him up. As soon as he’s chained they will tear out his teeth and claws. In this analogy, I am referring to the power of nuclear deterrence. As soon as – God forbid – it happens and they no longer need the bear, the taiga will be taken over.”

Rhetorically questioning if it was justified for America to seize Texas from Mexico in the mid-19th century, Putin said the west does not allow Russia to do the same, noting: “And then, when all the teeth and claws are torn out, the bear will be of no use at all. Perhaps they’ll stuff it and that’s all. So, it is not about Crimea but about us protecting our independence, our sovereignty and our right to exist. That is what we should all realize”.

Putin did not overlook NATO’s role in Russia problems. He said, “Didn't they tell us after the collapse of the Berlin Wall that NATO would not expand eastwards? But it happened immediately. Two waves of expansion. Is that not a wall? ... It’s a virtual wall,”

Putin went out on a limb and assured Russians that their national economy would rebound after the ruble went down the drain this year but offered no quick remedy for a deepening financial crisis. He’s banking on “trust me” and apparently Russians will. He blamed the economic problems on external factors and said the crisis over Ukraine was caused by the West.

He belittled the effect of the punitive sanctions instituted for Russia’s war with Ukraine, saying that they contributed about 20-25% to the problems

“Rates of growth may be slowing down, but the economy will still grow and our economy will overcome the current situation,” he said. “I believe about two years is the worst case scenario. After that, I believe growth is imminent.”

Putin weighed and measured every word that he expressed in the press conference with laser precision. His words should not be belittled, scoffed at, or overlooked. He definitely meant to say that he will defend Russia’s right to expand territorially in order to protect its independence.

Even his literary metaphors have insights about his mentality and mission. For example, this paragraph from his press conference which speaks about who he will tolerate:

“After all, the line that separates opposition activists from the fifth column is hard to see from the outside. What’s the difference? Opposition activists may be very harsh in their criticism, but at the end of the day they are defending the interests of the motherland. And the fifth column is those who serve the interests of other countries, and who are only tools for others’ political goals.”

Remember, it’s about Russia protecting its independence, its sovereignty and its right to exist at all costs.

President Obama Blinked

President Obama today signed the long-awaited Ukrainian Freedom Support Act but unfortunately it won’t have the effect that it could have had if he fulfilled all of its tenets.

What the President did today reminds me of one of President Nixon’s Captive Nations Week Proclamations, issued at the height of his détente with Russia, in which he spoke of unspecific oppression by unmentioned violators of undefined nations, completely rejecting the original purpose of the Public Law 86-90.

In his statement, Obama said that he wouldn’t institute new sanctions at this time but in the future sanctions would be calibrated in response to Russia’s actions. There is also no mention of the military aid that was in the law that was adopted by both houses of Congress.

President Obama’s paper tiger will not scare, force or coerce Putin to do anything, especially after the Russian leader’s hellfire and brimstone press conference earlier today. I’m sure the President heard Putin’s press conference or at least was brief about it and he blinked. Putin is preparing for war to defend his taiga with an American leader defending his principles and the free world with powder puffs.

Concerned Americans, especially representatives of the former captive nations who know that their ancestral homelands are imperiled by Russia, should express their displeasure with President Obama’s policy toward Russia through all means possible: telephone, fax, email, blog, tweets, some signals.

The following is his statement:

Today, I have signed H.R. 5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, into law. Signing this legislation does not signal a change in the Administration’s sanctions policy, which we have carefully calibrated in accordance with developments on the ground and coordinated with our allies and partners.  At this time, the Administration does not intend to impose sanctions under this law, but the Act gives the Administration additional authorities that could be utilized, if circumstances warranted.

My Administration will continue to work closely with allies and partners in Europe and internationally to respond to developments in Ukraine and will continue to review and calibrate our sanctions to respond to Russia's actions. We again call on Russia to end its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, cease support to separatists in eastern Ukraine, and implement the obligations it signed up to under the Minsk agreements.

As I have said many times, our goal is to promote a diplomatic solution that provides a lasting resolution to the conflict and helps to promote growth and stability in Ukraine and regionally, including in Russia.  In this context, we continue to call on Russia's leadership to implement the Minsk agreements and to reach a lasting and comprehensive resolution to the conflict which respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  We remain prepared to roll back sanctions should Russia take the necessary steps.

Ukraine Freedom Support Act 2014: Missing only President’s OK

It was an historic nail biter.

With time running out before the midnight deadline that would have shut down the government, the House of Representatives on Thursday, December 11, kept the United States of America functioning and gave Ukraine a cornucopia of essential practical war materiel and funding to help it defend itself against Russia and stabilize its democratic government.

It was the most monumental US legislation about Ukraine since the days of congressional resolutions demanding the release of Ukrainian political prisoners in the Soviet Russian prison of nations.

The last-minute marathon of mobilizing support for the legislation was spearheaded by the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, a bi-lateral group of legislators who support independent Ukraine, the Ukrainian National Information Service in Washington, DC, Ukrainian Americans and, thanks to social media, Ukrainians in Ukraine and around the world.

“Throughout more than three decades of my professional work, I have occasionally seen strong advocacy efforts on behalf of various Ukraine-related legislation, but never have I seen such intense, concentrated advocacy by the Ukrainian American community and other numerous friends of Ukraine as yesterday afternoon and evening to ensure House passage of S. 2828,” Ukrainian American Orest Deychakiwsky, senior ​​policy adviser of the US Helsinki Commission, was quoted as observing.

