US and Ukraine Officials: Russia must Withdraw

Ukrainian and US officials have been expressing similar if not identical comments and analyses about Ukraine and the war that Russia predictably launched against it. This war has created for the first time in history the basis for a mutually-reinforcing political partnership between Kyiv and Washington.

Without remorse and fear of retribution, Putin has been caught red-handed invading Ukraine from the south – Crimea – and the east – Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts with the sole purpose of subduing and re-subjugating it. Secession of two regions is not Moscow’s goal. Washington, to its credit, sees Russian withdrawal from Ukraine as a prerequisite for reestablishing peace and stability in the region.

During a UN Security Council meeting last month, US Ambassador Samantha Power forthrightly declared that the war in Ukraine, just like the invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea, was planned and carried out by Russia, emphasizing Moscow’s paramount role not some self-styled rebels in Ukraine that no one ever heard of before espousing a cause that had never been earlier proclaimed.

“And no country should support carving off pieces of sovereign Ukraine and handing them to the aggressors. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is non-negotiable,” Power said. Yes, territorial indivisibility goes hand-in-hand with independence and sovereignty.

The US permanent representative praised Ukraine for showing “remarkably good faith” in sticking to its commitments. In accordance with the Minsk accords, and “notwithstanding the aggression against the state by the separatists and by Russian forces,” Power said the Verkhovna Rada adopted legislation granting certain regions in eastern Ukraine special status that includes greater self-governance, economic control, and Russian language rights.

Despite the shortcomings of the Minsk agreement that she cited, the point that Power emphasized is Ukraine’s political and diplomatic astuteness and maturity in dealing with Russian aggression at the negotiating table.

Power then threw the gauntlet at Moscow’s feet by saying it’s Russia’s turn to match Ukraine’s sophistication.

“Russia must immediately withdraw all of its forces and equipment from Ukraine, including Crimea, and cease all forms of support and training for separatist groups. Russia and the separatists it backs must release all of their hostages and prisoners. Russia must finally close its borders to the flow of soldiers, separatists, tanks, artillery, and other machinery of war, and it must grant Ukraine control over its own border. Russia and the groups it backs must create an environment that allows the OSCE to fulfill its monitoring and verification mandate,” Power said.

Power’s demand that Russia withdraw from Ukraine is not only an admission of Moscow’s culpability in this invasion but also the listing of priorities for reestablishing peace in the region.

Ukraine’s Ambassador to the US, Olexander Motsyk, who earlier in his diplomatic career was assigned to the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the UN, wrote in a frank statement that was circulated across social media earlier this month that Russia invaded Ukraine. Motsyk noted that in the past two decades, since declaring independence, Ukrainians have reached compromise without bloodshed – indeed, compromise was reached regarding commercial, political or diplomatic matters but in war it’s dangerous to compromise. “We’re a peaceful nation that wants to have the right to decide its destiny independently and to have good relations with all other states,” he wrote.

Motsyk placed responsibility for restoring peace in the region on Russia’s departure from Ukraine: “There’s no doubt that the conflict was brought to Ukraine from the outside by Russian mercenaries and servicemen of Russia’s regular army. Therefore, peace will return to our state as soon as the last foreign aggressor leaves our land and the territorial integrity of our state is restored.”

If Russia remains, the invasion and war will continue and with it the threat of Russian aggression spreading across Ukraine to the border with Poland.

Motsyk pointed out that Ukrainians are on the frontline of what he described as a war between western democratic values and Russia’s expansionist policy, in other words between good and evil. “The Ukrainian people defend not only themselves, but also Europe in which we see our future,” he wrote.

He urged the US and EU not only to maintain sanctions, which “represent the tool to achieve stability and peace in Ukraine,” but also to intensify them “until thus goal is reached.”

However, Motsyk overextended his wishes when he unrealistically stated that Ukraine is ready to reboot relations with Russia, which he called its “strategic trading partner.” Rebooting, perhaps, is an incorrect concept because Russia’s war erased the past. In 10 months Moscow reaffirmed its age-old belligerent policy regarding Ukraine and the other x-captive nations. Its aggression means that Ukraine and Russia must establish a new normal based on new treaties with the internationally guaranteed assurance that Moscow will keep its army at a safe distance from the Ukrainian border.

