Ukraine Freedom Support Act Introduced

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

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

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

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)

Rep. James Moran (D-VA)

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)

Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA)

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX)

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL)

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

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

The support of all Ukrainian Americans is essential.

A Word to the Wise …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maidan: 12 Months that Shook the World

Twelve months ago, the sudden, dramatic turnaround by Viktor Yanukovych and his lackeys in government and the Verkhovna Rada about Ukraine’s accession to the European Union Agreement, orchestrated by the Kremlin, has gone down in history as a most fateful decision that destroyed peace, stability and security in Europe.

On the other hand, the subsequent popular, national Maidan revolution, blazoned with abundant flags of Ukraine, EU, NATO and OUN, opened a new chapter for Ukrainians and genuinely liberated Ukraine from Russia’s prison of nations.

In the course of a year, traitors were uncovered, a new generation of heroes was anointed, the first Lenin monument in Kyiv crashed to the ground on December 8, 2013, followed by hundreds more across Ukraine, Yanukovych and his henchmen fled Kyiv on February 22, 2014, Putin launched the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014 on February 28, 2014, and Russia bared its imperialistic nature. World leaders and pundits consequently began to understand what generations of Ukrainians and other former captive nations have been saying about innate Russian aggression.

What began on November 21, 2013, as a massive national demonstration on the streets of Kyiv against Yanukovych’s decision, known as Maidan, evolved into a national revolution that despite Russian instigated violence and killings managed to oust Russia’s governor in Ukraine and his supporters. It also cemented the Ukrainian nation’s yearning to become a part of Europe and break the chains that have bonded it to Russia for nearly four centuries.

The events associated with that day will be inscribed in the history of Ukraine along with other manifestations of national will, self-determination, independence and sovereignty:

January 22, 1918 – declaration of independence of Ukraine;

November 1, 1918 – declaration of independence of Western Ukraine;

January 22, 1919 – proclamation of unity of Ukraine;

March 15, 1939 – declaration of independence of Carpatho-Ukraine;

June 30, 1041 – declaration restoring independence of Ukraine;

August 24, 1991 – the ultimate declaration of independence of Ukraine.

To commemorate this day and its heroes, President Poroshenko is expected to sign Decrees on Annual Commemoration of the Day of Dignity and Freedom on November 21 and the Day of Unity of Ukraine on January 22.

“Ukraine is the territory of dignity and freedom originated from two revolutions – our Maidan of 2004, which was the Holiday of Freedom, and the Revolution of 2013, the Revolution of Dignity. It was an extremely difficult challenge for Ukraine, when Ukrainians demonstrated their Europeanness, dignity and desire for freedom. As President of Ukraine, I must documentarily attest it and sign the Decree on the Day of Dignity and Freedom that will be celebrated by Ukrainians on November 21 from here to eternity,” Poroshenko explained why the dates would be officially recognized.

In time for the anniversary of Maidan, Civicua.org, called Prostir, a Ukrainian NGO dedicated to fostering Ukrainian national and democratic values, released the results of a national survey about Maidan – or Euromaidan as it is also called to emphasize the linkage between Europe and Ukraine – that confirmed the national scope of the revolution.

The survey found that some 20% of the population actively participated in the revolution on the streets of Kyiv or their hometowns. With Ukraine’s population at 45.3 million, that means there were 9.6 million revolutionaries. They were supported with goods, services and funds by 9% of the population.

Those figures by themselves are a testimony to the widespread desire of Ukrainians to change their status and fulfill their sovereign aspirations.

RFE/RL related a heartwarming story about Maryna Sochenko of Kyiv, who told the radio’s correspondent that her sketchbook was permanently at her side on Maidan from the first day. The radio report continued that a year later, Sochenko flips quickly through an endless pile of canvasses and drawings in her studio as she marks the first anniversary of the protests with an exhibition of her portraits of the faces of Maidan.

“There were so many different types of people,” she observed. “The most interesting thing is the geography, of course. I didn’t go looking for people. They came to find me. This one is from Sevastopol. This one from Kherson. Here is a journalist from Kyiv. All of Ukraine is here.”

Prostir reported that the largest group of protesters, according to the survey Fund Democratic Initiatives of Ilko Kucheriv and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, were western Ukrainians. Of them, 7% participated in protests in Kyiv and 26% in other cities and villages. About one-third of them helped the protesters. In the Central Kyiv region, 9.5% of the people participated in the revolution and 2% in other urban and rural areas, while 7.5% helped protesters.

