Zelenskyy Hopes for Best with Biden and with Ukrainian Americans’ Help

President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy is hoping that the inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th President of the USA will strengthen US-Ukraine relations.

Apparently the Ukrainian chief executive is still nurturing some sour taste after President Trump played favorites with his counterpart Vladimir Putin of Russia while slighting Kyiv.

In an interview with The New York Times on Monday, December 21, Zelenskyy said “New President Joe Biden … even before his presidency he had, so to speak, deep relations with Ukraine and understands Russians well, understands the difference between Ukraine and Russia well and I think understands the mentality of Ukrainians well. This will greatly help strengthen these relations, help settle the war in Donbas and end the occupation of our territory. The United States can help.”

Nonetheless, Zelenskyy has also not abandoned hope that the American people will continue to support Ukraine and won’t allow anti-Ukrainian rhetoric by any US officials. “America is actually showing its support, and we are grateful for the sanctions policy – it is serious. Both the Crimean sanctions and the Nord Stream were strategically important for us. And it was very difficult,” Zelenskyy said in the interview.

Zelenskyy chose to thank Donald Trump and his Administration for the support that Ukraine enjoyed. “I am grateful for the fact that Ukraine has become a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner, for all the sanctions against Russia, and for training with NATO. Our relationship does not end. As for the economy, I think that these relations were not enough,” he said.

He believes that Biden’s messages regarding the concept of a global strategic vision of security in Europe are important for Ukraine. “Because if we talk about security in Europe, the only war in Europe today is the war in Donbas. This is a war, a war of Ukraine,” he said.

Zelenskyy noted that Biden’s inclusion in the Normandy format negations regarding Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory would benefit the process because he understands the issues of Ukraine and Russia.  “He spoke about security in Europe, and thirdly, we believe that it is not enough to talk simply about the end of the war," Zelenskyy said.

Zelenskyy also expects Washington’s support for reintegrating Russian-occupied Donbas.

“We need the reintegration of Donbas. And to reintegrate Donbas, you need strong companies, strong technology, security and money. And here, I think, we will not cope alone. We are planning a free economic zone in Donbas, so that there are certain preferences for business to enter. And here the United States of America could play a key role. Well, we understand that the United States today is a guarantor of security in the world, a serious strategic player, so such steps could accelerate the end of the war in Donbas and the beginning of large-scale construction, large-scale reintegration of Donbas,” he said.

The United States could also play a positive, pro-Ukraine role in temporarily occupied Crimea, Zelenskyy continued. “We are now creating a Crimean platform and, of course, we would like to see in it those countries that will be key players, key guarantors of the return and de-occupation of Crimea. Return of Crimea and our territorial integrity. And the United States could be a leader in this direction," he explained.

In truth be told, while Trump did not favor Ukraine and hardly said a positive word about its independence and presidents, for the past four years Washington did not slight Kyiv. The US did provide Ukraine with military supplies and Russia was sanctioned for its criminal actions. Indeed, Americans support Ukraine over Russia but, it must be emphasized, that this is only due to the diligent work of Ukrainian Americans lead by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and the Ukrainian National Information Service in Washington.

For some 100 years – obviously before Ukraine declared its independence from Russia – the Ukrainian American community has been building durable relations with senators, congressmen and their appointees about the global importance of supporting an independent Ukraine. It can safely be said that any congressional district with even a handful of Ukrainian Americans will be regularly deluged with information about Ukraine, its past fight for independence, the Holodomor, and the current Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-20. The message has been clear and to the point: Without a strong, independent Ukraine, there will be no possibility of regional and global peace and security.

As I’ve written before, quoting from Roman Olesnicki’s article in the inaugural edition of The Ukrainian Quarterly, “It remains for us, who either came from Ukraine, or have strong ties with Ukraine, to point out to the various authors of peace plans when and where they have erred, so as to forestall in time, if at all possible, the creation of a new boiling cauldron in Eastern Europe, which would be incompatible with a durable peace … It is therefore a duty for all those of us, who through birth or descent have roots in Ukraine, to warn that no durable peace can come out of another injustice committed on Ukraine.”

Don’t worry, President Zelenskyy, we, Ukrainian Americans, have Ukraine’s back.

Another UN Resolution on Crimea; Russia Unfazed

The United Nations has again adopted a resolution urging Russia to immediately withdraw its soldiers from Crimea and end its illegal occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula.

The letter and spirit of the resolution set the degree of criminality for Russia’s transgressions at a level that requires some form of punishment. It emphasized that the presence of Russian troops in Crimea “is contrary to the national sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and undermines the security and stability of neighboring countries and the European region.”

In other words, Russia committed a crime just like any gangster who robs a bank. For these words to have an effect on Russia and other international criminals, they have to be followed up by action or else the perpetrators will continue to participate in global meetings with impunity, shaking hands and smiling.

This statement is a welcome development but Russia, a founder of the United Nations and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, arrogantly remains entrenched in its aggression against a foreign country.

The UN General Assembly on Monday, December 7, urged Moscow in no uncertain terms to immediately withdraw its army from Ukrainian lands. This demand repeats the UN’s previous designation of Russia, the age-old enemy and oppressor of Ukraine, as the “occupying power.”

That first of 21 UN demands, reads as follows: “Urges the Russian Federation, as the occupying Power, immediately, completely and unconditionally to withdraw its military forces from Crimea and end its temporary occupation of the territory of Ukraine without delay.”

The vote was 63-17 with 62 abstentions, close to the vote on a similar resolution adopted last year.

The resolution, which is not legally binding but reflects censure by the international body, was supported by Western nations and their allies and opposed by Russia and its allies including China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Syria.

The resolution condemned the ongoing temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine, namely, Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russia, and reaffirmed that Moscow’s annexation is not recognized. It affirmed that “the seizure of Crimea by force is illegal and a violation of international law," and said it must be “immediately returned.”

