Parliamentary Vote 2014: Ukraine Heads West

It took nearly 400 years plus an additional 23 for the Ukrainian nation to finally muster enough singularity of purpose to chart a clear national course toward Europe and the West, shedding all connections with the treasonous and larcenous legacy of Viktor Yanukovych.

Truthfully, Russia’s war against Ukraine helped – it opened everyone’s eyes to the Kremlin’s unfettered imperial aggression.

The parliamentary elections of October 26 democratically demonstrated an indispensable national resolve that perhaps may not immediately guide Ukraine and the nation to a bountiful, untroubled existence but it will surely not lead the people to hell as the alternative would have done so quickly.

Ukrainians took to the polls and voted overwhelming for candidates from political parties that are nationally aware, cognizant of the danger of re-aligning Ukraine with Russia, and favor joining Euro-Atlantic structures. Together with the election of Petro Poroshenko last May, yesterday’s parliamentary vote should defuse forever the notion that Ukrainians do not possess a mutual idea about their future. Indeed, there will always be pockets of greater or lesser dissent and opposition – the kind of loyal opposition that exists in other civilized countries – which are vital to the political life of any democracy.

“Ukraine is voting in parliamentary elections that could cement a new pro-western course for the country, seven months after the revolution that toppled the former president, Viktor Yanukovych,” observed Britain’s The Guardian today.

The election culminated a national revival – revolution – that began with Yanukovych rejecting joining the EU, the demonstrators’ toppling the first Lenin monument in Kyiv in December 2013, Euromaidan and the related killings, and Yanukovych’s ouster.

The vote will assemble a Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine – the national legislature – that for the first time in more than nine decades of Ukrainian history will not include communists. Their presence has served as a stubborn impediment to Ukraine’s development and now their absence is expected to hasten national growth.

International election observers, global unions and the United States among others lauded the conduct of the elections and the outcome.

Observers declared that the vote was the most honest in the past 20 years. President Barack Obama congratulated Ukraine on holding successful, orderly and peaceful elections. Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Grzegorz Schetyna observed that Ukraine chose the European way and that it is the beginning of a new era in Ukrainian reality.

US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt and US Ambassador to the OSCE Daniel Baer stated: “The atmosphere was upbeat and positive. Today’s vote is yet another step in Ukraine’s democratic journey. We congratulate all those at home and around the world who were able to take part and look forward to the assessment of today’s vote by domestic and international observers.”

“The EU welcomes the holding yesterday of parliamentary elections in Ukraine. We take good note of the OSCE/ODIHR’s preliminary assessment that they marked an important step in Ukraine’s aspirations to consolidate democratic elections in line with its international commitments. This was a victory of the people of Ukraine and of democracy. The electoral mandate given by the Ukrainian people must now be implemented,” jointly commented Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council and José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission.

The National Democratic Institute’s delegation in Ukraine stated: “Ukrainians should feel proud of the progress they have made in promoting electoral accountability, new entrants and grassroots campaigning as key features of the political landscape.”

The Central Election Commission is expected to release official, fully tabulated results tomorrow. However, as of today, President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk’s parties are tied with fractions separating them.

Another winner is Oleh Lyashko’s Radical Party. Lyashko, the flambyont, Swamp Fox-type lawmaker who has been known to force Yanukovych partisans and Russian sympathizers to renounce their offices, was featured in a New York Times article on the eve of the elections.

Yanukovych’s Party of Regions recolored as the Opposition Party also seems to have passed the 5% barrier required to win seats in the parliament.

Poroshenko was visibly jubilant in assessing the favorable outcome that he and pundits foresaw. He said: “The exit polls results allow making the first conclusions. Yesterday I asked you to vote for democratic, reformist, pro-Ukrainian and pro-European majority. Thank you for hearing and supporting this call. Constitutional majority – more than three-quarters of voters powerfully and irreversibly supported the course towards Europe…

“I am glad that the majority of people voted in favor of the political forces that support the peace plan of the President, seek political means to address the situation in the Donbas and pay due attention to the strengthening of the Armed Forces…

“Another important and symbolic conclusion. People’s Court, above which is only the justice of Heaven, has passed a death sentence to the Communist Party of Ukraine. For the first time in 96 years there will be no communists in the Ukrainian parliament. Ukrainians have made a final hit to the fifth political column.”

