Harbinger of a New Cold War?

One of the strangest observations about the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014 is that it could lead to a new Cold War.

A new Cold War? What happened to the old one?

The so-called Cold War, which erupted after World War II, when the victorious allies belatedly discovered that their eastern partner, the USSR, has uncloaked itself as the new enemy, came to an end only in the minds of leaders of the free world.

The Kremlin leaders of the USSR and the Russian Federation never regarded the Cold War to be over. As faithful adherents of their imperial ideology of expansion by peaceful, clandestine or military means, Russia will continue to be engaged in all forms of combat with its “near abroad,” NATO and the US until it ultimately prevails, vanquishes or subdues its enemies, and emerges victorious.

The smashing of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the decolonization of Ukraine and the other Soviet “republics” was not regarded as a fait accompli by Russian leaders. That bitter pill was difficult for them to swallow but they did not lose heart and lick their wounds. They retrenched and devoted money and attention to build their conventional and military might and security policy in order to restore in time the global superiority of Holy Mother Russia.

If that game plan is difficult to believe, just look around at what’s happening. Russian tanks and troops are on the move in Ukraine and in the air and seas around Europe, and even the US and Australia.

Russia’s plan to achieve global superiority of Holy Mother Russia is stoked by three points: Washington’s opposition to its policies, NATO’s anti-Russian policy, and, especially, the loss of Ukraine and the other former captive nations.

In Russian leaders’ minds, the first two points must be neutralized and the last one must be returned to the previous status of a captive nations.

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) and member of the Public Council under the Russian Defense Ministry, discussed all of these points in an article on valdaiclub.com on Aug. 15, 2013 – shortly after Putin’s visit to Kyiv, where he laid down his warning that Ukraine must return to the fold or else.

“It is important to note that in the foreseeable future, Russia will retain its complete military superiority over the former Soviet republics, and maintain its military-strategic dominance in the former Soviet territories,” Pukhov wrote. “As for the possibility of the conflicts of the second type, relations between Russia and the US are now largely based on typical great power rivalry of the kind that existed in the 19th century.”

US-Russia relations have always resembled typical great power rivalry but mostly due to Russia’s adventurism and mission of dominating the world.

Pukhov elaborated on Russia’s three defense security goals:

•         Putting military-political pressure on the domestic and foreign policies of the former Soviet republics, and using military force against these republics, if such force is required to protect Russian national interests.
•         Military deterrence of the US and the NATO countries, with the primary goal of preventing any Western meddling in conflicts in the former Soviet republics or Western attempts to forestall possible Russian actions with regard to these republics
•         Participation in countering internal threats such as separatism and terrorism.

Pukhov explained why NATO is in Russia’s crosshairs: “NATO is still being regarded by Moscow as the main external military threat. For all the efforts made in the post-Soviet period, the Russia-NATO relationship has not become a partnership. Such a situation is, in fact, entirely natural, due to the obviously different nature of the two sides’ military-political views and interests.

“NATO was created as a military coalition against the sole adversary, the Soviet Union (Russia). NATO is an alliance whose purpose is to defend Europe from Russia. For all the latest geopolitical shifts in Europe and globally, NATO remains an anti-Russian military alliance, and the main reason for its existence is militarily defending European states (including the new NATO members) from Russia.”

Apparently Russia respects NATO’s military prowess and threat more than the alliance recognizes them. Its tepid military reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates how NATO is struggling to work out a doable course of action chiefly in view of the other eastern European countries’ fears of Russia invading them.

Pukhov noted Russia’s concerns about eastern European countries’ activities and their distrust of Moscow.

“The admission of the former Warsaw Pact members and the Baltic states to NATO has been a huge factor behind the instability in relations between Russia and NATO. All these new members regard Russia as their traditional historical enemy. To these countries, the greatest value of NATO is that the alliance is an anti-Russian military coalition. The main goal of the foreign policy of most East European states is to weaken Russia and undermine its influence. This is why these countries are constantly provoking a series of endless crises in relations with Russia in an effort to paralyze any cooperation between Russia and Western Europe.”

He said Russia reserves its greatest anxiety for Ukraine and Georgia, pointing out their attempts to accede to NATO are particularly irritating.