The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, passed by the US Senate and the House of Representatives, authorizes much needed practical American military aid and equipment with which Ukraine can defend itself against Russian aggression. It offers Ukraine funding and support for the country’s democratic development and civil society.

The legislation inevitably recognizes Russia’s culpability for invading and destabilizing Ukraine. It further notes that Russia is threatening Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which must be restored. It also personally chastises Vladimir Putin for waging war against Ukraine.

The law requires the imposition of additional sanctions on Russia, particularly on Rosboronexport, Russia’s main weapons exporter, as well as increasing licensing requirements for the sale of oil extraction technology to Russia. Any Russian company exporting weapons to Syria is also liable for sanctions. In addition, the bill contained a contingency, requiring the president to sanction Gazprom in the event that it interferes with the delivery of gas supplies to NATO members or to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

“This legislation is the result of months of bipartisan work in the House and Senate to send an unmistakable message to Vladimir Putin and the entire world that the United States fully supports the people of Ukraine in their desire to remain an independent, democratic nation. Putin’s blatant disregard for Ukraine’s sovereignty demanded a bold response, and that’s exactly what this bill provides. Ukrainians are willing to fight to defend their country against Russian aggression,” said Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Bob Corker (R-TN), a sponsor.
“This legislation will help the Ukrainians match the military and intelligence capability of the Russians, who have provided weapons and other lethal aid to separatists in Donetsk, Mariupol and other portions of eastern Ukraine. I appreciate the relentless efforts of my colleagues here in the House, including House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce and Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Eliot Engel (D-NY), to ensure Ukraine has the defense articles, services and training and intelligence information needed to defend its territory and maintain its sovereignty.  I truly believe an independent, democratic Ukraine enhances the security of the United States and offers greater economic opportunity for citizens in both countries.”
Some of the key points of the legislation are:

“It is the policy of the United States to further assist the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity to deter the Government of the Russian Federation from further destabilizing and invading Ukraine and other independent countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

“That policy shall be carried into effect, among other things, through a comprehensive effort, in coordination with allies and partners of the United States where appropriate, that includes economic sanctions, diplomacy, assistance for the people of Ukraine, and the provision of military capabilities to the Government of Ukraine that will enhance the ability of that Government to defend itself and to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of unlawful actions by the Government of the Russian Federation.”

“The President is authorized to provide defense articles, defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, crew weapons and ammunition, counter-artillery radars to identify and target artillery batteries, fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance and control equipment, tactical troop-operated surveillance drones, and secure command and communications equipment.”

“There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2015, $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2016, and $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 to carry out activities under this section.”

“The President shall instruct the United States permanent representative or executive director, as the case may be, to the relevant United Nations voluntary agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and other appropriate international organizations, to use the voice and vote of the United States to support appropriate assistance for internally displaced persons in Ukraine.”

“The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development are authorized to provide assistance in support of, and to invest in short-term solutions for, enabling Ukraine to secure the energy safety of the people of Ukraine during 2014 and 2015.

“The Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall, directly or through nongovernmental or international organizations, such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the National Endowment for Democracy, and related organizations— strengthen the organizational and operational capacity of democratic civil society in Ukraine; support the efforts of independent media outlets to broadcast, distribute, and share information in all regions of Ukraine.”

“Congress makes the following findings: The Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, signed at Washington December 8, 1987, and entered into force June 1, 1988 (commonly referred to as the ‘Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty’ or ‘INF Treaty’). This behavior poses a threat to the United States, its deployed forces, and its allies. SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that— the President should hold the Russian Federation accountable for being in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty; and the President should demand the Russian Federation completely and verifiably eliminate the military systems that constitute the violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) noted: “The US Senate stands shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with the Ukrainian government and its people against the aggression of Vladimir Putin who continues to upend the international order. Meaningful assistance for the Ukrainian people is one step closer now to becoming a reality. This legislation sends a very direct message to President Putin who must change his calculus in Ukraine and abandon this disruptive path.  The territorial integrity of Ukraine must be restored and President Putin must understand that his destabilizing actions have serious and profound consequences for his country.”

The much needed success of pro-Ukrainian legislation at the US Congress was cheered by countless in Ukraine. “It’s hard to stop the flow of thoughts regarding victory in the USA… and thanks to thousands of people, who worked for the result,” Hanna Hopko, head of Committee on Foreign Affairs in Verkhovna Rada, wrote on her Facebook.

Sen. Richard Durbin said that the Ukraine Freedom Support Act is aimed at imposing additional sanctions on Russia and curbing Russian interference.

“This legislation builds on the sanctions President Obama has issued against Russia and sends a clear message to Vladimir Putin and his allies. The United States and Ukraine have built a strong friendship and this measure would curb Russian interference as Ukraine continues to chart its own course,” the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation quoted Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) as saying today. “The forcible seizure of sovereign territory at Russian gunpoint has no place in today's world and violates long-established international norms. That Putin thinks such aggression will help lift the aspirations and talents of the Russian people is an insult to them and the world.”

“It’s critical we continue to increase pressure on Mr. Putin while deterring future Russian aggression in Ukraine,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ).  “The people of Ukraine have suffered for too long at the hands of pro-Russian separatists, who continue to threaten stability and security in the region.  This legislation is an important step towards reaffirming the United States’ commitment to helping the people of Ukraine defend themselves and preserve their territorial integrity.”
The Russians, obviously, despised the legislation and its supporters. As a matter of fact, just as with any American action in defense of Ukraine’s independence, Ukrainian political prisoners, or today’s independent development, Moscow was livid.