At that time, Ukrainian community organizations, trade unions, municipal agencies and small businesses chartered buses, trains and other forms of transportation for their people to join the revolution.

Of the demonstrators, 25% had higher education; 15% – special secondary schools; 14% completed secondary 14%; and 7%  – middle school. All age groups were represented in the protests from teenagers to senior citizens, the survey showed.

In analyzing what Euromaidan meant for them, the demonstrators’ prevailing opinion (38%) was that it was a “conscious struggle of citizens coming together to protect their rights,” another 17% believe that the protests were spontaneous. One third of the respondents regarded Euromaidan as a coup against the Russian-controlled Yanukovych regime, 16% thought it was prepared by the political opposition, and 15% felt it was sponsored by the West.

Of those who took part in protests in Kyiv, 76% said they would vote in a referendum for Ukraine’s accession to NATO, and among those who took part in protests outside Kyiv, supporters rose to 90%.

Another revealing characteristic of the Euromaidan revolution was that it was a rebellion against Yanukovych and his cabal and Russia staged by all Ukrainians – Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, as well as Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and others.

Regardless how you analyze the numbers, Euromaidan was a national revolution for a better Ukraine, one that would be a member of Europe, and one that would shed its shackles to Russia.

Srdja Popvic and Slobodan Djinovic, in their article “Remember What They Died for on the Maidan” in the November 3 edition of Foreign Policy, observed:

“Western governments have failed to reinforce the message that though democracy may not be a perfect system, it is still better and fairer than any other system civilization has ever discovered. Do not forget that it was the Ukrainians, not Germans, French, or Brits, who put their lives on the line and died by the hundreds this spring on the Maidan under the banners of the European Union. They gave their lives for these values. Are we going to let their sacrifice be in vain?”

Support for Maidan is not universal. As can be expected, Russia detests Maidan as much as it detests the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), democracy, free press and human rights. Its news outlet “RT” vindictively commented that Maidan signaled the start of Ukraine’s destruction.

Indeed, we – those who participated, survived, witnessed it or watched the web streams – can’t let Maidan’s sacrifice be in vain no more than we can let the sacrifices of their predecessors who fought for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and indivisibility be in vain.

Proclamations, monuments, gravestones, stamps and memorials are visible examples of eternal memorials. A greater impact will be made if the memory of Maidan inspires and lives perpetually in the hearts and souls of Ukrainians everywhere.

See Prostir’s website for a slideshow about Maidan: http://www.slideshare.net/ProstirUA/ss-41804556

Notable Quotes from G20

I was opposed to Vladimir Putin’s presence at the G20 summit in Australia because imperialists, warmongers, invaders and global bullies should not associate with democratic leaders of the free world. I still am against Putin’s participation in any global event but fortunately, at the G20, the encounters turned out better than expected due to the indignation of the most ardent supporters of Ukraine and opponents of Russia’s invasion and bullying of Ukraine and the world.

The public tongue lashing that Putin endured kept Ukraine and historical Russian imperialism in the forefront of global events, newspapers and pundits. Here is a collection of some of the memorable quotes:

“Well I guess I’ll shake your hand, but I only have one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine.”

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada

“I am very frank when I meet with him [Putin] that the things that Russia has done in Ukraine are unacceptable.”

“Russia is being much more assertive now than it has been for a very long time. Interestingly, Russia’s economy is declining even as Russia’s assertiveness is increasing.”

“Russian action in Ukraine is unacceptable. We have to be clear about what we are dealing with. It is a large state bullying a smaller state in Europe. We have seen the consequences of that in the past and we should learn the lessons of history and make sure we don't let it happen again.”

“If Russia takes a positive approach toward Ukraine’s freedom and responsibility, we could see those sanctions removed, if Russia continues to make matters worse then we could see those sanctions increased, it’s as simple as that.”

“It’s important to warn of the dangers if Russia continues to head in the other direction.”

“There’s a real choice here, there’s a different and better way for Russia to behave that could lead to an easing of relations, but at the moment he’s not taking that path.”

“If that path continues and if that destabilization gets worse, the rest of the world, Europe, America, Britain, will have no choice but to take further action in terms of sanctions.”

“I would still hope that the Russians will see sense and recognize that they should allow Ukraine to develop as an independent and free country, free to make its choices.”