A disturbing side of the elections was the Western media’s coverage. Headlines and stories displayed an extraordinary amount of misunderstanding of Ukraine and its evolution, sympathy toward wounding Russia’s feelings, and observations that the vote will fail to resolve the political divide in Ukraine. Some of the examples are:

·         “Ukraine’s parliamentary elections could endanger crisis resolution”

·         “Ukraine elections will not assuage Russian fears”

·         “Ukraine leader wins pro-West mandate but wary of Russia”

·         “Ukraine’s Parliamentary Vote Won’t Heal the Nation’s Divide”

David Herszenhorn’s pre-election article on October 25 was headlined: “Parliamentary Elections Show Political Turmoil Is Continuing in Ukraine.” As with the previous examples, after reading this I immediately tweeted a commentary that included Herszenhorn’s Twitter handle: “Why this spin? Do elections solve political turmoil in US?” Much to my surprise, he favorited my observation.

CNN committed a major faux pas by soliciting comments about the elections in Ukraine from a Russian: Anton Fedyashin, executive director of the Initiative for Russian Culture at American Culture.

However, I found a great lead and assessment in The Daily Beast a day after the elections: “Pushed against the wall by Russia’s naked aggression, a wounded nation now wants to seal itself off completely from its jingoistic neighbor.” It summarizes the Ukrainian situation concisely: Russian war against Ukraine, Ukrainian patriotism, separation from Russia, and an appropriate description about Russia.

Though the Verkhovna Rada has been overhauled into a pro-Western composition, Poroshenko’s task going forward will not be easy. He and Yatseniuk, who come from different parties, will have to partner to mold the national deputies into a cohesive team that will vote in favor of the greater national picture. So far the two leaders seem to be ideologically aligned. Parliament will have to adopt a host of anti-corruption laws that will eliminate crooks from all levels of government and spur western investments. It will have to write national, historical laws and practices aimed at raising the patriotic consciousness of the people. Kyiv will have to build the armed forces into a modern, well-equipped and trained army. Examples abound of national political systems where partisans fight for advantages but when it comes to higher issues of national existence, well, everyone is on the same page.

Not least of all, Poroshenko, Yatseniuk, the government and parliament will have to deal with Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine. Enemy troop movements have been reported in eastern Ukraine even on election day. Despite diplomatic pressure to force Ukraine to accept a political solution, Putin’s behavior should have proved to everyone that he won’t be convinced, cajoled or arm-twisted into withdrawing Russian soldiers and mercenaries from Ukraine. Only a determined global effort backed by harsh sanctions will make Putin choose between ostracism and withdrawal.

But let’s focus on a positive takeaway. As Volodymyr Ohryzko, former foreign minister, observed today: “But the general conclusion, in my opinion, is more than positive. Under these circumstances, given to us today, this alternative is better than other potential ones. I only hope that the winners will make conclusions based on the not too distant past (in which they also participated) and not step on new-old rakes.

“We have now a unique opportunity to leap forward. Anyone who is capable of at least some practical and positive action should not sit aside but rather work for the success of Ukraine.”

Ukraine, Washington & the Coalition of Freedom

During President Poroshenko’s historic visit to the United States and Canada a month ago, Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin made his own rounds with the domestic press corps, during which called for the formation of a Coalition of Freedom.

A far-reaching, succinct and timely concept filled with promotional opportunities to defend Ukraine.

Outraged by the Russian invasion of his homeland, Klimkin proposed a Coalition of Freedom to defend democracy and Western values in a troubled world, according to Fox News.

“It is about security for everyone,” said Klimkin, during an exclusive Fox News interview on the eve of the 65^th UN General Assembly. “If someone in this interchangeable and intertwined world cannot feel secure, how can US citizens here feel secure?”

Klimkin told reporters that Ukraine is confronting a threat any nation can face, adding “we need a network of security.” His Coalition of Freedom would consist of “countries which are committed to freedom, to democratic values, where we are not talking about spheres of influence, but the values and real interests of democratic countries.”

Not a unique idea. The world has already seen many coalitions, organizations, leagues and caucuses in defense of freedom, democracy, independence, human rights and other similar values. However, it is appropriate considering Russia’s war against Ukraine and global threat.