“The Ukraine Freedom Support Act adopted by both houses of the US Congress without debate and proper voting cannot but produce deep regret by its overtly confrontational contents,” the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in the comment.

“Once again Washington is presenting unfounded, sweeping accusations and is threatening us with new sanctions,” he said, adding that “Russia will not yield to blackmail from the United States, will not sacrifice national interests and will not allow interference into internal affairs.”

Now it’s up to President Obama, who had urged Congress not to pass the legislation. Speaking at the White House Export Council on Thursday, Obama said the legislation would be counterproductive and create divisions with Washington's European allies. He is not yet convinced that Ukraine needs military hardware and that the US should provide it.

In deciding this point, President Obama should also take into consideration America’s security and global stability if Ukraine were to be lost to Russia on his watch. What would be the balance of power if Russia re-subjugates Ukraine and soon thereafter the other former captive nations, restores the iron curtain and the prison of nations, and installs nuclear weapons across the Russian empire and its colonies from the Caucasus, to Crimea, Poland and the Baltic Sea?

A word to the wise, Mr. President, sign the Ukraine Freedom Support Act when it arrives on your desk. You can be sure that Ukrainian Americans will be telephoning, faxing, emailing, blogging, posting and tweeting their opinion that you should sign it in a momentous ceremony of Ukraine-USA partnership.

Needless Ministry Sends Wrong Message

The establishment of the Ukrainian Ministry of Information is akin to President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatseniuk shooting themselves in their feet.

Without exaggerating, Ukraine has enjoyed the support and sympathy of most of the world for decades. Today, thanks to Russia’s merciless invasion and war, Ukraine has been experiencing unprecedented support and sympathy among powerful global leaders, national legislatures and everyday citizens. The world has accepted that Russia is the imperial aggressor and invader and Ukraine the victim.

Consequently, there was no reason to establish a Ministry of Information which harkens to dictatorships’ desire to control everything that is written, broadcast and imagined about them. This plan doesn’t work the way it was intended to – never has and never will. Ministries of information quickly deteriorate to misinformation and mind control.

I am a press and journalist purist – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Exceptions can be made in times of national security but they must be adequately discussed, precisely explained, boundaries specified, duration established and termination indicated.

Ukraine’s ministry was adopted quickly, reportedly without details and debate, on December 2 as the government’s response to the avalanche of Russian propaganda that attempts to portray Ukraine as the perpetrator of the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014. I daresay that everyone around the world – except Russians and their diehard supporters who are in the miniscule minority of public opinion – know that Russia invaded Ukraine.

Press perfectionists immediately compared the ministry with George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, which in the novel was a misnomer since in reality it served the opposite of its purported namesake: it was responsible for all necessary falsifications of historical events – into which ultimately evolve all similar ministries.

Yuriy Stets, 38, a former lawmaker of the Poroshenko Bloc, who worked as chief producer at Channel 5, owned by Poroshenko, was named minister of information. According to articles in Ukrainian media, he is considered to be the president’s close ally. The fast promotion of Stets as a new minister signaled that the president strongly pushed this idea and his selection sadly confirms that cronyism still exists at the highest echelons of government.

Stets assured that the new ministry is no threat, clarifying that it will only respond to foreign information attacks by creating country’s information strategy and assist communication among state bodies. Does that mean that it will form news outlets beyond the existing “official” newspapers and the National State Radio and Television Co.?

According to Oksana Grytsenko of the Kyiv Post, Stets said the ministry was going to use budget funds only for salaries of its staff and hopes to rely on foreign donors or grant money for other expenses, which he already did working as a chief of the information department of the National Guard. I don’t think that foreign donors, especially democratic ones, would consider contributing to such a ministry.

Stets claimed he needed the new ministry because while serving in the National Guard he didn’t have enough authority to resist Russian information aggression. “Every day at schools in newly liberated territories (of eastern Ukraine) we are being called junta at schools,” he said. Why not just explain to the children? If a guardsman can’t, then a ministry in Kyiv won’t be able to do so as well.

Stets said he was ready to review the ministry’s regulations, but he couldn’t delay creation of this ministry as loss of time would mean more losses in the information war. The final approval of regulations of new ministry should be complete in the next few days, he said. 

Stets said every ministry could potentially pose risks for journalists’ ability to disseminate public information. “This ministry will no way try to impose censorship or restrict freedom of speech,” he assured. Don’t promise what may be difficult to deliver.

Grytsenko’s article also pointed out that the ministry is going to “develop and implement professional standards in media sphere,” “ensure freedom of speech” and it should also prevent harm caused to people by “incomplete, outdated or unreal information.”  

Ukrainian media and civil society joined the uproar against the ministry. An appeal signed by 10 Ukrainian journalists and distributed by “Civil Portal” – civic.org stated:

“We, the representatives of institutions involved in communication with the international audience, express our protest against the idea of creating a Ministry of Information, which was announced last week.

“Our experience with international (particularly Western) journalists, diplomats, politicians, intellectuals and officials, decision makers, shows great suspicion that our foreign partners have about Ukraine’s attempts to conduct its own ‘counter-propaganda.’ Any attempt to centrally sway public information sphere is seen by our Western partners as competing with Russia in the field of propaganda by spreading false or one-sided information. And because such attempts immediately undermine confidence in the Ukrainian information sources and to Ukraine in general. This, in turn, impairs attempts to build a new image of Ukraine as a democratic and investment favorable country where the government creates an environment for free players, rather than seeking to control these players.