The resolution noted that the invasion and occupation of Crimea is a violation of the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the so-called Budapest Memorandum, of December 5, 1994, (see my previous blog on the worthlessness of this document) because the signatories, including Russia, agreed not to threaten or use force against specifically Ukraine. The signatories stated they would respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. So much for Russian assurances. The UN suggested that Russia once more demonstrated that international borders are mere lines on a globe that it can violate any time it wishes to do so.

Noting the possibility of Russia converting the former resort island into a military compound, the UN reiterated its “grave concern over the progressive militarization of Crimea,” and its transfer of advanced weapon systems “including nuclear-capable aircraft and missiles, weapons, ammunition and military personnel to the territory of Ukraine.” It urged Russia “to stop such activity without delay.”

The resolution condemned Russia’s use of seized Ukrainian military industry enterprises in Crimea, called on Moscow to stop its efforts to extend jurisdiction over nuclear facilities and material in Crimea. It further condemned Russia’s construction of warships in Crimea and called on Moscow to refrain from impeding lawful navigation under international law in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

Casting a dark shadow on Moscow’s policy of military indoctrination of youth, the resolution insisted that the Kremlin refrain from “establishing educational institutions that provide combat training to Crimean children with the stated aim of training for military service in the Russian armed forces, to refrain from establishing combat training courses at Crimean schools and to cease efforts to formally incorporate Crimean educational institutions into the ‘military-patriotic’ education system of the Russian Federation.”

The resolution further decried Russia’s conscription of residents of Crimea including those with Ukrainian citizenship.

In order to build international support for its resolution and sanctions against Moscow, the UN appealed to all 193 member-states, as well as international organizations and specialized agencies, to refrain from visiting Crimea that is not agreed with Ukraine. Unfortunately, in addition to Putin and other Russian officials, some Western European leaders have also done so.

Despite Russia’s intransigence, it is nonetheless significant that the United Nations officially condemned Russia as an “occupier” of foreign lands just like Nazi Germany and other tyrannical empires.  This resolution casts a different light on Moscow’s crimes, which now cannot be regarded as its internal matters. Its crimes have crossed over into the “near abroad.” Moscow has turned the world into its domain but the UN, among others, has caught it red handed. Just like the albatross in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” the UN action stigmatizes Russia, Moscow, the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin and all successive leaders as global criminals.

The resolution sends a clear message to Russia and Putin that as “occupying authorities” they are responsible for the persecutions and violations of the human rights of the residents of Crimea and are subject to the same kind of justice that the Nazis faced. This type of criminal behavior is not tolerated in municipalities and it shouldn’t be tolerated on a global scale because, as history has shown, it will give rise to depraved tyrants like Hitler.

Budapest Memorandum – Who Won? Not Ukraine

On December 5, in the year 1994, almost three years to the day after Ukrainians overwhelmingly ratified their country’s Declaration of Independence of August 24, 1991, the Ukrainian nation, which had never enjoyed genuine understanding and support in the face of adversity from allies and non-allies, was disarmed, bloodied and left to its own devices on the doorstep of its age-old enemy, Russia.

Weak and struggling to solidify its newly secured independence, Ukraine, the third largest nuclear power at the time, was faced with a predicament about how to ensure its independent longevity as the free-world, Russian and non-aligned vultures circled overhead. While rich in natural resources, Ukraine’s grandfathered Soviet nuclear arsenal, much of which it had developed and built, was its only ace in the hole. Many in Ukraine and the free world believed that its nuclear weapons even of dubious effectiveness, but like a loaded or unloaded pistol concealed in a coat pocket, could help Kyiv negotiate successfully with Moscow and Washington.

It is well know that Russia never favored an independent Ukraine and wanted to return it to its realm. Washington, at best a fair weather friend which if push came to shove would reluctantly support Kyiv’s independence, was interested in a non-nuclear Ukraine. As for its independence and security, a faux version of free Ukraine would be acceptable to Washington.

In order to assuage Ukraine’s concerns, the nuclear powers said they’d protect Ukraine from foreign aggression. Mind you, one of the guarantors was Ukraine’s primary oppressor.

But Ukraine ultimately gave in and signed what has come to be known as the Budapest Memorandum thereby surrendering its nuclear weapons to Moscow. Ukrainian patriots were stunned.

Three years ago, Euromaidan Press noted that almost immediately after signing the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Budapest, Hungary, on December 5, 1994, then-President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, of all people, commented, “If tomorrow, Russia goes into Crimea, no one will raise an eyebrow. Besides… promises, no one ever planned to give Ukraine any guarantees.”

The issue pertained to guarantees or assurances real or perceived in the memorandum.

First at the White House

Looking through my files of 26 years ago, I saw that what was written then has evolved into what we see happening in Ukraine today. Russia invaded and seized Crimea in 2014 and then launched a war in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts in eastern Ukraine – treaties and memoranda notwithstanding. Russia is waging a bloody war against Ukraine that has no end in sight. The goal? Re-subjugation of Ukraine. Yes, the free world raised its eyebrows – perhaps only one – and sent war materiel but the heavy lifting and bleeding on the ground was left to the Ukrainian troops and civilians. The West also seems ready to accept a permanent state of war in Europe, a war between Russia and Ukraine.

Let us recall that the signing of the nuclear emasculation agreement took place within the framework of the first historic, momentous state visit by a President of Ukraine to the White House. That was undoubtedly an historic event that took place a few days before pen was put to paper in the Hungarian capital. The visit was the bait that was dangled in front of Kyiv.

