Russia’s Blueprint for Invasion and Assimilation of Ukraine

Novaya Gazeta, a Russian newspaper partly owned by Kremlin critic Alexander Lebedev, published on February 24 an article about a Kremlin policy paper that it said came into its possession. The document apparently laid the groundwork and justification for Russia’s invasion and conquest of Ukraine.

Presumably, by making the paper public, the newspaper’s editors believe in its credibility or at least newsworthiness. Its revelation received a lot of press in Ukraine and the free world. Even The New York Times reported its existence a couple of days later.

According to the editors of Novaya Gazeta, the Kremlin’s blueprint for invading and re-subjugating Ukraine was circulated within the highest echelons of Russia’s leadership some two weeks before Viktor Yanukovych decided that it was better for his personal welfare to flee Ukraine on February 22, 2014. A day later, Russian troops invaded Ukraine via Crimea and we witnessed a video of a lightly armed and outmatched Ukrainian garrison, commanded by Col. Yuriy Mamchur, that bravely refused to surrender to Russian invaders, while singing the Ukrainian national anthem.

The plans outlined in the policy paper are plausible because they verify Russia’s historical intention to dominate the former captive nations, beginning with Ukraine, which has always been considered by Russian officials and third-party pundits as the crown jewel, without which Vladimir Putin or whoever occupies the head of the Kremlin’s table could not begin to plan the restoration of the Russian empire.

I do not think the paper set in motion the Russian military machine’s execution of the invasion plans. Even plans for D-Day were set in motion in May 1943 – some 13 months ahead of the Allied invasion of Nazi strongholds in Europe.

Indeed, writing about the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15, I noted that Putin had threatened Ukraine with the reformation of the Russian prison of nations in the summer of 2013, when he visited Kyiv for the anniversary of Christianity in Ukraine. He was quite adamant in his admonition to so-called Ukrainian leaders headed by his minion Viktor Yanukovych that if Ukraine accedes to the European Union, Russia’s response would not be pleasant for Kyiv. Yanukovych ultimately did renege on his promise to sign the already negotiated and prepared accession documents in the fall of 2013, which triggered national student demonstrations, the destruction of Lenin monuments around Ukraine, killings on Maidan, and the Maidan revolution which ultimately ousted Yanukovych. Then the undeclared Russo-Ukraine war of 2014-15 began with the invasion of Crimea.

The policy paper reads like a justification after the decision and plans for an invasion had been finalized.

The editors of Novaya Gazeta noted: “Moreover, if genuine, the paper gives insight into the shortcomings of Russian intelligence about the Maidan in Ukraine and the Kremlin’s lack of understanding of Ukrainian national feeling in eastern parts of the country, as well as the strength of influence of Ukrainian oligarchs on political events.”

Russia believed that eastern Ukrainians at least would greet the invading Russian soldiers and mercenaries like liberators rather than aggressors and criminals. The invasion and war seem to be poorly planned when reviewed on the basis of the Ukraine’s strong military response, the nation’s deep moral, spiritual and political support for repulsing the Russian invaders and the free world leaders’ vocal support for Ukraine, condemnation of Putin and Russia, and western sanctions against Russia which have contributed to its monumental economic collapse. Russian planning was further muddied by the murder of Borys Nemtsov who was on the verge of revealing irrefutable proof of Russia’s direct involvement in the invasion of Ukraine.

However, Russian leaders, especially Putin, have not been known for committing such fatal errors. Perhaps this justification after the fact was meant as another smokescreen to confuse the free world and throw it off the trail of Moscow’s intentions. Perhaps Putin is simply following through with his plan to re-subjugate Ukraine and the other former captive nations and restore the Russian empire-prison of nations regardless of what the free world thinks of him.

Still, the concepts of invasion of Ukraine and its integration into Russia permeate the document, confirming its national fixation.