“We believe that the creation of the Ministry of Information is contrary to the ideals of the Revolution of Dignity. If the Dignity Revolution sought people’s oversight of state institutions, the idea of creating a Ministry Information bears the risk of state control over society in the information sector.”

The Independent Media Trade Union criticized the establishment of the ministry saying that it is undemocratic to establish a ministry first and afterward discuss the reasoning for it.

Reporters Without Borders condemned the creation of the ministry saying that it would be a major setback for freedom of information.

“We urge parliamentarians to reject this bill on second reading, as it is incompatible with the government’s obligations to protect freedoms. International conventions ratified by Ukraine stress that any restrictions on media activity must, under all circumstances, be necessary and proportionate,” said Johann Bihr, the head of the Reporters Without Borders Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk.

The only truth in the desire to establish a Ministry of Information in Ukraine is the massive mendacious Russian propaganda machine that has been spewing lies and fabrications about Ukraine (and other Russia detractors) since before the start of the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014. But the untruths have only fallen on the minds of complacent Russians, who blindly endorse everything that Putin is doing.

Putin is attempting to have media portray him in favorable colors. To do that, he has been destroying media freedom in Russia. The Kremlin has enacted numerous media laws under Putin that criminalize libel (which has been used as a pretext to silence opposition journalists and civil society), restrict access, and otherwise curtail media freedoms. The remaining Russian journalists with integrity have been targeted with violence and even murder.

Russian journalists, newspapers and broadcasters have discredited themselves by obeying Putin’s instructions. With journalist badges on their shoulders, they have been known to pick up automatic weapons and shoot at Ukrainian soldiers and civilians rather than take notes for their so-called stories.

And the world is well aware of this.

“As part of its drive to undo the post-Cold War settlement, Russia has launched a global media campaign to vindicate its actions in Ukraine. It is based on the Kremlin’s narrative of victimhood, in which the West takes advantage of Russia’s weakness following the implosion of the Soviet Union. These arguments, however, are deeply flawed. Moreover, Russian international media do not abide by Western journalistic ethics and standards. The West, therefore, has to systematically refute this storyline and hold Russian media accountable when they transgress the prevailing norms of due accuracy and due impartiality, or give undue prominence to certain standpoints,” observed Patrick Nopens in an Edgemont Institute series on current events.

Two more examples:

“Disseminating propaganda and misinformation through media is a crucial component of Russia’s integration of soft power and hard power tools, enabling Russia to apply greater force against its adversaries. The U.S. should take robust steps to counter Russian propaganda and to safeguard Western security and the transatlantic alliance,” opined Daniel Kochis, a Research Assistant in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Finally, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt observed this past October: “Our best weapon in dealing with this, in answering this campaign of misdirection, of course, is the truth.”

Indeed. We, in the United States, have a concept called the “sunshine laws,” which means that no lie can live forever, causing harm, destruction and death with impunity. Lies will wither when confronted with truth and free media is the sunshine that wilts lies.

Ukrainian news media together with reliable journalists from around the world have been doing a fantastic job reporting about the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014, the Russian invasion Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the Russian destruction of Indonesian flight MH-17 killing nearly 300 civilians, the Russian murder by starvation of millions of Ukrainians, and so on.

The war has been going on for some nine months and throughout that period, as I have written, there has been a resolute shining light of truthfulness, facts and integrity in explaining and reporting the war: Col. Andriy Lysenko, spokesman for the National Security and Defense Council Information Center. He is professional and credible right down to the dispassionate tone of his voice. Does he toe the government’s line, yes. That’s his job. But he doesn’t embellish or lie. His evenhanded glare could vaporize Russian lies in a second. Give him more exposure rather than create a dubious bureaucratic machine whose historic mission has been to mislead.

As in all cases related to press and news media, but especially now, when Russian lies are rampant and the world’s eyes are upon Russia and Ukraine, the best weapons to fight Russian pernicious propaganda and falsehoods are truth, honesty and transparency, not by trying to beat Russia at its own game.

Finally, Ukraine has a New, Complete Leadership

In the midst of a tumultuous year, filled with instability, political upheavals and revolution, intrigue, treason, treachery, political and national rebirth, national consolidation, corruption, killings, two elections, brutal occupation of Ukrainian lands, a new government and a savage Russian war, the Ukrainian nation still has been making significant strides toward democracy, political stability, reinforcing its sovereignty and severing its chains with Russia.

And that should be the takeaway of the past 12 months.

Notwithstanding pundits’ premature, unfair grumblings and warnings about the revolution’s failure because of the erratic pace of transformations, the Ukrainian nation and its leaders understand clearly the dire consequences of defeat.

First, it would surely mean satisfying Putin’s goal of re-subjugating Ukraine in the Russian prison of nations. It would mean the return of corruption, dictatorship, russification, de-nationalization and economic stagnation. These reasons are enough to keep everyone’s – or almost everyone’s – eyes focused on that target and overcoming all obstacles.

The presidential elections in May brought to power a nationally aware, business oriented, pro-NATO and EU president. The parliamentary elections in October assembled deputies, the majority of who have the same profile. Political parties in favor of closer links to the EU and NATO won an absolute victory in the Verkhovna Rada, handing President Petro Poroshenko a mandate to end the domestic and external conflict and steer the Ukraine away from Russia’s orbit toward Europe.

In the past few months, Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk have demonstrated single mindedness in policies and ideas and the ability to lead the country without divisive, public squabbles. This mature conduct at the pinnacle of government authority is exactly what the nation needs at a time of war with Russia and domestic instability. Any sign of discord will be exacerbated by Ukraine’s internal and external enemies that are stage-managed by Russia.