The 47-year-old diplomat opined that despite Russia’s invasion and occupation of his country, Ukraine has “the solidarity of the Western world.”

Klimkin added: "We are in the process of the fight for freedom, for European values and for Western values, and we will definitely pull it off."

Canada, Great Britain and Australia are a few of the countries with integrity that must be considered for membership in this coalition, based on Klimkin’s requirements. The United States also cannot be overlooked for its steadfast political support of Ukraine and condemnation of Russia for violating all norms of civilized behavior. Leading American officials have expressed their support for Ukraine in its war for independence, sovereignty and freedom, emphasizing that Ukraine is not alone.

“And as Vice President Biden said when he was here for President Poroshenko’s inaugural, you will not walk this walk alone. The United States will be with you,” assured Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at a Ukrainian State Border Guard Service (SBGS) base in Kyiv on October 8.

A day earlier, speaking to students at the Taras Shevchenko University in Kyiv, Nuland, who is the State Department’s point person on Ukraine, observed: “You’ve had the support of Europe, you’ve had the support of the world, you’ve had the support of my country. Ukraine this year has received $290 million in U.S. financial support plus a billion dollar loan guarantee,” pointing out that the US is also materially aiding Ukraine.

While Ukraine now is fighting for its life against Russia, Nuland told the faculty and students that ultimately Ukraine needs peace, security, unity, and a clean and accountable government. She reminded the audience, especially its younger members, that it started the fight for a better Ukraine and the future is theirs – a hackneyed phrase but one that is true. The younger generation, born in the year of independence today – “Gen Free” to coin a phrase – has matured into young adults, primed to assume the leadership of all segments of their country. Moreover, this demographic knows well Russia’s crimes against Ukraine and is steering Ukraine on a course toward Europe.

“Just as you fought for a fresh start, now you have to fight to end it and to end it well. To end it democratically. To end it accountably. 

“You need to fight now for peace. You need to fight for unity. You need to fight against corruption. You need to fight for that clean, accountable Ukrainian government that you stood in the snow for. You need to fight for a free media. You need to fight for justice and accountability for the victims,” Nuland urged.

She pledged America’s support for Ukrainians’ attempts to build a better Ukraine, saying “We will support your security with a program we have already instituted to train and advise your military and rebuild it after the devastation of the conflict. We will support your commitment to economic reform with technical support, with assistance, with advice including in the energy sphere. And we will continue to support the people-to-people exchanges that make us strong as nations.”

Sounding as if she was at a political rally for first-time voters in the US, Nuland energetically coaxed the audience to vote in parliamentary elections this Sunday: “So I ask each of you. Go out and vote on October 26. Keep pushing for peace. Keep pushing for unity. Keep pushing for accountability. Keep pushing for checks and balances in your internal system. Keep pushing for a clean, accountable judiciary. Be active in your communities. Work for your country. Be builders, not destroyers.”

Favorable political rhetoric notwithstanding, Washington has also helped Ukraine with financial and non-lethal military assistance. There is evidence that the US is working to bolster Ukraine’s ability to secure its borders and preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty in the face of Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea and regions of eastern Ukraine. President Obama has approved more than $46 million in additional defensive security assistance since August, in addition to $70 million of security assistance announced earlier.

Nuland’s boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, has also used pointed language to dispute lies by Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov while expanding the circle of Ukraine supporters to include the European Union: “And together with our partners in the European Union, the United States and France are deeply committed to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Kerry’s demands of Russia to end the war and restore peace and stability in the region are in line with the minimums that I had discussed. “Foreign forces and weapons need to be withdrawn. Hostages – all hostages – need to be released, and that includes the pilot, Nadia Savchenko. And sovereignty has to be restored along the Ukrainian-Russian international border, and that border needs to be closed and held accountable,” he said.

Even President Obama, known for many lapsus linguae about Russia, Putin and their belligerent intentions, has been quoted supporting Ukraine: “Russia cannot dictate the terms,” Obama told Poroshenko while he was in Washington, adding that he has “a strong friend not only in me personally” but also strong bipartisan support in Congress.

Indeed, US congressional support, beyond the long-time backing of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, has been without reproach.