As an eye witness, I wrote afterward in ABN Correspondence: “Without a doubt and without exaggerations, the November 22 welcoming ceremony for President Leonid Kuchma and his wife, Liudmyla, was a sight to be seen. Ukrainian and American flags lined Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House and along the South Portico, awash in a classic autumnal Washingtonian eye-squinting sunshine. The Administration arranged for so many Ukrainian and American flags that miniature ones were available for the guests attending the international pageant.”

The massive throng watched as the Color Guard made up of Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, as well as the Coast Guard, marched onto the White House grounds with everyone smartly holding the Old Glory and the not-yet nicknamed Ukrainian flag, their service colors and the flags of each state of the Union.

For Americans, Ukrainian Americans and Ukrainians, it was a proud moment, one overflowing with more than two centuries of the American experience. It was also one filled with the hope that such an extravaganza would soon be duplicated in Kyiv.

With the White House ceremonial guard intoning “Hail to the Chief,” President Clinton and Hillary Clinton emerged from their residence to greet the throng. Even before the First Couple was able to complete their perfunctory waves, the black limousine, bearing the Ukrainian First Couple pulled up in front of the Clintons.

The two Presidents walked up to the rostrum while the two First Ladies, attended by their aides, stood on the grass to their right. The Star Spangled Banner was first. With strained nerves anticipating the Ukrainian national anthem, the American anthem probably sounded as fast as the previous sentence was read.

A quick drum roll, the first volley from the howitzer and then came the opening sounds of the Ukrainian anthem Shche Ne Vmerla Ukrayina, echoing over Washington’s reflecting pools. Too many generations never dreamed of hearing such a sound or seeing such a vista, a few incredulously dreamed of the day but were not allowed to see it. As the 21st salvo penetrated the air, the last notes of the Ukrainian national anthem reverberated across the South Lawn. Truly inspiring. Regrettably more so than the subsequent welcoming remarks by the leaders of the United States of America and Ukraine. The commander of the honor guard then invited both Presidents to review the troops.

President Clinton, as the host, spoke first, congratulating his Ukrainian counterpart and Ukraine, for struggling, enduring, persevering, ultimately overcoming and striving to succeed. The speech was filled with gazes toward the future and appropriate accolades to the past. “Despite efforts to create an independent Ukraine, dictators, terrible famines and relentless oppression combined to deny your people the right to shape their fate. Despite these ordeals, the Ukrainian people have endured, preserving hope and their identity and contributing greatly to the glories of European civilization. Now, finally, Ukraine has reclaimed its independence and its place as a pivotal state in the new Europe.”

Noting that Ukraine’s contemporary independence is a “rebirth,” Clinton also reminded everyone that Ukraine was subjugated by “competing empires” and “tsars and commissars.”

Clinton also managed to score points by recognizing the Diaspora: “The flame of that commitment to freedom was kept burning during the Cold War by nearly a million Ukrainian Americans, some of whom are with us here today, who never forgot Ukraine and who are today contributing to its reawakening.”

Kuchma spoke shorter than Clinton and in political generalizations, devoid of the buzz words that his constituents in Ukraine and admirers in America have come to expect and listen for. Kuchma justifiably did praise America as a country that served as a model for Ukraine. “Today, they say Ukraine is a poor country. We are not a poor country, we are a young country and an experienced one. That is why we are ready to learn in the sphere of economics, politics, humanism, the best examples of other countries.”

Next came the press conference. Its theme as well as that of the entire state visit was Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal. Kyiv was accorded the high privilege of a state visit because the Verkhovna Rada had ratified a law allowing Ukraine to join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In the final analysis, the United States pledged to provide Ukraine $900 million in assistance — $200 million more than was expected a couple of days earlier. All Ukraine did to earn the money was to pledge to turn over its nuclear arsenal to Russia, a country which at the time had earned infamy by settling its own legislative disputes by blasting its parliament and bombing to hell Chechnya’s civilians and ragtag freedom fighters. No one considered this false logic dangerous.

Did Ukraine sell itself short? The mood in Ukraine was that in exchange for Kyiv’s signature on the NPTs dotted line, the West, the nuclear club and the United States would provide Ukraine with security guarantees, “guarantees.” The mood in Washington was: “security assurances.”

Standing next to the visibly fidgeting Kuchma, Clinton said Ukraine’s decision to sign the NPT “will permit the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom to extend formal security assurances to Ukraine.”

There is a world of difference between “guarantees” and “assurances.” Having failed to monitor the simultaneous translations, we can’t say what was the Ukrainian version of “guarantees” but it must have been inaccurate because no one picked up on it during the press conference. Not even Kuchma. Ukraine gave away its nuclear arsenal in exchange for assurances.

In the aftermath of the visit, the American press began to address this discrepancy, writing that at the CSCE meeting in Budapest, where Ukraine signed the NPT treaty, Kyiv would only receive assurances, not guarantees.

Former New York Times columnist Flora Lewis, writing in her syndicated column of December 12, said, “He (Kuchma) is trim, red-haired and straight-spoken, capable of sharp, no-nonsense argument which he used to drive a reluctant, divided parliament to overwhelming endorsement of the Nonproliferation Treaty renouncing nuclear arms.

“It was signed at the Budapest meeting, with President Clinton and President Yeltsin. But there is still ambiguity about the security ‘assurances’ (not guarantees) he was promised in return. That makes expansion of NATO a critical question.”

As for expanding NATO, there is also a difference in policies between the two Presidents. At the press conference, Clinton said he “would not say or do anything that would exclude the possibility of Ukrainian membership.” That’s a hopeful sign for Ukraine’s security interests. However, Kuchma negated that by stating, “The security of the European continent is a very important issue and it shouldn’t be solved by the revolutionary way but by the evolutionary method. It is not important who enters where, but it is very important that we do not have a new Berlin Wall in Europe.”