Last week, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine resumed its constitutionally mandated deliberations and the first item on the agenda was the selection and adoption of a new government. Western media took note of the pervasive pomp, ceremony and expressions of unity that characterized the first day’s session.

More than two-thirds of the 450 legislators voted for Yatseniuk to remain as head of government, a post he has held since the Maidan Revolution ousted Viktor Yanukovych. Yatseniuk raised his hand to the president and declared to cheers: “Here is my hand for carrying out all that you have just said from this tribune. This is our joint responsibility,” he added before striding over to Poroshenko and warmly embracing him.

Regardless if it was staged or sincere, Ukrainian leaders are honor bound to display unity and steadfast dedication to the cause of strengthening the nation, subduing Russia, rooting out corruption and cronyism, and leading Ukraine toward acceptance by the EU.

The president and prime minister have unprecedented backing beyond the nation. The five-party coalition is expected be the most stable and powerful pro-western administration Ukraine has had in 23 years of independence, enjoying a two-thirds majority in parliament.

Poroshenko outlined a strong reformist agenda during the inaugural parliamentary session, calling for the immediate overhaul of a justice system that he decried as corrupted from the top down. He warned that the justice system’s corruption and deficiencies posed a national security risk.

“It is quite clear that the primary reason for the low standard of life of the majority of Ukrainians is the totally corrupted government apparatus,” he was quoted as saying.

He further said a successful reform program would enable Ukraine to consider applying for European Union membership within five years. With a doubt, European affiliation would give Ukraine a major economic and political shot in the arm. Even the preparation phase ahead of acceptance will benefit officials and people.

Poroshenko said Ukraine is enjoying a unique chance thanks to the responsible Ukrainian people to fulfill what he called a simple formula: “to avert the threat and use the chance.”

Emphasizing his intention to maintain amicable relations with parliament, Poroshenko said: “I am a reliable ally of the parliament in the implementation of reformatory, pro-European coalition agreement. I will be guided by the Constitution of Ukraine, which clearly, or relatively clearly, distributes powers and responsibilities. I will do everything possible for the coordinated work of Verkhovna Rada, the President and the Cabinet of Ministers.”

That is the measurement of success passionately and unequivocally demanded by the Ukrainian people.

“Our policy must be aimed at gradual movement from the country of the Revolution of Dignity to the Country of Dignity itself. I want you to remember those who sacrificed their lives for Ukraine every time you enter this hall. It is also related to me when I enter the administration on Bankova Street. You must remember those who died hundreds of kilometers away and those who died a few blocks away from here, on the Heavenly Hundred's alley. You must also remember those who are alive and need efficient governance, successful reforms, developed economy, social guarantees and justice,” Poroshenko appealed.

Yatseniuk, the 40-year-old bureaucrat from Vinnytsia, said the new government should work to pull the country back from the brink of collapse. Indeed, he has been doing a good job leading the government through hellfire and brimstone.

“On our shoulders rests the weight of historical responsibility -- to preserve the state and win our independence,” Yatseniuk told lawmakers ahead of the vote, adding, “Ukraine is at war, people are in trouble and it depends on us to stop the aggression.”

“We have faced external aggression, namely a Russian military invasion, which is nothing else than an encroachment on the territorial integrity of Ukraine and our independence. It is an attempt to destroy Ukraine. They can fight with our army and, probably, they can defeat it, but they can never defeat the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian nation,” he said.
Yatseniuk tasked the members of the Cabinet of Ministers with developing an Action Program, which will include their top three priorities for 2015 and how to implement them. He outlined his vision in hands-on terms:

“Every minister has full authority in the ministry as well as full responsibility. You are selecting your deputies, as well as managers. The parliament demands of me, I demand of you. And the Ukrainian people demand of us.

“On our further work. We will hold a special cabinet meeting on the Action Program of the Government of Ukraine. This program must meet the key goals and objectives, I emphasize once again, there are five of them.

“The first issue, national security and defense.

“The second issue, economy, reform of the tax system and reform of the single social tax.

“The third, the fight against corruption.

“The fourth, energy. We need to complete the reform of the energy system of Ukraine, most of all I worry about the deficit of the National Joint Stock Company Naftogaz Ukrainy, which exceeds the state budget deficit. While the public deficit is now UAH 68 billion, the deficit of Naftogaz UAH makes up UAH103 billion.

“And the last issue on the agenda is public administration reform.

“These five key tasks have to be in the Action Program of the Government and, dear friends, we have not time to ‘warm up,’ we only have time for specific actions as well as the results of these actions.”

• To these goals, I’d add for the record:
• Defeat, subdue and expel Russia from Ukraine.
• Complete EU accession requirements.
• Bring to justice in Ukraine all criminals, traitors and Maidan killers who fled the country.
• Formally designate Ukraine’s geopolitical alignment.
• Give oblasts, cities and local municipalities authority similar to America.

Poroshenko’s plan to appoint Ukrainians from the diaspora to serve in the government was approved. He granted citizenship to Georgia-born Aleksandr Kvitashvili to serve as health minister, US-national Natalie Jaresko, who hails from Chicago, to be finance minister, and Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavicius to serve as economics minister.

“There are absolutely extraordinary challenges facing Ukraine – an extremely difficult economic situation, Russian aggression, the need for radical reform and the fight against corruption. All this requires innovative solutions in the government,” Poroshenko explained, hopefully adding that not having been associated with Ukraine’s life may have excluded them from the country’s old-boy network.