“The current conflict makes all sides lose. Our conditions are simple and legitimate: adherence to international law, respect of sovereignty and restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The conflict can be and has to be resolved by diplomatic means. Everything will depend on practical steps by the Russian leadership,” he said.

By diplomatic means, Motsyk and other officials should repeat ad infinitum that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine. Then diplomacy can begin.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin repeated Kyiv’s belief that Ukrainians, by defending themselves against Russian aggression, are, in fact, defending Europe from a potential Russian attack.

Insisting that the EU should not accept Russian organized elections in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, Klimkin correctly said they would create “frozen zones” in Ukraine that would destabilize and endanger Europe.

Klimkin, speaking to Reuters during a visit with EU and NATO officials in Brussels last week, said Moscow should dissuade its separatists from holding their own elections next month. He said local Ukrainians would do better to vote in local elections organized by Kyiv in December.

These “fake elections” organized by leaders of Russian terrorists’ republics would, Klimkin continued, reinforce the appearance that eastern Ukraine is becoming a long-term “frozen conflict” like Transdnistria or Abkhazia, Moscow-backed breakaway regions of former-Soviet Moldova and Georgia.

“A frozen conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk, let us not have any illusions, could not be stabilized as for example Transdnistria or Abkhazia ... It would bring us more instability, more detribalization, not only for the whole of Ukraine but for the whole of Europe,” Klimkin said.

A perpetual ceasefire that would establish an untenable status quo between Ukraine and Russia’s occupation forces in Luhansk and Donetsk would not bring peace to the region. This type of solution has not succeeded anywhere. Ukraine would be subject to terrorist attacks from the river Don to the Carpathian Mountains. Ukrainians in Ternopil and Lviv would have to endure bombings and drive-by shootings by Russian terrorists who infiltrate western Ukraine from their bases in Luhansk, Donetsk or even Crimea just like Israelis in their country.

The solution to the war cannot be a simple truce, which would offer false security for the likes of Angela Merkel, who would accept anything that would assure Germany of continued good, profitable relations with Russia. As Motsyk and Power indicated, peace will come to Ukraine and the region after Russia withdraws from Ukraine and signs an internationally guaranteed non-aggression treaty with Ukraine.

Additional pleas, explanations or expectations about what Moscow or Kyiv can and should do are meaningless.

Australian Sellout – Putin to Attend G20

Most of us will remember for a long time where we were the moment we learned that the Russians shot down Malaysian flight MH17 over Ukraine, killing nearly 300 men, women and children. I was in a staff meeting at UN DPI/NGO.

Leaders of democratic countries and average men and women on the street expressed their outrage at Moscow’s latest crime against humanity. President Obama, Prime Minister Harper of Canada, Prime Minister Cameron and others conveyed their shock, horror and condemnation over Moscow’s wanton destruction of innocent lives during a war it launched just as cruelly against Ukraine.

The harshest condemnation came from Prime Minister of Australia Tony Abbott.

“Australia takes a very dim view of countries which facilitate the killing of Australians, as you’d expect,” Abbott said. “The idea that Russia can wash its hands of responsibility because this happened in Ukrainian airspace just does not stand serious scrutiny.”

Abbott suggested that Putin’s attendance at the November G20 meeting would hinge on Russia’s unequivocal support for an investigation, saying Australia would wait and see what next unfolded.

“Australia is a self-respecting country,” he said. “Visitors to this country are people who have done the right thing by this country.”

Abbott stated: “The idea that Russia can wash its hands of responsibility because this happened in Ukrainian airspace just does not stand serious scrutiny. This is not something that can just be dismissed as a tragic accident when you have Russian proxies using Russian-supplied equipment.”

He also said: “This looks less like an accident than a crime and if so the perpetrators must be brought to justice.”

Putin did not do anything to absolve himself and atone for his crimes.