Talking with Ukrainian government insiders about Kuchma’s behavior during the press conference, we were told that he was upset because of the American press corps’ irrelevant questions. Indeed, of the six questions posed, three from each side, the American journalists did not address the issue at hand but asked Clinton about the Democratic debacle during November’s elections, Sen. Jesse Helms’ remark that Clinton should bring an extra bodyguard with himself when he visits North Carolina, and school prayer. It happened at previous joint presidential press conferences with President Kravchuk: at the first the issue was the riots in Los Angeles and at the second — WhiteWatergate. What happened this time was to be expected.

I received an explanation – perhaps partial – in New York.

At a meeting of the Deadline Club, the NYC chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, a week before the press conference, we begged the issue with a group of White House correspondents. Why does the White House press corps focus on the menial issue of the day rather than the big issue of the millennium: the third largest nuclear power agrees to give up its nuclear arsenal?

Gwen Ifill of NBC News both defended and criticized this behavior. Hill admitted that she and her colleagues are less interested in what is the theme of the press conference than what Bill Clinton is doing. If she covers the issue — nuclear weapons — and not the person of the President, whether he is up or down, and her competitive colleagues do, she explained, she’ll get in trouble with her boss. White House journalists are generalists, she said, who don’t “deviate from the story of the day or a few stories of the day.” It is a herd mentality that drives the journalists in the White House, she noted. Ifill added that people often ask her what Bill Clinton is really like rather than what he’s doing or why he’s doing it. “I feed into that,” she reluctantly admitted.

The Memorandum

Despite the local, regional or global issues related to nuclear non-proliferation and deterrence, what was and remains disturbing is the participants’ attitude toward Ukraine. The US, Russia and others treated Ukraine like a criminal, an outlaw, a pariah for stalling so long before the Verkhovna Rada acquiesced and signed the law authorizing accession to the NPT. They failed to acknowledge that in the fall of 1991, a couple of months after declaring its independence, Ukraine became the first nuclear country to freely announce that it is willing to eliminate its nuclear missiles and called on America and Russia to do so as well. Its offer was greeted with cold silence. Why? They didn’t know what to do with now independent Ukraine, situated on the border with Russia. Ukraine’s presence on the international scene would disrupt established foreign relations with the addition of a new player, one that is continually threatened by Moscow. This attitude is mimics Washington’s blasé standpoint regarding the Holodomor eight decades earlier.

The salient points of the memorandum expressed diplomatic courtesies which any civilized country without reservation extends to a neighbor. Hitler and Stalin did it. Yet despite this nicety, history, and Russian history specifically, is replete with examples of one country violating a neighboring country. The second point pledges that the participants won’t attack Ukraine, unless Ukraine attacks them. Was Russia, already then, planning to recoup its losses by forcing the former captives back into its prison nations?

Article three states that America, Russia and Great Britain will “refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.” Washington and London will probably adhere to this tenet, however, Russia, with its oil dominance, has been turning the spigot on and off and will do so again to ensure that Kyiv’s fuel check is in the mail as well as to implicitly and explicitly force Ukraine to heed its will. This enforcement – or protection payment – is perpetuated today.

In the next point, the three nuclear chaperones of Ukraine declare they will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” This falls into the rubric of expedient global forgetfulness. And in the fifth point they “reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.”

This is the closest — though pretty distant — that the nuclear club came to providing security guarantees to Ukraine, without promising anything. Furthermore, the transformation of the concrete “guarantee” to the soft “assurance,” as was expected since the Kuchma-Clinton summit in Washington, is not even reflected in this language.

Article six tries to offer solace to Ukrainian s everywhere — “Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.” — while the body count then and today grows. The expectations of this or the previous government of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada, the people of Ukraine and the Diaspora were not fulfilled by this memorandum. Ukraine’s accession to the NPT brings to mind the scene from the film “Godfather,” in which Don Corleone memorably remarks to a reluctant business associate that if his signature doesn’t appear on the contract then his brains surely will. The Washington summit offered hope that finally Ukraine was being accepted as an equal partner by the United States and the international community. Unfortunately, genuine examples of an equitable acceptance that would justify such a hope have not yet emerged. Ukraine is still being treated as a second-class member of the international community, somewhere, for example, in front of Iran and Iraq but far behind Israel.

When Ukraine, whose predicament is not that much different than the Jewish state’s, moves closer to Israel’s level of acceptance by Washington, then we will have tangible proof that the world respects Ukraine.

The Drunk Holding Nuclear Bomb

At that time, in addition to the obvious fear that Russia would inherit all of Ukraine’s nuclear weapons and then ride herd on independent Ukraine, another visible concern dealt with who had his finger on the nuclear button? I observed then:

A drunkard, alcoholic, sot, drunk, tippler, toper, boozehound, wino, barfly, lush, sponge, soak, rummy, inebriate, dipsomaniac, imbiber, boozer. In other words, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, president of the Russian Federation.

After three-and-a-half years of his presidency the world is beginning to pay attention to Yeltsin’s behavior. What was once a public secret, whispered about at cocktail parties or in the corridors outside press rooms, has become public knowledge? Yeltsin, the leader of America’s partner in the new world order, reaches for vodka more often than he would like us to know.

The meeting of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Almaty, Kazakhstan, on February 10, would not have received the American network television attention it did had it not been for the Russian president virtually falling over himself. Associated Press Television caught his command performance and while it was not shown in Russia, ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings did.

On the few occasions that reporters were allowed to be in his presence during the summit, they reported that Yeltsin’s speech was slurred and he displayed difficulty moving. He declined to attend the final press conference in the Kazakh capital. Earlier, an aid had to carry him up a flight of stairs to the meeting room. Yeltsin arrived by plane on Thursday evening, following a flight which boasted of a birthday party for his chief of staff. Agence France Presse said he almost stumbled down the stairs of his aircraft. Some rip-roaring party. Nursultan Nazarbayev, the Kazakh president, had to help him to his car. The traditional airport press conference was canceled.