“As for the problem of Ukraine’s possible accession to NATO, the issue is a ticking nuclear time bomb for Russian-Western relations. Attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO would cause a tremendous pan-European military and political crisis. In addition, Ukraine itself would be plunged into an extremely deep domestic political crisis owing to the different cultural orientations and values of Ukrainians living in different parts of the country. The West underestimates the importance of the Ukrainian issue for Russia, and the role of Ukraine as a colossal destabilizing factor in Western-Russian relations in the immediate term. The West often imagines that Russia will be forced, one way or another, to succumb to the eventual Ukrainian accession to NATO. That is a dangerous delusion, which could lead to a catastrophic turn of events,” he wrote, adding that “the participation of Ukraine and Georgia in the western security architecture constitutes a red line for Russia.”

Russia’s National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation to 2020, adopted on May 19, 2009, foresees the development of its armed forces and military structure at least on par with the US.

“The main challenge of strengthening national defense in the medium term is the transition towards a qualitatively new profile for the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, while maintaining the potential of the strategic nuclear forces, by improving the organizational staff structure and system of territorially-based troops and forces, increasing the number of divisions at constant readiness, and likewise improving operations and combat training, as well as improving the organization of interaction among different troops and forces,” the document states.

These declarations were not made during Brezhnev or Khrushchev’s times but within the past couple of years, with Putin in power.

A Russian defense minister has insisted that Russia’s official military doctrine be rewritten to allow for a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the US and NATO, reported Interfax on Sept. 4. Russian Army Gen. Yury Yakubov said the doctrine, last revised in 2010, should be updated to classify the United States and other NATO countries as the “main enemy” of Russia. Yakubov, who is from the defense ministry’s inspector general’s office, also said it is time “to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a pre-emptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces.”

Russia’s principal newspaper, Pravda, warned on Nov. 12 that Russia has a “surprise” for the US if Washington continues to support Ukraine in today’s war with Russia. The article titled “Russia Prepares Nuclear Surprise for NATO,” cited a Sept. 1 State Department report that noted that US and Russia had reached parity in terms of deployed strategic nuclear weapons. The message of the article is evident: The readily deployable Russian nuclear arsenal is growing and now matches that of the US. So be careful where your tread, Washington.

US Gen. Philip Breedlove, known for recognizing Russia’s threat to Ukraine, eastern Europe and the world, said earlier this week that Russian forces “capable of being nuclear” are being moved to the Crimean peninsula, but NATO doesn't know if nuclear weapons are actually in place.

While the peace dividend of the perceived end of the Cold War has lulled Washington into believing that the time is ripe for a reset in relations with Russia, Moscow has continued apace to develop, expand and train its military, giving it the ability to invade any country, anytime.

Five days after the Winter Olympics concluded in Sochi, Russia invaded Crimea, occupied the peninsula and in the end annexed it. Was that a spur of the moment military action or one whose logistics demanded many months of preparations? That armed incursion launched the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014 and in the spring Russian mercenaries took to arms in eastern Ukraine, paving the way for a second invasion by Russian regular forces. Impromptu or planned in advance? Russia prepared for war while talking about peace and nuclear disarmament.

While Ukrainian soldiers, guardsmen and volunteer battalions have been defending their homeland in eastern Ukraine, Russia has been reminding the free world that it has the military capability to fly over its territories and approach their territorial waters with impunity.

The European Leadership Network (ELN) examined 39 incidents of military encounters between Russian planes and boats, and NATO forces and allies, in the last eight months and concluded that the “highly disturbing” violations of national airspace had caused several incidents where military confrontation or the loss of life was narrowly avoided.

Its report listed near-misses including violations of national airspace, emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided mid-air collisions, close encounters at sea and simulated bombing attacks stretching from the North Sea to the Baltic and Arctic regions and along the US coast.

The report rhetorically questioned whether President Vladimir Putin is merely flexing Russia’s military muscle to test NATO or simply increasing readiness amid the tensions that followed Putin’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine. Actually, it may be an irrelevant question because both points are tightly connected.

In the midst of all of this, the world’s disjointed leaders have agreed to sit at the same table with Vladimir Putin for the G20 meeting in Australia, where Ukrainians are planning mass demonstration to protest the Russian dictator’s presence on Australian soil. In advance of the meeting, British Foreign Minister David Cameron compared Russia with Nazi Germany and expressed hope that the world must learn the lessons of current history. Eloquently stated. But remember, Churchill didn’t meet with Hitler but leaders of the G19 will meet with Putin. Has morality changed that much since the end of World War II?