In the ensuing three months memory of the murdered Australians faded into oblivion and Abbott and the world returned to business as usual. Now Canberra is even allowing the Russian despot Putin to enter Australia and attend as an equal among equals the G20 meeting in Brisbane on November 15-16.

Like Pontius Pilate, Abbott explained his duplicity by blaming his G20 colleagues: “It’s not Australia’s right to say yes or no to individual members of the G20.”

The Australian press quoted Abbott as offering lame excuses that there were many aspects of Russia’s foreign policy he was not happy with and he deplored its “blatant aggression” towards its “smaller, weaker, neighbor” Ukraine.

“Obviously we had the MH17 atrocity earlier this year where 38 Australians were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment, so there is much to deplore in Russia’s foreign policy,” Abbott said quoting himself.

“But the G20 is an international gathering that operates by consensus. It’s not Australia’s right to say yes or no to individual members of the G20. Russia is a member of the G20 and as such, we’re obliged to accept the Russian leader in this country.”

Australia is the sovereign of its own land and can decide who can visit it, as Abbott said directly after the historic catastrophe. It can even propose to change the venue of the G20 meeting – anything to show its disdain with Putin and his criminal policies.

With the remaining G20 member sitting quietly about Putin’s attendance at the meeting, Australia has been set up as the fall guy. Gladly they’ll allow international heat – as much as will be generated by indignant righteous average citizens – to scorch Abbott while they wistfully stand by watching.

And that’s what international affairs are all about. No morality, just interests and excuses. Imagine inviting Hitler to an international meeting 70 years ago in the height of World War II? Have the rules of international relations changed that drastically?

As expected, Ukrainian Australians have voiced their anger at Abbott’s duplicity.

“In the future, world leaders will greatly regret appeasing Putin – the greatest threat to international order and prosperity and Western values. It is a huge mistake, as Putin has repeatedly shown that he will take a marathon when given a millimeter,” Stefan Romaniw, president of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organizations, said. “Given he has ignored or mocked all diplomatic entreaties to date, it is spin to suggest that the G20 is the right forum at which to make Putin accountable for his actions. All it does is legitimize Putin, rather than criticize him. If someone suggests that the G20 is an economic forum, why admit as a peer someone who is acting against G20 aims by singlehandedly destroying the economy of his own country and neighboring countries, and wielding gas supply as a political weapon.”

For the next month or so, Abbot and his 18 democratic G20 colleagues should look at Putin’s face in newspapers and magazines. They should study his smug, arrogant, obnoxious, sneering image and understand that they’ll be looking at it in person for two days next month. Some will rub elbows with him, others will stand next to him for the group photo as if nothing happened. But Putin’s demeanor, eyes, gestures, words will be mocking them with the words: “I won, you lost. You can’t hurt me. I can do whatever I want. I can invade, kill, disregard international treaties. And you’ll still accept me and treat me as one of your own.”

You should be proud of yourselves.

Surely the Ukrainian Australian community will not sit by passively. They and Australians of x-captive nations’ descent should throw Abbot and his supporters out during the next elections.

Ukraine’s Porous Border Must be Sealed

It’s about time that Kyiv began to seriously talk about building a secure border around Ukraine – thanks to Russia’s invasion. For 23 years since independence any consideration about a delimitation between Ukraine and Russia was put off due to indecision, incompetence, carelessness, criminal negligence or treason.

The frontier between Ukraine and Russia has become so porous that Russian mercenaries and troops, accompanied by artillery and tanks, penetrated it with ease, launching a brutal, bloody war to conquer and re-subjugate Ukraine.

Not only is a fortified perimeter absent, but the US has also criticized security and international monitoring of the so-called frontier region, condemning it as “grossly inadequate.” US Ambassador to the OSCE Daniel Baer last week called for a greater mandate for the OSCE to monitor the border.

“The current (OSCE) observation mission has access to about 1 km of the international border,” Baer complained.

“We call on Russia to engage immediately with Ukraine and the OSCE to implement monitoring and verification of the international border as agreed in Minsk, to include restoring Ukrainian control over its side of the border, and a heavy weapons-free buffer zone on either side of the border,” Baer said.