Speaking of the law on the National Anti-corruption Bureau that will soon enter into force, Poroshenko also offered to appoint a foreign person as head of the given bureau. “This person will have one advantage – absence of ties in the Ukrainian political elite,” he noted.

On a very practical level, parliament and the cabinet are tasked with holding together a collapsing economy.

“Ukraine is in a vicious financial crisis. Threatened constantly by Russian military aggression, the country faces a financial meltdown within the next four months,” economist Anders Aslund observed in a column last week. “At the end of October, its international reserves fell to $12.6 billion, below the threshold considered critical for solvency. The hryvnia exchange rate is falling exponentially. As a consequence, most of Ukraine’s banks are collapsing. The public debt is skyrocketing and is likely to double to about 80% of GDP this year. Inflation is set to rise to 24% this year and then surge further.”

However, the new parliament will not be a lovefest. The strongest opposition to the pro-EU majority’s plans will come from discredited allies of Yanukovych and ex-members of his disgraced Regions Party, which dominated Ukrainian politics until the revolution. His former supporters heaped all the blame for the uprising and its bloody conclusion on the protesters and ousted president personally, and reconvened in a new party called Opposition Bloc.

Among newly elected leaders of the Verkhovna Rada is Volodymyr Hroysman who was elected speaker. A Jew by heritage, Hroysman, 36, is considered the third-most important post in the country after the prime minister and president, and is the first to stand in for the president if the head of state is unable to fulfill his duties. He was previously mayor of the central city of Vinnytsia and joined the government in February 2014 as deputy prime minister for regional policy. His appointed is noteworthy in the wake of Russian accusations of Ukrainian anti-Semitism.

Parliament endorsed Pavlo Klimkin to remain as foreign minister. His contributions in that capacity since the spring have been in line with nation’s view of Ukraine’s national, pro-EU & NATO vector. Colonel-General Stepan Poltorak was endorsed as defense minister. He became commander of the Ukrainian National Guard on March 19, 2014, and previously he was commander of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry's Interior Troops for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 12, 2014. He also served as superintendent of the Interior Minister Academy in Kharkiv.

An airborne officer from Lviv, however, in an email to me cautioned that Poltorak, 49, belongs to the old-boy network of technocrats, bureaucrats, diplomats and career military officers, stemming from the days when he was a captain. This fraternity does not shy away from graft and favoritism.

“It is sad that key posts are still awarded on the basis of personal loyalty rather than professional ability,” he said.

Two of the nation’s demands of their new leadership, beyond national awareness, pro-NATO and EU, and distancing Ukraine from Russia, have been political unity in the hallowed halls of government, and an end to cronyism and corruption, and transparency. Cronyism, especially, is a sin that the new officials of new Ukraine must avoid.  

Maidan ousted Yanukovych in February and sought to sweep away the corrupt and treasonous political elite. However, Ukraine’s new leaders are still viewed with suspicion by millions of compatriots who brought them to power but still question their appetite for radical change.

Fortunately there are parliamentarians who seem to be ready and willing to remind officials regularly of the people’s skepticism. Among them is Volodymyr Parasiuk, known as “sotnyk” during Maidan, one of its heroes who publicly threatened Yanukovych to leave Kyiv or else. In His Facebook post last week, he said:

“I will never let anybody besmirch the illustrious glory of Maidan. For this is the basis of our struggle and only the power, given to us at the cost of the lives by our heroes, that makes our nation move forward.

“Volodymyr Hroysman will either be a normal head of parliament or he’ll go away. Because the demand of every Ukrainian is transparency and fairness in adopting any decision. If you want to run the state – run it; want to assume responsibility for it, assume it. But you will do it correctly and not how you want to do it,” he said.

Parasiuk added that he came to the Verkhovna Rada to “break the system and I will do it any way possible and accessible for a deputy.
In a guest column in The Wall Street Journal on December 5, Poroshenko wrote: “On the external front, we are united in fighting for our freedom and for our future as an independent nation—a fight that has implications for all of Europe and global security. Domestically, the new government’s attack on inefficiency and corruption will further bind Ukrainians together. The Gospel teaches us that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. We won’t give this chance to the enemy. Day by day, Ukrainians are unifying as citizens, as governors and as Europeans.”

Ukrainian soldiers and civilians have been doing their share for Ukraine. They have been expressing their will, fighting, dying and giving their mandates. Now it’s time for the three branches of government to stand up and do their share without excuses and explanations.

Ukraine Freedom Support Act Introduced

A companion bill to S.2828, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, was introduced on Tuesday, December 3, in the House of Representatives with 10 co-sponsors (bipartisan), according to the Ukrainian National Information Service (UNIS) in Washington, DC.  HR5782 was introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, and supported by the following original co-sponsors:

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus

Rep. Jim Gerlach, co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

Rep. James Moran (D-VA)

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA)

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)

“Please contact your Member of Congress to support this bill. Time is of the essence as Congress is in session for one more week,” urged Michael Sawkiw Jr., UNIS director.

With Ukraine facing a major war that was launched against it by predatory Russia, successful passage of this bill will help President Poroshenko, Prime Minister Yatseniuk and the Ukrainian armed forces, National Guard and volunteer battalions to wage a successful counteroffensive against Russia, subdue its advances and expel it from Ukraine.

The support of all Ukrainian Americans is essential.

A Word to the Wise …

In the eight months since the start of the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014, the international community has reluctantly recognized Russia’s aggressive nature as well as its historical manifest destiny to subjugate Ukraine and the other former captive nations and restore the glory of “holy mother Russia.”