It seems that history will repeat itself for Ukraine and it will be abandoned or betrayed by the free world. Soon after independence was declared on August 24, 1991, Ukraine was arm twisted by everyone into surrendering its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees. Again, Ukraine lived up to its end of the deal but its partners didn’t. Ukraine has abided by the terms of the truce in the war with Russia but the invader hasn’t.

In a joint commentary on current affairs, former Presidents Leonid Kravchuk and Viktor Yushchenko noted: “Ukraine’s nuclear status was sacrificed for the sake of international stability and peace, and now the West is debating over whether it is safe to supply small arms Ukrainian defenders.”

Kevin Ryan, director of defense and intelligence projects at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, opined in The New York Times on Nov. 14 that the free world should forcefully confront Russia without regard for nuclear threats. “Until Russia removes its troops from eastern Ukraine and ceases its military support to pro-Russian separatists there, the United States should suspend any discussion on future arms reductions or cooperation on securing Russian nuclear materials and weapons.

“The US could continue to meet its obligations for nuclear weapons reductions under the New Start treaty. This would, for all practical purposes, end such cooperation. But the threat from Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe outweighs the potential threat from loose nuclear material.”
The Cold War is not over, Russia is still obnoxiously threatening the world, and the former captive nations are still scared of Russian terror. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Anniversary of Toppling of Berlin Wall is Germany’s Day

The free world today observed the 25th anniversary of the toppling of the notorious Berlin Wall, a brick, mortar and steel structure that symbolized not merely communist dictatorship but also Russia’s subjugation of eastern European nations, including Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia Hungary, Rumania and East Germany.

The Berlin Wall, a segment of the iron curtain that Winston Churchill belatedly recognized for what it is, signified a divide between the haves and have nots but not merely in economic terms. It was a visible, detested border between those in the West that enjoyed unbounded freedom and those in the East that were oppressed by Moscow.

Germans on both sides of the wall, imbued with spiritual strength and confidence, grabbed sledge hammers, and demolished the wall physically and ideologically.

The German nation probably found its inspiration from President Reagan’s words who, standing in the shadow of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, issued on June 12, 1987, a historic challenge to Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev:

“We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

That passage has outshined another one that Reagan uttered later in the same speech and presaged the spread of freedom:

“As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: ‘This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.’ Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.”

Indeed, the wall and the iron curtain fell. In quick succession, other eastern European countries followed suit and exited the Soviet Russian prison of nations, or as Reagan noted – the evil empire – until Ukraine finally did so two years later on August 24, 1991. The once captive peoples and their supporters in the free world were filled with hope that freedom and democracy will finally envelop nations that have for decades and centuries fought for their independence from Russia.

Unfortunately, this remarkable demonstration of a people’s will turned out to be an anniversary of Germany’s reunification rather than the ultimate defeat of Russian communism and oppression because Russia’s imperialism and repression continue today in a non-communist image. As I wrote at the launch of The Torn Curtain 1991 in February 2012, Russia in any form will attempt to restore the iron curtain of repression and subjugation.

Marking the anniversary, German Chancellor Angela Merkel alluded to this by observing that the toppling of the Berlin Wall “showed that we have the power to shape our destiny and make things better. That is the message of the fall of the Wall. It is directed at us in Germany, but also at others in Europe and the world, especially to people in Ukraine, in Syria, Iraq and other regions where human rights are threatened or violated.

"It was a victory of freedom over bondage and it’s a message of faith for today’s, and future, generations that can tear down the walls – the walls of dictators, violence and ideologies.”

Without diminishing Germany’s national victory, Europe and the world are not free of the threat of domination, dictators and violence. Russia has not slithered away from the global stage. Despite the free world’s hopes and wishes, Moscow has never accepted the departure of the captive nations, especially Ukraine, from its orbit. Russia may have only withdrawn to re-position itself militarily and politically for another attempt at restoring its empire and the inglorious prison of nations.

With every attempt by Kyiv to establish Ukraine as a respected, independent and sovereign member of the European community, Russia increased its efforts and evident threats to preserve its domination of Ukraine. It sabotaged elections and established its own governors but the nation continued to fight back.