He also urged Russia to fulfil its other Minsk commitments – which realistically are as porous as the border is – namely to use its influence with the separatists to end truce violations, withdraw all military personnel and equipment from Ukraine and release all hostages. Putin has not lived up to any of its tenets.

Speaking to border guards at a Ukrainian State Border Guard Service Base in Kyiv last week, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland emphasized the important role played by this military unit in defending Ukraine’s border.

“As Ambassador Pyatt said, today Ukraine is asserting its independence, securing its international borders, and reaffirming its democratic, united, European choice. And in this struggle to achieve your objectives, the objectives of the Ukrainian people, that you have struggled so hard for this year, and that some have lost their lives for, it is the State Border Guards who are on the front line of reestablishing Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Nuland said.

Indeed, while the Ukrainian regular army, the National Guard and volunteer para-military units are engaged in hand-to-hand combat with Russian regulars and mercenaries, border guards are standing watch along the frontier struggling to keep more enemy soldiers and armor from crossing into Ukraine. Unfortunately, as the ongoing war is demonstrating, the border guards are fighting a difficult if not losing battle.

Nuland went on to say that Ukraine and the US signed agreements that deepen bilateral partnership with the Ukrainian Border Guards. She said the US will provide Ukraine with $10 million in body armor, protective gear for personnel, up-armored SUVs, patrol vehicles and thermal vision devices for the border guards.

According to her, the US has been working with the Ukrainian border service for more than a decade, working on nuclear nonproliferation, stopping crime, stopping smuggling, training your border guards and maritime units. With an enemy such a Russia breathing down Ukraine’s spine, that is turning out to be fatally insufficient. More support and aid are needed to keep Ukraine independent.

“But today this partnership is even more existential. It’s about Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign state, something that is deeply in the interest of the United States,” Nuland added, correctly noting that Ukraine’s existence is at stake in Russia’s war with it and a unfortified border does not help Ukraine protect itself against Russian aggression.

“In addition, we’ll also be providing $1.4 million for the State Export Control and Border Security services, and $15 million from our Defense Threat Reduction Agency for scanners, for communications equipment, for patrol vessels, and for vehicles that support the border guards as you do your work on land, on sea, and in the air,” she said.

In a warmly touching conclusion, Nuland pledged that Washington would stand with Ukraine as it strengthens its border.

“I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the American people to thank each and every member of the Border Guard who serves so bravely for the Ukrainian people and helps them to sleep better at night. We are your partners and we’re proud to be so, and this partnership will continue,” she said.

Some pundits have ridiculed the idea of a reinforced brick and mortar border between Ukraine and Russia because a daring, mighty enemy can work around it if it sets it mind to do so. Nonetheless, a national perimeter like the Maginot Line, the Great Wall of China, or the border between North and South Korea would at least cause the enemy to pause before invading Ukraine and not roll across an unmarked, unsecured frontier like a welcome mat. Ukraine today and for the near future cannot afford to have a US-Canada-type border with Russia.

Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk announced at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, October 8, that Ukraine will spend about $83.5 million to build a wall along the 2,000 km land border with Russia.

Emphasizing that regaining control of the frontier with Russia is a key point of Ukraine’s peace plan, Yatseniuk said the government has already allocated $15.3 million for project. After all, a popular folk expression points out that strong fences make good neighbors, and that is a desired objective of the EU worrywarts.

The project, which Kyiv launched last month in a bid to “cut off Russian support for insurgents in eastern regions,” includes installing fortifications and assembling barriers, such as barbed wire and fences with motion sensors and infrared cameras, along the border with Russia. It is expected to be completed by April 2015.

Despite criticism and concern for flora and fauna, the plan is not absurd as some have said. It is a practical solution that will perhaps not ensure peace but will at least delay another Russian war with Ukraine. It would define Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and give the people a sense of confidence and safety. The EU and the x-captive nations should contribute to the wall’s construction because, after all, it would also serve as their eastern security perimeter.