For the record, his behavior in Almaty was the third time in six months that Yeltsin’s public drunkenness caught the attention of the world. Last August, he repeatedly upset protocol during a visit to Berlin to mark the departure of Russian troops from Germany by making unscheduled speeches and once even grabbing a conductor’s baton to conduct the orchestra himself as he twirled and bounced to the music. Apparently the contraction of Russia’s military might was reason enough for the Russian chief executive to get loaded.

A month later, returning from the United States, Yeltsin remained on his plane during a stopover in Shannon, Ireland, leaving the Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds waiting on the tarmac. His staff offered explanations ranging from he was asleep to he wasn’t feeling well. They probably were not lying because hangovers do have that effect on people.

To these examples of Yeltsin’s loss of control over himself I can add the story told to me by staffers at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Kyiv. During one meeting between the Russian president and former President Leonid Kravchuk, a drunken Yeltsin, attempting to bear hug his Ukrainian counterpart, fell on top of him.

Terrifying, isn’t it?

The New York Times, in an editorial on February 14, while desperately holding out hope that everyone is sober in the Kremlin, wrote that the transition from a heroic Yeltsin standing on top of a tank to undercut the putsch of August 1991 to today’s drunken bumpkin is “shocking and puzzling.”

“After years of dodging questions about his health and his drinking, Mr. Yeltsin owes his country and the world a candid accounting. The performance in Almaty moves the issue beyond the discreet conversation of diplomats, because Mr. Yeltsin’s ability to govern Russia is now in question,” The New York Times stated. “Whatever the problem, or combination of problems, Mr. Yeltsin cannot expect to retain authority when he seems incapacitated and offers no explanation.”

“If Mr. Yeltsin remains committed to untangling Russia from his authoritarian past, he and his doctors must quickly come clean.” Yeltsin’s drinking binge also comes at bad time for him and Russia what with Moscow’s laying waste the Chechen capital of Grozny. “But his unsteady performance in Almaty made a particularly bad impression at a time when Russian troops are embroiled in a conflict in the Republic of Chechnya and Russian pro-democrats say Yeltsin had fallen under the influence of hardliners feeding him selective information on the brutal two-month war,” wrote Boris Bachorz of the Agence France Presse.

What has the Budapest Memorandum wrought? Actually not much for Ukraine and the free world. As for Russia, it inherited Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal thereby expanding its own. Simultaneously, Russia’s belligerent behavior toward Ukraine and the other x-captive nations hasn’t changed.

And the nuclear club, fearing instability in Ukraine, forced Kyiv to turn over its nuclear arsenal to Yeltsin’s Russia. We can surely sleep securely, knowing that a drunk has his finger on the nuclear button.

Which brings us to the following dilemma. What is better, a drunk with his finger on the nuclear button or, in the eventuality that a democratic reformer (like Yavlinsky or Gaidar) does not succeed Yeltsin, an imperialistic extremist (such as Rutskoi or Zhirinovsky) with his finger on the button? Unfortunately, this is the historical tragedy that is called Russia.

Russia then was led by a drunkard. Today, it is led by a sober tyrant, Putin, who perpetuates Russia’s national mission of aggression against Ukraine and the other former captive nations. It doesn’t matter who rules in the Kremlin because its imperial, aggressive policy prevails. Kuchma oddly foresaw that Russia would invade and seize Crimea and no one would raise an eyebrow.

Is the world and Ukraine safer two dozen years hence because of the Budapest Memorandum? They don’t seem to be. Not that nuclear non-proliferation and deterrence aren’t important but because Russia skews everything in its favor. Did the Budapest Memorandum accomplish anything? Not really. Does Ukraine have the undivided favor and support of Washington like Israel does? No, it doesn’t. To be fair, the United States does announce sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and Congress does authorize defensive and even lethal weapons to help Ukraine fight against Russian invaders. But Moscow seems to brush this off rebuke.

Is Ukraine closer to joining NATO or acceding to the European Union? No, but the excuses, explanations and words of encouragement are louder. Stories abound of soldiers from NATO countries training Ukrainian soldiers. But this begs the question: What can they teach Ukrainian soldiers when Ukrainian soldiers are the only ones in the world that are successfully engaged in combat with the world’s second mightiest armed force?

Nonetheless, the nuclear powers are probably patting themselves on their backs for concluding the Budapest Memorandum, the Russian war continues and Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are being killed without nuclear weapons, as Russia spreads war, terror and lies about truces at the negotiation table.

Indeed, nothing has changed.

Day of Dignity and Freedom 2020 – Recalling 93 Days that Changed Ukraine

Thomas Jefferson poignantly reminded that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.”

Yesterday, Ukrainians around the world commemorated the Day of Dignity and Freedom, which recalled and paid tribute to the hopeful and inspiring days in late November 2013 that set in motion the long sought after ouster of Russian gauleiters from Ukraine. The Revolution of Dignity as it became known became another tree of liberty for Ukrainians as they struggled to cement their independence proclaimed in 1991 and on numerous earlier occasions.

The visions of the multitude of Ukrainians standing in the cold on Maidan, the feelings of hope and anger, anticipation and desperation reverberated deep in the hearts, minds and spirits of Ukrainians. Twenty-two years after the latest Declaration of Independence of their Ukraine, the latest generation of Ukrainians was called upon to fight. The nation was not to be deprived of its dream of living in a country of their choice, free of Russian imperialism and subjugation and heading toward Europe, not back into the Russian prison of nations.

They were not to be stopped, not by their corrupt, treacherous President Viktor Yanukovych and by his mentor Russian fuhrer Vladimir Putin.

In the fall of 2013, when Yanukovych began to exhibit his true turncoat colors and reject the aspirations of the nation to join Europe, Ukrainians from every corner of their country embarked on their trek to the capital, determined to strike their chord for Ukraine’s freedom.