“There is a more incipient, creeping threat to our values that I want to mention. It comes from those who say that [traditional Western democracies] will be out-competed and outgunned by countries that believe there is a shortcut to success—a new model of authoritarian capitalism that is unencumbered by the values and restrictions that we place upon ourselves. We should have the confidence to reject this view and stay true to our values.”

“If he continues to destabilize Ukraine, there’ll be further sanctions, further measures, and there will be a completely different relationship between European countries and America on the one hand, and Russia on the other.”

David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain

“I am going to be saying to Mr. Putin: Australians were murdered. They were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment. We are very unhappy about this.”

“Let’s not forget that Russia has been much more militarily assertive in recent times. We’re seeing, regrettably, a great deal of Russian assertiveness right now in Ukraine.”

“Russia would be so much more attractive if it was aspiring to be a superpower for peace and freedom and prosperity, instead of trying to recreate the lost glories of tsarism or the old Soviet Union.”

“There is a heavy responsibility on Russia to come clean and atone” adding that Moscow’s bullying of Kiev was part of a “regrettable pattern” that included the stationing of a naval fleet in the South Pacific.

Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia

“We are also very firm on the need to uphold core international principles. And one of those principles is that you don't invade other countries or finance proxies and support them in ways that break up a country that has mechanisms for democratic elections.”

“At this point the sanctions we have in place are biting plenty good. We retain the capability, and we have our teams constantly looking at mechanisms in which to turn up additional pressure as necessary.”

The United States was at the forefront of “opposing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which is a threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot-down of MH17.”

“What is concerning me quite more is that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is being violated and that the agreement of Minsk is not followed.”

“If he continues down the path that he is on -- violating international law; providing heavy arms to the separatists in Ukraine; violating an agreement that he agreed to just a few weeks ago, the Minsk Agreement, that would have lowered the temperature and the killing in the disputed areas and make providing us a pathway for a diplomatic resolution – then the isolation that Russia is currently experiencing will continue.”

Barack Obama, President of the USA

We oppose “Russia's purported annexation of Crimea and its actions to destabilize eastern Ukraine,” and were committed to “bringing to justice those responsible for the downing of Flight MH17.”

President Barack Obama, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott

“It’s clear that these geopolitical tensions, including relations with Russia, are not really conducive to promoting growth. We are all striving to do everything diplomatically possible to see improvements.”

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

“Russia has still the opportunity to fulfil its Minsk commitments to choose the path of de-escalation, which could allow sanctions to be rolled back. If it does not, however, we are ready to consider additional actions. We will continue to use all the diplomatic tools, including sanctions, at our disposal … the EU foreign ministers will on Monday assess the situation on the ground and discuss possible further steps.”

Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Union

“The current situation is not sustainable for world peace and the economy.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

“(Putin) won’t stop at Ukraine, he wants to re-form the Soviet Union. He is an evil man, a murderer not welcome in Australia.’’

Irene Stawiski, Ukrainian Australian, part of group that staged an anti-Putin protest, wearing headbands reading “Putin, Killer.”

“While Ukraine has not sought ‘boots on the ground’ from the West, it does deserve the material support of G20 leaders who are recognizing that it is the place where the major threat to international peace and prosperity is most apparent. As a buffer to Putin, it does deserve greater political and economic engagement, where countries like Australia can continue its leadership.

“Ukraine’s fight is the world’s fight – and the world needs to invest in defending itself from Putin’s neo-imperial ambitions and aggression.”

Stefan Romaniw, President of Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organizations

Putin replied coldly and aloofly as the KGB taught him that he cannot withdraw from Ukraine because Russia is not in Ukraine. The conflict in Ukraine is an internal one. Russia is not an aggressor. So far, world leaders have rejected Putin’s lies but, oddly, accepted him.

Despite these visible, undiplomatic but welcome expressions of condemnation, the photo-ops of the G20 showed a different picture. In reality, there were strong words, handshakes and smiles. Putin and Abbott even glowed while posing together with koalas in their arms. I guess these cuddly animals could melt animosity, Russian imperialism and gross violations of international order. USA Today picked up on this point in a story headlined “Good Cheer Masks Ukraine Tension at G-20 Summit.”

“Throughout the day, summit participants exuded good cheer and camaraderie. Despite Australia having lobbied for Vladimir Putin to be dis-invited, the Russian leader was greeted warmly. He chatted amiably with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and exchanged pleasantries with Abbott,” the newspaper wrote.

We can only hope that the words of censure, pressure to withdraw from Ukraine, threats of more sanctions and indignation will survive beyond the good cheer and smiles displayed in the photos.

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.