In July 2013, while visiting Ukraine for the anniversary of the Christianity of so-called Rus, Putin did not conceal his displeasure with Ukraine’s proclaimed intention of signing the EU accession accords that would have sealed its independence from Moscow.

Amid of host of religious, predominantly Orthodox spiritual leaders, Putin on Saturday, July 27, urged Ukraine to join forces with Russia, cruelly saying Russians and Ukrainians were “one people.” He said the two majority Orthodox neighbors should further integrate economically.

“Intense competition is going on now in global markets, for global markets," Putin said after talks with President Viktor Yanukovych who did not oppose his Russian boss. “Only by joining forces can we be competitive and win in this rather tough competitive fight. We have every reason to believe that we can and must do it.”

However, he added deceivingly that Russia would “respect whatever choice the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian state will make.”

Putin also stressed the bonds between both countries forged by a common history and what he called Russia and Ukraine’s “spiritual unity.”

“Together we went through great trials, tribulations and tragedies, together we built and defended the Great Rus,” Putin said following a meeting with Ukraine’s top Orthodox clergy. “All of us are spiritual successors of what happened here 1025 years ago. And in this sense we are certainly one people.”

That was Russia’s warning and pledge to re-subjugate Ukraine despite the defeat of communism – that sadly fell on deaf ears.

The Ukrainian people were undaunted in their attempts to sever the chains that bound them to Russia. When Yanukovych ultimately reneged on his pledge to sign the EU accords in the fall of 2013, the people took to the streets across Ukraine, toppled hundreds of Lenin monuments and ousted Yanukovych in what came to be known as the Euromaidan Revolution.

Russia did not give in to Ukraine’s national fervor. In February 2014, after the Sochi Winter Olympics, Moscow invaded southern Ukraine by way of Crimea and annexed the peninsula, and then invaded eastern Ukraine. The war rages until now.

Today, as the world commemorates the 25th anniversary of the toppling of the Berlin Wall that was erected by then Soviet Russia, contemporary Russia continues its war against Ukraine by sending additional waves of tanks, regular troops and mercenaries into eastern Ukraine.

Ukrainian military spokesman Col. Andriy Lysenko said today “Russia continues to send additional reinforcements, weapons, ammunition to the rebels.” Lysenko also said there’s a “high probability” Russia is preparing major provocations such as terrorist attacks or shelling that it can blame on Ukraine as a pretext to send “so-called peacekeepers” into rebel-held areas.

Some of the heaviest fighting in months erupted in and around the rebel stronghold of Donetsk early Sunday, hours after an unmarked column of weaponry and armed vehicles arrived in the eastern Ukrainian city. Despite declared ceasefires, Russia continues to violate every truce.

Eastern Europe fears that nothing will be able to stop Russia as it advances across Ukraine and into eastern Europe. Poland, among other former captive nations, has revised its defense strategy and reinforced its border with Ukraine.

Russia has stepped up military incursions over eastern Europe and in the seas around Europe. NATO is perplexed about what to do as a military alliance though some commanders, such as Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander, U.S. European Command, as well as the 17th Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied Command Operations, have warned about the threat that Russia poses to European and global peace, security and stability. Their advice should be heeded.

A ghost of the cold war, Mikhail Gorbachev, has resurfaced in the past few days, not recalling the fall of the Berlin Wall but professing unbounded support for Putin’s war while cautioning the US and Europe that they are heading toward a new cold war because of their support for Ukraine. Gorbachev’s recent statements demonstrate that communist Soviet Russia is no different from federated Russia. Both have been and will continue to be aggressive and imperial by nature. Russia under any flag will pose a danger to the international community.

So as the French say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Let’s raise a stein of German beer and say “prost” on the occasion of the reunification of Germany. But on the 25th anniversary of the toppling of Russia’s Berlin Wall, let’s look truth in the eyes and admit that the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014 proves that Russian colonialism was not defeated in 1989.

Poroshenko and Lincoln: Both Called to Preserve Union

With the Russian war against Ukraine raging in the eastern region, Crimea still occupied by the enemy and an illegitimate, unconstitutional secessionist vote threatening to tear apart the country, it is not difficult to draw comparisons between President Petro Poroshenko and President Abraham Lincoln.