The chapters quickly unfolded: Ukraine’s subjugation by Russia, the nation’s desire for accession to the European Union, Yanukovych’s acquiescence, Putin’s opposition and finally Yanukovych’s last-minute reversal. The nation couldn’t stand the government’s duplicity and subservience to Moscow. The people demanded that the accession process go forward and that ex-convicts like Yanukovych be removed from power.

The masses of humanity, the killing of patriots, the cold, the acrid smoke of burning tires, the speeches, passion, songs, imagery, signs reading “Resign,” anger and hope summoned Ukrainians to declare that they are Ukrainian; they are responsible for the future of their country and people. And the nation came together. Ukrainians of all walks of life, from the four corners of the country, those who speak Ukrainian regularly and those who don’t, young and old, male and female, professionals and laborers, Orthodox, Catholics, Jews and Muslims stood on the Maidan in Kyiv to resoundingly declare their irrepressible allegiance to Ukraine.

Collapse Seen Round the World

While the throng had already been massing on the streets of the capital for several days, the truly unbelievable and stunning genesis came with the crashing sound heard round the world. In the end the Lenin monument was a pile of shattered bronze, marble and mortar that littered the sidewalk. But while it stood, it represented Russia’s subjugation of Ukraine, millions of Holodomor deaths, repression, persecution, denial of human and religious rights, political prisoners, and russification.

For Ukrainians who came to Kyiv to vent their rejection of President Yanukovych’s refusal to align Ukraine with the European Union but rather to return to Russia’s prison of nations, the Lenin monument in the center of the capital represented foreign occupation and imperialism at its worse.

As evening fell on December 8, 2013, the people took their frustration out on the statue of the Russian and toppled it to the ground in a symbolic gesture of destroying Russian occupation, breaking Russia’s shackles around Ukraine, and allowing Ukraine to forge its own independent future by aligning itself with Europe. According to a Reuters reporter, the protesters broke up the statue with hammers after toppling it with the help of metal bars and rope.

Ironically, they knocked over the statue without the presence of police or the threat of immediate retribution. A few days earlier the statue was photographed with cordons of police protecting it.

The pedestal of the demolished statue was replaced by flags of Ukraine, the European Union and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

A sea of Ukrainians estimated at nearly 2 million and confirmed by satellite photos flooded the capital to protest against President Yanukovych as authorities opened a criminal probe into attempts to seize power in an increasingly tense standoff with the opposition, according to Ukrainian and foreign news agencies.

Waving EU and Ukrainian flags and red-and-black revolutionary OUN banners, the protesters filled Kyiv’s iconic Independence Square renamed Euromaidan and surrounding streets to a bursting point to denounce Yanukovych’s rejection of an EU pact under Kremlin pressure.

Significantly upping the stakes in the confrontation, demonstrators marched on the government headquarters and erected one-and-a-half meter (five feet) high barricades outside which would make it impossible for ministers to go to their offices.

Yuriy Lutsenko, ex- interior minister, realistically declared: “Our plan is clear: It is no longer a rally, or action. It is a revolution.”

Violence gradually unfolded as police provoked fisticuffs with protestors. Skirmishes were visible in many cities beyond the capital but finally the riot police – Berkut – unleashed its fury and truncheons against young and old demonstrators as well as journalists, leaving all who came in contact with its power bloodied for all the world the see. Moscow’s response was evident.

“By my count we are talking of tens of cruelly beaten people, perhaps hundreds,” Andriy Shevchenko, an opposition deputy, was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency. “It was absolute savagery.”

The violence was deemed unacceptable, leaving even Yanukovych government officials to express their disdain for his presidency.

At one point, demonstrators were seen chasing away police escorted by a bulldozer, defying a government ban on protests on Independence Square. The event was live streamed on the Internet for the entire world to experience this biggest contemporary demonstration of Ukrainians’ anger over the president's refusal to sign an agreement with the European Union since the popular uprising called the Orange Revolution of 2005.

Thousands of demonstrators tried to storm the nearby presidential administration building, but were driven back by riot police using tear gas and flash grenades, which produce a loud bang but are not intended to cause injury. The standoff continued, with more demonstrators arriving.

Opposition leaders called a national strike, with schools, universities and businesses announcing their intention to close in support of Euromaidan. Popular support for the Maidan protesters was great. Food and solace poured into their encampment.

But Moscow continued to play its historical card. Russian troops clandestinely entered the capital and positioned themselves on rooftops in a scene reminiscent of the culmination of “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” and shot indiscriminately into the crowd, killing anyone – young or old, man or woman – who stood in the way of the bullets.

Ultimately, 125 were killed; 125 Ukrainian patriots whose blood refreshed the Ukrainian tree of liberty. Serhiy Nigoyan, an Armenian, was the first to shed his blood for Ukraine’s freedom.

American Lawmakers Attend

The images of unarmed Ukrainians defying Russian and Ukrainian stormtroopers captured the imagination of the international community. And it replied with expressions of strong support uttered even in person. In words that harkened back to Ronald Reagan’s famous, bold assurance that Ukrainians’ fight for freedom is America’s fight, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) arrived on the scene and told the million-strong multitude on EuroMaidan that America stands with them in their struggle.

Indeed, those words proved that in the face of adversity, oppression and invasion, Ukraine is unbeatable, it will not perish. Ukraine will prevail.

Gesturing at his colleague on the grand stage, the late Senator McCain inspired the throng saying through simultaneous translations that he is a Republican and Murphy is a Democrat and they represent US solidarity with Ukrainians who seek to align with the European Union and not Russia with international media reported their every word.

McCain went on to say that Ukrainians’ nationwide peaceful protests have inspired the world and their sovereign right is to decide their own future. Ukraine’s destiny is with Europe and Europe will be better with Ukraine and Ukraine will be better with Europe, he said.