This broad support should assure America and other countries that have echoed these sentiments and words a rightful place in the Coalition of Freedom.

Realistically, absent this support, Ukraine would not have been able to stand its ground against Russia for the past 10 months.

However, we should remember that it took a violent war to wake up Washington from its pro-Russian trance. Even without considering nearly four centuries of Russian domination, oppression and killings, didn’t at least the post-World War I history of Russian crimes against Ukraine warrant the US government’s condemnation of Moscow? Was Washington’s recognition of the Soviet Union during the height of the murderous Holodomor justified?

As welcome and necessary as today’s US support for Ukraine are, I find it difficult to rid myself of this gnawing feeling that it’s unintended; it isn’t based on decades of convictions but rather Washington’s inexplicable fear of Russia or desire to tolerate and accept it. And today’s solid bond between Kyiv and Washington may fade with the return of peace and stability. After all, Stefan Romaniw of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organizations indicated that the US and Germany were already eager to allow Russia to take a seat at the upcoming G20 table rather than ban it for waging a war against Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the US, Great Britain, Canada and Australia, the potential charter members of Klimkin’s Coalition of Freedom, really don’t get it about Russia beyond the artillery explosions.

I recently saw “Red Danube,” a 1949 movie about the post-World War II forced repatriation to the Soviet prison of nations of refugees who fled the captive nations. That vile, merciless exercise itself, that required the western allies to capture these expatriates like rabid dogs, was proof enough that the US and England didn’t understand Russia. In the movie, the British officer in charge, played by Walter Pidgeon, having personally realized why innocent people fear returning to their occupied homelands, infuriatingly questioned why the high command in London doesn’t understand that these refugees haven’t done anything wrong and they don’t want to return only because they fear and hate communism.

Hopefully, the Coalition of Freedom will take to heart the lessons learned during Russia’s war against Ukraine and keep Moscow on a tight leash so it won’t invade any of the other former captive nation.

Australian Ukrainians reply to ‘Australian Sellout’ Blog

The Ukrainian community in Australia has expressed an opposing view to my recent blog titled “Australian Sellout – Putin to Attend G20.”

In the blog, I wrote that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott seemed to have reversed his strong position on not allowing Vladimir Putin to enter Australia to attend the G20 meeting next month. I won’t repeat Putin’s long list of crimes why he shouldn’t.

I concluded the blog by stating: “Surely the Ukrainian Australian community will not sit by passively. They and Australians of x-captive nations’ descent should throw Abbott and his supporters out during the next elections.”

Stefan Romaniw, an official of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organizations and noted global Ukrainian civic leader, wrote that my comment about throwing Abbott out “is not in line with our policy.”

Romaniw pointed out that the Abbott government has been the strongest public opponent of Putin. “They have not only criticized strongly his actions, but also taken it to the UN with resolution 2166 by Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop,” he wrote.

No argument there. As I had written, Abbott has been on the frontlines of supporting Ukraine and castigating Russia before and during the war. But his comments about Putin’s presence at the G20 meeting appeared to be a reversal.

“The Abbott government has been stern and unequivocal in its dealing with Putin. I would suggest Abbott changed diplomatic rhetoric when he took on Putin and his reps by saying we know it was you, stop blaming Ukraine re: MH17,” Romaniw continued.

Romaniw reaffirmed Abbott’s explanation that the G20 meeting is convened by consensus and even though he had expressed his point of view about not allowing Putin to enter Australia, the decision to allow him to participate in the meeting is not his alone. Romaniw wrote that he learned that the biggest supporters of Putin’s attendance were the US and Germany.

“We are working closely with Abbott and Julie Bishop and would not be throwing them out rather applauding them for their support and efforts. We also work closely with the opposition and have a very good bipartisan support position,” he concluded.

This is a case in point that local political relations and idiosyncrasies are key in building strong national policies. Just as in the US, not only were the Republicans on the frontline of supporting Ukrainian independence during the cold war. Occasionally, Ukrainian Americans with Democratic affiliations managed to harness their support as well.

As for Australia, a strong admonition against a politician who steps out of line is a useful tactic in expressing an opposing view and making sure he or she toes the line in the future. Ukrainians around the world will certainly be closely watching how Abbott responds to Putin’s cynical grins at the G20 table.