Both presidents desperately sought to find a peaceful solution to preserving the national union. History shows that one was forced by the secessionists’ belligerence to resort to war to defend and restore the Union. Poroshenko may also be compelled to escalate Ukraine’s military campaign against Russia to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereign indivisibility.

In his first inaugural address to the American people, on March 4, 1861, Lincoln already faced the secession of seven states. He commiserated aloud the present and future of the United States of America.

“No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”

“Acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.”

“I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.”

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen (Confederate Americans), and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend’ it.”

“Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." 

“We denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

The fateful attack on Fort Sumter took place the following month. Then some four years and 620,000 deaths later, General Lee surrendered to General Grant in Appomattox and the Union was preserved.

Poroshenko and Ukraine, caught by surprise by Russia’s invasion of Crimea and then eastern Ukraine, sought to preserve peace and stability in the region even by sitting across a negotiating table and concluding a ceasefire agreements with the enemy leader. Lincoln had never met Jefferson Davis during the war.

Ukraine was lauded by the international community for strictly abiding by the truce terms, each of which was violated by Russian mercenaries and troops. In September Ukraine and Russia, in the presence of EU leaders, signed the controversial so-called Minsk Accords, which needlessly recognized some autonomous rights and privileges for the people of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Poroshenko defended his decision to sign the accords, saying he hoped to bring peace to Ukraine.

None of these efforts halted the war nor pushed back the Russian army. The Ukrainian regular army, National Guard and volunteer battalions have fought valiantly against the enemy and managed to stop their advances while incurring a great number of civilian and military deaths.

Russia’s relentless military campaign against Ukraine has proven that defending Russian speaking rights of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine was never the reason for the invasion. Faced with the real possibility of losing Ukraine to the European Union, Putin probably felt he had no other choice than to invade, conquer and once again subjugate Ukraine. In time, the other former captive nations could also be returned to the Russian prison of nations.

World leaders and pundits have come around to realizing what Russia’s plan has been. As The Washington Post wrote this past weekend, Putin is continuing to chip away at Ukraine. Perhaps not chipping, but chopping.

After Russian terrorists held their illegitimate and unconstitutional elections in the Donbas region, a vote that was condemned by the United States, the United Nations and others, with which Russia hopes to formalize its seizure of Ukrainian land just as it did with Crimea, Poroshenko, who correctly emphasized that Kyiv is a firm supporter of the peace plan, had no other choice but to escalate Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

“These pseudo-elections are a gross violation of the September 5 Minsk protocol,” he said in an address to the nation earlier this week, pledging to “re-examine” Ukraine’s commitments to the truce deal.

“We should reexamine our action plan. I have discussed it with the defense minister,” he added.

Poroshenko said he is willing to abolish the law agreed under the truce deal that grants a certain level of autonomy for three years to the rebel strongholds in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. I criticized the Minsk Accords but support Poroshenko’s decision to abolish it now before it is too late.

At meeting with the National Security and Defense Council the next day, Poroshenko reaffirmed Ukraine’s hopes for a peaceful solution to the crisis that Russia instigated, but emphasized “We are capable of protecting our state.”

Poroshenko revealed that he had instructed the Chief of the General Staff and the Defense Minister to form several new units to repel possible attacks in directions of Mariupol-Berdyansk and Kharkiv area to the north of Luhansk and Dnipropetrovsk. Indeed there are been reports that the Russians are amassing some 20,000 fresh troops on the border with Ukraine.

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed this fresh Russian mobilization: “In recent days, Russia-supported separatists have publicly stated their intention to expand the territory under their control. We strongly condemn ongoing separatist attacks in Mariupol and Dubalsiva and around the Donetsk Airport.”

Poroshenko said plans for the construction of the first, the second and the third line of fortifications is being carried out. “Provision of modern offensive and reconnaissance weapons, as well as fire control systems are pretty efficient,” he said.

Poroshenko announced he would propose to the Verkhovna Rada to abolish the law granting local governance in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

“This law wasn’t easy for us, but Ukraine demonstrated to the whole world its responsible attitude to the Minsk agreements, its decisiveness and willingness to have a peaceful dialogue. This law helped us stop the aggression and prevent anyone from accusing Ukraine of reversing the peace process and refusing the proposition on the political dialogue,” he explained.