McCain concluded by imploring the patriotic throng to heed Taras Shevchenko’s plea: “Love Ukraine for the times are evil.”

“You are making history,” Murphy told the crowd. “If you are successful, the United States will stand with you every step of the way.”

The two senators’ personal support for EuroMaidan was part of a growing international wave of backing for the protesters. Governments around the world have announced that they are considering imposing a range of sanctions against President Yanukovych and his regime for unprovoked acts of violence committed against peaceful protesters by Berkut militia officers. McCain and Murphy were part of a larger, unprecedented US intervention on the side of Ukrainian protesters.

Then Vice President Joe Biden telephoned Yanukovych and according to the official readout of the conversation, the vice president “expressed his deep concern about the situation in Ukraine and the growing potential for violence. The Vice President underscored the need to immediately de-escalate the situation and begin a dialogue with opposition leaders on developing a consensus way forward for Ukraine.  He noted that violence has no place in a democratic society and is incompatible with our strategic relationship.  The Vice President reaffirmed the strong support of the United States for Ukraine’s European aspirations and welcomed President Yanukovych’s commitment to maintaining this path.  He underscored the close alignment of the United States and the European Union, and welcomed the upcoming visits of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and State Department Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland to Kyiv.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joined US Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) and others last week in introducing a Senate Resolution urging the government of Ukraine and members of the opposition to find a peaceful and democratic resolution to the country’s current political crisis.

“The mounting political impasse in Ukraine is deeply troubling,” Durbin said. “Ukraine is an important friend and ally of the United States that I believe has a promising future with the West.  Such decisions should be made without coercion from other nations and through a peaceful and democratic process.  I urge all parties to this current political challenge to refrain from violence, adhere to democratic norms, and strive to focus on long term solutions to the country’s economic challenges.”

US Helsinki Commission Chairman Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement: “I am deeply dismayed by yesterday’s decision by Ukrainian authorities to use Interior Ministry troops against peaceful protests in central Kyiv, coming after the already brutal dispersal of protestors last week. There is no justification for these actions, which, along with other human rights violations, are grossly at odds with Ukraine’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) commitments and a serious blot on Ukraine’s OSCE Chairmanship. I call upon the Ukrainian authorities to take immediate, resolute steps to ensure that freedom of assembly and expression are respected.”

Rep. William Keating (D-MA), ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, sent a letter to Yanukovych condemning Ukrainian authorities’ use of force against peaceful demonstrators in Kyiv’s Independence Square. He was joined on the letter by House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel (D-NY) and the co-chairs of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told Yanukovych that police action against encamped protesters calling for his resignation was “absolutely impermissible in a democratic society.”

Nuland had met with Yanukovych in Kyiv, where thousands of protesters have been occupying Independence Square. “I made it absolutely clear to him that what happened last night, what has been happening in security terms here is absolutely impermissible in a European state, in a democratic state,” she told reporters.

In the wake of the killings and brutal dispersal of peaceful protesters in Kyiv by the Ukrainian riot police, government leaders and institutions issued statements condemning such officially sanctioned violence. While Yanukovych himself also facetiously condemned such ruthlessness, in today’s Ukraine the killings and beatings would be impossible without his even implicit approval.

The US Embassy in Ukraine stated: “The United States condemns the violence against protesters on Independence Square early this morning.  We urge the government of Ukraine to respect the rights of civil society and the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, which are fundamental to the democratic values that are the bedrock of our strategic partnership. 

“We support the rights of citizens to air their views through an open and free media and through non-violent rallies. 

“In the spirit of the principles embodied by the OSCE, we urge the Government of Ukraine to foster a positive atmosphere for civil society and for the free exchange and expression of opinions among the citizens of Ukraine.”

Eternal Shame on Russia

The Ukrainian nation’s latest revolution against Russian oppression caught cinematographers’ imaginations.

“Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom,” the 2016 Oscar-nominated documentary movie about Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity, depicted the wide range of passion of the Maidan. The historic images of the Ukrainian nation arising against foreign and domestic tyrants two years earlier and the accompanying emotions reminded viewers that the Ukrainian nation will not be vanquished; it will prevail.

The momentous events on Maidan in Ukraine’s capital in 2013-14 that attracted more than a few million Ukrainians from around the country kept the world glued to live web streams of what was quickly evolving into the nation’s latest manifestation of its invincible will to live free, without foreign domination.

The movie brought back memories of parades, speeches, rallies, fires, dedication, police depravity and barbarism, beatings, bravery, heroism, patriotism, gunshots, and blood that ultimately reasserted the nation’s dominance and forced Russian flunky Yanukovych to flee from Kyiv into the arms of his benefactor and Ukraine’s latest oppressor Russian president Putin.

The 1-hour and 42-minute film that covered 93 days in the life of the Ukrainian nation will contribute to Russia’s eternal shame. Subsequent generations of Russians will have to answer a host of muted questions about their country’s role in trying to quash liberty in Ukraine just like today’s Germans are attempting to cope with Nazism. Likewise, future generations will have a glimpse of one episode from a millennium of examples of Ukrainians’ unconquerable, freedom-loving spirit to live in their own independent, sovereign, democratic and indivisible Ukraine.

The film conveys the background and reasons for the Revolution of Dignity, including Ukraine’s subjugation by Russia, the nation’s desire for accession to the European Union, Yanukovych’s acquiescence, Putin’s opposition and finally Yanukovych’s last-minute turnaround. The nation wouldn’t tolerate any longer the government’s duplicity and subservience to Moscow. The people demanded that the EU accession process go forward and that ex-convicts like Yanukovych by removed from power.