Good luck, Ukrainian Australians, and thanks for pointing out your side of the issue.

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.

Russian-speaking Ukrainians Support Kyiv

We’ve made this claim numerous times though it wasn’t based on scientific evidence but rather on listening to webstreams of the Euromaidan revolution and the Russian-declared war against Ukraine.

In the first example, numerous active participants and leaders of the Euromaidan protests and later revolution spoke Russian. They were interviewed by a variety of news outlets and their observations in favor of Ukraine and against Yanukovych, Putin and Russia were emotionally expressed in Russian occasionally with local expletives because they were Russian-speaking Ukrainian patriots.

During this recent historic moment in Ukrainian history, more than 100 men and women were killed by Yanukovych’s henchmen and it safe to say that a majority of those slain were Russian speaking Ukrainians. One video showed a distraught mother cursing in Russian against Yanukovych and his junta for killing her son.

Then, after Russia invaded Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, Russian-speaking Ukrainian soldiers and civilians were heard in webstreams explaining why they are supporting Ukraine and why they must defend their Ukrainian motherland. We recall Col. Yuriy Mamchur, considered the hero of Crimea, lead his troops in the Russian language while his soldiers sang the Ukrainian national anthem in broken Ukrainian as they charged the Russian lines. And then there were the Ukrainian cadets who spoke Russian but sang the Ukrainian national anthem in Ukrainian as they were forcibly evicted from their academy.

This were anecdotal observations but they were enough to challenge Putin’s claim that his invasion of Ukraine was intended to defend Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine. Of course, he lied again. His only intention was and is to invade, conquer and re-subjugate Ukraine.

However, these sketchy facts that served as the basis for strong convictions have been substantiated by a Harvard University study that shows that Russian-speaking Ukrainians support Kyiv. Furthermore, the study suggests that Russian-speaking Ukrainians may be significantly more supportive of Kyiv’s standoff against Moscow and the pro-Russian separatists.

The study, written by researcher Bruce Etling at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, is one of the first serious explorations of Russian, Ukrainian and English language social media content regarding the turmoil in Ukraine in the course of the past 11 months.

“Our general reading of newspapers and traditional media about the protests was that Russian speakers tended to disapprove [of the protests] and Ukrainian and English speakers tended to approve, and that would then just bleed into social media,” Etling said. “We wanted to see if that was what really happened.”

Actually, the opposite was true. Etling remarked that what was surprising, “very surprising,” was the portion of Russian-language content coming specifically from within Ukraine that was backing the Euromaidan protests.

“In Ukraine, among Russian-speakers, 74% were supportive of the protests, and only a quarter were opposed,” he said.

Additionally, the study revealed even among Russian-language content within Russia, support was nearly equal with opposition, at least at the beginning.

“That was really unexpected. It was so surprising that it was so overwhelmingly positive,” said Etling.

The study, called “Russia, Ukraine, and the West: Social Media Sentiment in the Euromaidan Protests” and published on September 25, noted, “This exploratory research shows that there was more support online in Russia for the Ukraine protests than one might expect.”

Etling concluded in the study: “It is also interesting that Russian-language sources in Ukraine are so supportive of the protests. This may be explained by the fact that many Ukrainians use both Russian and Ukrainian, and that language may not divide the country as clearly as many press accounts (and Putin – TC) may have us believe. However, it is also possible that these early results point towards more support among Russian-speaking Ukrainians for the protests than the Russian government and mainstream media claimed.”

A Reuters story observed, pointing out Putin’s media control, that “While support for Kyiv generally remained stable among those in Ukraine, for Russians within Russia opposition to the protests grew over time, reflecting what some have seen as a hardening of positions on both sides of the border. That may be a result of nationalist feelings, but Etling said that may also be due to increasing media control and self-censorship there.

“I definitely think self-censorship in Russia is becoming increasingly problematic,” Etling said. “It’s becoming so difficult to express for someone who’s opposed to the Russian government’s view in Russia to talk about Ukraine war in a negative way.”

These heartening findings about the undeniable unity of the Ukrainian nation in Ukraine regardless of language preference also prove again that despite what Putin claims, sooner or later his lies are debunked.