Poroshenko pointed out that this move doesn’t mean the rejection of Minsk agreements. According to him, Kyiv would be willing to adopt the new law under the following conditions: sustainable ceasefire, withdrawal of troops from the front line, clear demarcation of the collision line laid down in the Minsk protocol of September 5, liberation of all hostages, including those illegally imprisoned in Russia, and annulment of illegal election farce of November 2.

Reinforcements and parliamentary invalidations notwithstanding, I fear that Poroshenko’s hopes and prayers for a peaceful solution to Russia’s aggression is, in the words of the late dean of the UN diplomatic corps, Ukrainian patriot and Rukh leader Hennadiy Udovenko, a combination of two great novels: “Great Expectations, Gone with the Wind.”

Ukraine cannot submit to Europe’s wish that it quietly cede to Russia the lands that it has already grabbed so it can continue to wheel and deal with a less abrasive eastern partner.

It is time for the US, EU, NATO and other sober world leaders to understand this and unyieldingly support Ukraine with all means as it defends its independence, territorial integrity and sovereign indivisibility.

As it has in the past, so too in the future, Russia, having tasted blood and the world’s limited involvement, will continue to mobilize thousands of troops and mercenaries on the border with Ukraine and send them westward wave by wave. Military analysts have already written about Russian armies ultimately approaching Kyiv, Lviv, the Baltic Republics and Poland.

For that not to happen, for the world to be saved from the peril of Russian domination and oppression, for Ukraine and the other former captive nations not to be returned to the prison behind the iron curtain, a global last stand must be taken in Donetsk and Luhansk.

As non-violent as Lincoln was, he ultimately realized that without a war, the union would not be preserved.

Remember Maidan!

Now it’s time to roll up the sleeves and get to work strengthening the Ukrainian nation and building an independent, sovereign, democratic country that has the potential to be the envy of the world.

With two historic national elections in five months, the Ukrainian nation has clearly severed its chains to the Russian empire and demonstrated its sovereign Ukrainian national, pro-Euro-Atlantic, democratic, and market-oriented commitment.

And it all began in December last year with Maidan rallies, demonstration and revolution, and the toppling of the central Lenin monument in Kyiv.

Maidan must remain in the national consciousness for generations because of what it stands for but its reverberations have different meanings for everyone who hears the word. Maidan’s lessons must become the backbone of a new comprehensive national renaissance.

For the men and women of all ages, walks of life and most importantly regions of Ukraine that built the barricades that became synonymous with Maidan and led to a new beginning for Ukraine, the word became a foundry that forged a nation that Russia had tried to destroy or sent into the underground. It became a place where men and women were martyred and where Ukraine’s internal and external enemies showed their historical hatred for Ukrainians.

Maidan also became a classroom and laboratory for a young generation of Ukrainian voters, who were born after independence and were nurtured on the lessons of OUN-UPA and the first Maidan of the Orange Revolution. This stalwart, dedicated group – Gen Free – is destined to lead Ukraine out its doldrums and into a new life.

Maidan also reaffirmed for the nation that it is still capable of defending and fighting for its rights and national identity. Just as the OUN-UPA war of liberation against Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany disproved that Ukrainians are collaborators, Maidan proved that Ukrainians do not want to wither in the oppressive shadow of Putin’s Moscow.

Maidan asserted that in Ukraine, the Ukrainian nation is the supreme ruler.

Maidan provides a lesson for the new government of Ukraine. President Poroshenko, Prime Minister Yatseniuk and the newly elected members of the Verkhovna Rada have been given a mandate to run the country, nation and people under Maidan’s flag. The people have voiced their ultimatum that both of them collaborate for the good of the nation. Indecisiveness or, God forbid, renunciation will certainly mobilize them to build new Maidan barricades.

Recently, due to signs of perceived government vacillation, an ominous warning began rippling across Ukraine: “This is not why we stood on Maidan.” It should not be belittled.

An AFP article pointed out that veterans of the current war with Russia are especially bitter, watchful and threatening. “We’re going to give them half a year to show the country has somehow changed, that even if it’s hard, there’s light ahead,” Yuriy Bereza, Dnipro-1’s popular commander, said. Asked by the AFP reporter what would happen should that deadline pass, another paramilitary member at headquarters, a tall man in civilian clothing with a pistol strapped to his side, didn’t hesitate with his response: “A coup.”