Social media was the instrument for capacity building in Kyiv. It summoned Ukrainians of all walks of life to Kyiv to voice their disgust and opposition to Russia’s corrupt, anti-Ukrainian colonial administrators in Ukraine. National opposition grew from a few hundred protesters in the center of the capital to several thousand to more than a million, testifying that this was, in fact, a popular, national movement for freedom.

The nation again awakened to stop those who sought to subvert Ukraine’s fate. The marchers emphasized that Ukraine, as a European nation, is part of the European Union and the nation’s youngest generation demands that Ukraine finds its rightful place among European countries and not in the Russian prison of nations.

The protestors, whose numbers swelled from grassroots levels, were emboldened into believing that they could fight and change the country and national destiny. It taught them and future generations that Ukraine can only be pried from their lifeless hands. Fed up with Yanukovych’s corruption and submission to Moscow, their movement evolved into a revolution whose goal was to depose the government and liberate Ukraine from Russia’s bonds. Their daring and strength grew from their unwavering beliefs and expanding numbers. They were determined to fight for Ukraine and that victory would be theirs.

Those who were interviewed and appeared in the movie underscored that the Revolution of Dignity was popular and national. Busloads of demonstrators from across Ukraine participated. Doctors from around the country came to Kyiv to treat the wounded and dying. Young and old helped with food and other provisions. Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian speakers, including Russian speakers, were equally vocal in their disdain for Moscow’s subjugation of Ukraine. Among the Maidan Defense Units were Jewish Maidan Defense Unit and Women’s Maidan Defense Unit. All religious hierarchs, representing the broad swath of faiths of Ukraine, Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist and others prayed in unison for the nation’s salvation.

Teenagers and even younger Ukrainians were involved in the movement. One seemingly pre-teen spoke of helping with medical supplies and provisions. Another boy, a teenager, wearing a t-shirt of Stepan Bandera, leader of OUN assassinated by the Kremlin, was seen speaking with his mother on his cell phone. Not knowing what will be his destiny, he ended the call by saying “Mamtsiu, I love you.”

The documentary did not show the involvement of civic leaders except for boxer Klychko and pop singer Ruslana, which further confirmed the people’s mass dedication to the cause of Maidan.

It was pointed out by many that the participants maintained the highest level of moral behavior during the revolution. Drugs and alcohol were not seen in their encampments. The participants were peaceful and unarmed as they faced the depraved barbarism of the Berkut security officers, whose brutality was clearly visible throughout the documentary. They repeatedly charged into the nonviolent protesters wildly swinging their truncheons without regard for life or limb. They beat and kicked defenseless, cowering protesters on the ground. Army veterans observed that the Berkut officers “didn’t act like human beings” even destroying makeshift red cross stations. For the first time since 1240, the bells of the St. Michael Sobor tolled anxiously, summoning more and more people to join the protests on Maidan.

Despite repeated waves of baton-wielding officers, none of the protesters broke rank and fled. They were committed to their mission, realistically noting that even if they abandon their cause now, eventually they would be hunted down and eliminated. In a comical, futile effort to protect themselves against the police, protestors covered their heads with kitchen utensils, pots, pans and colanders.

The documentary offered many insights about the Ukrainian nation for all viewers but one, in particular, was clearly, warmly perceptible by Ukrainians. Repeatedly throughout the documentary individuals or mass throngs chanted “Glory to Ukraine,” and “Glory to the Heroes,” an old Ukrainian mantra that was adopted by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and was banned by Soviet Ukraine and Russia and ridiculed by some others.

In time, truncheons were exchanged for rubber bullets and then for live ammunition and Putin/Yanukovych’s organized killers began shooting unarmed demonstrators from rooftops like fish in a barrel. The Revolution of Dignity lasted 93 days during which 125 innocent, peaceful citizens of Ukraine were murdered on the orders of officials in the Kremlin and Kyiv. They indisputably earned the sanctified moniker “Heavenly Hundred.”

Push came to shove after the timid members of the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law outlawing demonstrations and Klychko’s ineffective attempt to convince the lawmakers to rescind the vote. I recalled watching this live two years ago. His effort was rejected by the crowd on Maidan. Infuriated by the slow evolution of events, Volodymyr Parasiuk, a young defense unit commander, seized a historic moment, jumped on the stage and grabbed the microphone from the Ukrainian boxer. He declared that Yanukovych must present himself to the crowd on Maidan and resign by 10 am the next day or else he would lead the nation in storming his multi-million dollar estate and removing him by force.

 “Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom” fulfilled its mission of telling the world of Ukrainians’ indomitable spirit to fight for their freedom and that the generation that stood on Maidan for three months and faced the enemy without weapons is the latest, greatest generation of Ukrainian patriots to refresh the tree of liberty with their blood.

When all was said and done, Yanukovych, like a thief, secretly fled to Russia on February 22, 2014. Shortly thereafter, as the 2014 Winter Olympic Games – which together with the Summer Olympics comprise humanity’s celebrated quadrennial exhibition of peace and fraternity – were winding down, the host country Russia abruptly shattered global peace and stability. Moscow launched its blitzkrieg to re-subjugate Ukraine and the other x-captive nations and restore the iron curtain. The Russian army invaded the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine and then regions in eastern Ukraine.

The fight for Ukraine’s freedom continues.

The free world was staggered by Russia’s invasion of an independent European country. But all along Moscow has been forthright with its imperial and aggressive intentions regarding what it perceives as its sphere of influence. The Kremlin habitually asserts its authority on its so-called near abroad and warns that the countries will face dire consequences if they violate its directives or seek to accede to EuroAtlantic political, military or economic pacts.

Both events – Maidan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine – are connected. They show that Russia’s eternal mission that transcends the occupants of the Kremlin is to subjugate Ukraine at all costs while the Ukrainian nation – alone or in concert with the international community – will fight. And Ukraine will prevail.

Nelson Mandela said: “When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.” This lesson is not lost on today’s and future generations of Ukrainians.