World leaders and national lawmakers have condemned Russia for invading Ukraine and occupying Crimea and eastern regions of Ukraine. The United States, Canada and European Union have instituted economic sanctions against Russia.

These comprehensive sanctions and rapidly declining oil prices have visibly hurt Russia, forcing it to issue a plea to the EU to lift sanctions in exchange for waiving counter measures but not exiting from Ukraine.

Despite daily evidence of Russia’s military escalation against Ukraine, military excursions around the world, and east European fear of Moscow’s aggression, western leaders are not taking their demands and threats against Moscow to the next level that would hopefully expel Russia from Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea. Their trepidation-laced procrastination, inactivity and rhetoric are only exacerbating the political and diplomatic situation and increasing civilian and military deaths.

The free world – and that geopolitical description has returned to relevancy today – is confounded about what to do next. Should it station more troops near Ukraine? Should it proclaim Russia an international terrorist state and expel it from global events? Should it provide Ukraine with military armament or lethal arms so it can protect itself and subdue Russian invaders?

Among several outspoken legislators, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is resolutely in Ukraine’s corner.  In an interview last week that appeared in Euronews.com, McCain urged the White House to demonstrate global leadership and stand up to Putin’s belligerence and invasion of Ukraine.

“In other words we have to have a robust policy to give the lesson, one, to Vladimir Putin that he can’t just move across Europe,” McCain said. “I said that if we didn’t stand up to Vladimir Putin and help the Ukrainians that he would move further south and consolidate his control over eastern Ukraine.”

The Arizona senator said Russia seized Crimea, solidified its positions in eastern Ukraine, moved more tanks and equipment into Ukraine, and slaughtered more than 4,000 Ukrainian soldiers.

“Are you worried about provoking Vladimir Putin? Are you crazy? Look what he’s doing? He is winning. He is, for the first time since the end of WWII a country is being dismembered in Europe and we won’t give them weapons to defend themselves. My, my! Listen those 300,000 people I saw in Maidan in sub-freezing weather, they don’t want to be part of Russia, they don’t want to see their country dismembered as is happening today and they deserve our help, by providing them with weapons. I mean, to think that we shouldn’t, and worry about provoking Vladimir Putin….”

Despite his pugnacious observations, McCain doesn’t believe that they would provoke a hot war with Russia.

“I know of no scenario where that would happen. But wouldn’t it be nice if these people who are having their homeland invaded to have some weapons with which to defend themselves.” he suggested.” I would like to see the Europeans, particularly through NATO, provide the Ukrainians with weapons with which to defend themselves from Russian aggression. He’s now got control of eastern Ukraine. In recent days he’s moved more tanks and equipment into Ukraine and he’s going to take Mariopul, so he has a land bridge to Crimea. Then he will be contemplating what kind of price he has to pay to move over to Moldova.”

Canada, among other US allies, is similarly on board with verbal and practical support. Its Defense Minister Rob Nicholson has called on Russia to get out of Ukraine, saying that what’s happening there is “completely unacceptable.” Ottawa is providing Ukrainian troops with millions of dollars of aid, including winter wear.

US military commanders comprehend the renewed global threat posed by Russia. General Philip Breedlove, four-star US Air Force general who serves as commander, US European Command, as well as the 17th Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Allied Command Operations, has been warning of Russia adventurism since before the start of the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014.

Breedlove believes that US and NATO must enhance their military presence in Europe because of Russia’s belligerence.

“Because of the increased pressure that we feel in Eastern Europe now, and because of the assurance measures that we are taking in the Baltics, in Poland and in Romania, we require additional rotational presence. What we are doing is working with the Army and other services to use their regionally aligned forces to get them forward, to get their experience forward, to bring that capability to interact with our partners and allies,” he said.

Breedlove told Department of Defense News that among the challenges faced by the European military command is a revanchist Russia.

Noting the recent uptick in Russian air incursions over Europe, Breedlove said, “What is significant is that across history, most of these incursions have been very small groups of airplanes, sometimes singletons or at most, two aircraft. What you saw this past week was a larger, more complex formation of aircraft carrying out a little deeper -- and I would say a little bit more provocative -- flight path.”

He criticized the Ukraine-Russia border as being wide open and completely porous with “Russian equipment, resupply, training flows back and forth freely across that interborder space.”

Breedlove earlier this month strongly warned that Russia is seeking to militarize Crimea. He said Moscow’s actions are forcing the West to beef up its military capabilities, and it is discussing plans to put aircraft in Ukraine’s Crimea region that have a full range of capabilities, including possibly tactical nuclear weapons.

“Hybrid war is what we are coming to call what Russia has done clearly in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine,” Breedlove indicated, saying that Moscow has brought military, political and economic pressure on Ukraine, eroding the border and shifting it toward a line of demarcation further west. “I’m concerned that the conditions are there that could create a frozen conflict,” one that creates a new reality.

A frozen conflict would be devastating for Ukraine, potentially mirroring the one that exists in the Middle East with random urban terrorist attacks, bombing and drive-by shootings taking countless innocent lives from Luhansk to Lviv.

Breedlove, speaking later in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia, said: “What worries me the most is that we have a situation now that the former international border between Ukraine and Russia is completely porous, it is completely wide open.”

He added: “Forces, money, support, supplies, weapons are flowing back and forth across this border completely at will and that is not a good situation.”

“Across the last two days we have seen the same thing that OSCE is reporting. We have seen columns of Russian equipment – primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops – entering into Ukraine,” Breedlove said. "I am concerned about the increased movement."