Certainly, after overthrowing a domestic tyrant and holding its own against a global superpower, will a nation tolerate tarrying from its elected leaders?

Poroshenko and Yatseniuk, skilled, pro-Ukrainian political leaders, were authorized by the people’s votes to fulfill the nation’s aspirations, which so far are mutually aligned. They have the parliamentary votes to ensure that Ukraine will stay on the beam of national awareness and development – the goals for which the Maidan heroes sacrificed their lives.

All spheres of Ukrainian life must be included in this rebirth: finance and banking, commerce and industry, energy, agriculture, education and scholarship, science and medicine, legislative and legal, and especially, last but not least, the military.

Short-term, partisan goals should not outweigh national objectives. The people have demanded that corrupt, immoral, and anti-national politicians must not be allowed to usurp any level of government. Gratefully, there are signs that Poroshenko and Yatesniuk will follow through with this as has been confirmed by the recently adopted lustration law.

All mature, civilized democracies tolerate a certain amount of political squabbling and haggling but they must not be paramount. The parties that won last week must muster the farsighted political willpower to coalesce into a national alliance that will ensure Ukraine’s comprehensive survival and development over the next few decades.

At a news conference soon after the elections, Yatseniuk said he was taking the initiative in forming the new majority, and noted that it would be a partnership with Poroshenko. The President, for his part, wisely urged his partisan followers to support Yatseniuk for prime minister.

Finally, Maidan has special meaning for the present and future likes of Yanukovych and Putin. At its height, Maidan brought together some 2 million Ukrainians to Kyiv – Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians from the Caucasus to Carpathian mountains – to evict a criminal dictator and Russian lackey. Maidan also showed Russia that Ukrainians will not be bullied into submission.

With the Russian war versus Ukraine still raging in eastern Ukraine and Russian threats to world peace and stability abounding, Kyiv must be steadfast in combatting Moscow and earnest in creating an international coalition to defeat Russia. The logical place to start this campaign is with the former captive nations that are fearing Russian wars on its territories.

Ukraine today enjoys unprecedented global support. Its leaders must continue to solidify this backing. Kyiv should demand that the economic sanctions be maintained until Russia understands that it has no other solution but to withdraw from Ukraine and submit to new internationally monitored non-aggression pacts – just like Germany and Japan did.

My colleague, Natalka Zubar, chair of Maidan Monitoring Information Center in Kyiv, observed that realistically it will be difficult to defeat Russia.

“Even if the leadership of Russian Federation changes for whatever reason (which is highly unlikely), the international and domestic policy of Russian Federation will not change much. Citizens of Russian Federation have no skills to fight or stand against the government and will not learn how to do it in just 30 months. Ukrainians have been learning this art for 23 years, or perhaps more than 300 years, depending the historic perspective one adopts,” she wrote.

She’s right – the current generation of Russians has not been able to gather more than several tens of thousands of anti-Putin demonstrators for the latest protests.

Opining about Ukraine’s future after last Sunday’s elections, pundits took note of Ukraine’s political and national transformation from a colony to a sovereign country dedicated to seizing the moment and becoming a worthwhile member of the European and global community. They noted that fulfilling this mission will take a great deal of work on the part of the government and people. They also pointed out that Ukraine deserves and needs global support in this endeavor.

“We have the chance to build the new country, friendly for its inhabitants, interesting for the world, open for friends and safeguarded against enemies. I know Ukraine will make a great use of this chance; the open question is when exactly? The systemic transformations should be implemented quickly; otherwise, reforms could take decades. Ukraine is a part of information society and the changes in human minds, which had always been the most integral part of transformations, could be implemented quickly. What is needed for such changes is the will and skills of considerable numbers of citizens to work for such changes consciously and consistently,” observed Zubar.

“Civic and patriotic education and enlightenment of all people living in Ukraine, quick teaching of the critical thinking skills should become the priority of active citizens. The war is led not only in Donetsk airport or block posts, but in the minds of people is well. We should win this war too. The next 30 months for Ukraine will be extremely interesting and difficult. We currently have a chance we cannot miss to transform the country.”

And throughout, remember Maidan.

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.