During his all-important visit to Ukraine last week, when he met with President Poroshenko and other top officials, Breedlove emphasized the strategic importance of Crimea, saying at a press conference: “We are very concerned with the militarization of Crimea. The capabilities that are being installed in Crimea will bring an effect on almost the entire Black Sea.”

He said cruise and surface-to-air missiles on the peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in March, could be used to “exert influence” over the strategic region.

Russian militarization of Crimea and the Black Sea region will pose definite, amplified problems for Turkey, Greece, the European Union, NATO as well as Ukraine and destabilize the region. Polish news media took note of Breedlove’s comments about Russia’s militarization of Crimea, saying that it could lead to Moscow’s expansion throughout the eastern European and Black Sea region.

While in Ukraine, Breedlove made his boldest warning, saying that Russia has enough troops along Ukraine’s border to mount a major incursion and Moscow is using its military might to affect political developments inside Ukraine. He said a large number of Russian troops are active inside Ukraine, training and advising separatist rebels.

“We are going to help Ukraine’s military to increase its capacities and capabilities through interaction with US and European command,” Breedlove said, adding that it “will make them ever more interoperable with our forces.”

Another high-ranking military professional, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling (ret.), who commanded the 1st Armored Division and US Army Europe before retiring in 2013, has advocated more aid for Ukraine. He said in a recent interview with Army Times:

“My military background has taught me that those who adapt during conflict the fastest, tend to survive. Ukraine is adapting, and fast. Faster than they have in the past.

“They are no longer talking about gradual change, eradication of corruption, elimination of the old guard, budget reform, and military transformation. They have developed plans to do all these things, and they have a group of young mavericks who are smart and up to the task of leading and acting. War and the specter of potential destruction provide a passion and energized focus that quickly overcomes inertia.

“We must help them. Vice President Biden also visited Ukraine in November, and while he likely did not give Ukraine all the support they need, I sincerely hope he has offered more support in a variety of areas. The U.S. needs to continue actively supporting Ukraine, even as we are faced with other crisis.

“We must expand economic sanctions against Russia. We must find new ways to counter the information campaign Mr. Putin is waging. We must influence NATO and EU nations to make the continued hard choices that show Mr. Putin we stand united in not allowing this attack on a sovereign nation to stand. And, we must increase our training, advising, and assisting Ukraine's military in the face of bold aggression.”

Indeed, one aggressive response by NATO could be a new fast-reaction force, considered the centerpiece of its response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Unfortunately, it is proving harder to set up than expected because of shortages of vital equipment and arguments over funding. NATO leaders meeting in Wales in September agreed on a new “spearhead” force of up to 5,000 ground troops with air, sea and special forces support as part of a plan to reassure eastern European allies nervous about Russia’s actions in Ukraine. NATO leaders envisioned a force able to quickly reinforce eastern Europe in case of trouble. Some units would be ready to move in two days, compared with the five needed by NATO’s current response force.

“We’ve found that standing up that capability has more difficulty involved than perhaps the alliance expected when it took the decision at Wales,” Britain’s ambassador to NATO, Adam Thomson, was quoted as saying. “We have moved so far away from the capabilities that the alliance developed for collective defense through the Cold War.”

Faced with the prospect of having to defend themselves, Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland are planning a joint brigade that will provide an opportunity for Ukraine to learn from Lithuania’s and Poland’s experience of NATO integration and to develop efficient armed forces.

The plan grew out of a meeting between Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and Poroshenko. Grybauskaite, a staunch supporter of Ukraine, announced that Lithuania would be providing Ukraine with military aid, but did not specify if this would include weaponry or be of the non-lethal kind.
Contrast these calls for aid for Ukraine with knee-jerk appeals for Ukraine to settle the crisis with Russia expressed last week.

John Thornhill in the Financial Times wrote that Ukraine and west must offer Russia a deal to end the war. Nikolas Kozloff opined in Huffington Post that Ukrainians should reconsider their Cossack (sic) pride in dealing with Russia. Samuel Charap said in Foreign Policy that it’s high time for Ukraine to bargain for peace with Russia. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy suggested the solution to the conflict in Ukraine can be the federalization and decentralization of the country. 

All of these are examples of panic talk by officials and pundits who do not have any creative ideas in their minds except not wanting to embarrass Russia by forcing it to concede defeat in Ukraine.

The onus of a solution must not be placed on Ukraine, which did not invade Russia. Ukraine is the victim not only of this Russian invasion but of nearly 400 years of Russian occupation, persecution and russification.

The free world must force Russia to admit its flawed scheme, withdraw its army from Ukraine, cease aiding its mercenaries and pay reparations. The free world must support Ukraine at all levels to accomplish this, including increasing sanctions at a time when the Russian economy is tumbling every day.

However, NATO boots on the ground is not a viable option because it would be dangerous especially if a Russian regular soldier or mercenary were to shoot and kill an American soldier. The ramifications would be too difficult to imagine.

It would be unjust if Ukraine were to be forced to compromise. Once and for all, the free world must muster all of its political and moral strength, and loudly, in unison confront Putin for his aggression and stare him down to submission.

A popular contemporary rhetorical question asks what would happen if the free world were to step up its support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia? A more practical question would be is what would happen to the free world if Ukraine and the other former captive nations were re-subjugated by Moscow? Which way would the balance of power pendulum then swing?

Russia’s crimes have been exposed for everyone to see and a word to the wise about the scope of support for Ukraine should suffice.