The Kremlin leaders demonstrated fear and concern that events in Ukraine are snowballing toward chaos, which would vacate their control over their forcer captive nations. They blamed Yanukovych, Russia’s stooge, who suffered the brunt of Moscow’s disdain for what was happening in Ukraine, as well as the events surrounding what has simply come to be known as Maidan. Ultimately, they said they feared losing revenue from a major buyer of Russian energy products.

“The assessment of the political situation in Ukraine should be primarily based on recognizing the bankruptcy of [Ukraine’s] President Viktor Yanukovych and his ruling ‘family,’ which is rapidly losing control of the political process;

“Secondly, the paralysis of the central government and lack of a distinctive political body which the Russian Federation could negotiate with;

“Thirdly, the low probability of such an acceptable body emerging after the snap parliamentary and presidential elections announced by Viktor Yanukovych on February 4,” the authors wrote.

They also observed: “The non-systemic opposition (the so-called Maidan) remains beyond the control of the leaders of the systemic opposition, as the ‘warlords’ (mostly, football fans and people from the world of organized crime) (strange and inaccurate assessment – ID) set the tone there, while not having electoral influence, and apparently, controlled not so much by the oligarchic groups, but largely by the Polish and British intelligence services (the Poles and Brits were not blamed as much as the US—ID). At the same time, many oligarchic groups are funding Maidan, so as ‘not to put all one’s eggs in one basket.’

“President V. Yanukovych is a man of low morals and willpower – he is afraid to give up the presidency and yet at the same time he is ready to ‘give up’ on the security forces in exchange for a guarantee of him remaining president and having immunity after leaving office.”

A couple of pages later, the authors predicted Yanukovych’s impending political demise. “Current events in Kyiv convincingly show that Yanukovych’s time in power could end at any moment. Thus, there is less and less time for an appropriate Russian response. The number of dead in riots in the capital of Ukraine is direct evidence of the inevitability of civil war and the impossibility of reaching consensus if Yanukovych remains president. In these circumstances, it seems appropriate to play along the centrifugal aspirations of the various regions of the country, with a view to initiate the accession of its eastern regions to Russia, in one form or another. Crimea and Kharkiv region should become the dominant regions for making such efforts, as there already exist reasonably large groups there that support the idea of maximum integration with Russia.”

It is obvious that Russia hoped to use to its advantage any political calamity in Ukraine and force ripping apart the country perhaps as the first step to seizing all of Ukraine up to the Polish and Belarusian borders.

The Kremlin also did not place any confidence in the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Perhaps not surprisingly inasmuch as many sources in Ukraine have pointed out that by this time Yanukovych and his junta had weakened the army to a poorly armed, demoralized rabble. In hindsight, perhaps his mission was to destroy the army so that Russia and its terrorist mercenaries could easily sweep across Ukraine.

“The position of Ukraine’s army is even more ambiguous. According to an employee of Ukraine’s Defense Ministry, the army is ‘locked in barracks while the officers guard the weapons depots so that, God forbid, they do not fall into the hands of contract soldiers, who in this case would start shooting at each other,’” the authors indicated.

If this statement is true, the army or what was left of it would not be able to defend the nation from snipers, criminals, saboteurs and Russian soldiers, leaving the country ripe for the picking. Fortunately, the opposite proved true and the army, National Guard and volunteer battalions managed to hold their own against Russian invaders.

Moscow noted that the so-called snap parliamentary and presidential elections “could become the trigger for a new round of protest- and assault-like civil war, the deepening of the ‘east-west’ electoral division and ultimately accelerate Ukraine’s disintegration.”

The seemingly sympathetic concern wanes in view of today’s Russian war with Ukraine. More likely Moscow understood that it could no longer control elections in Ukraine like in the past and bring to power another puppet leader that the Kremlin could manipulate.

The authors stated that “Russia’s policy toward Ukraine must finally become pragmatic.” Part of its pragmatism rested in the conclusion that Yanukovych was useless. They wrote:

“First, the regime of Viktor Yanukovych has gone totally bankrupt. Its political, diplomatic, financial, and information support from the Russian Federation is no longer meaningful.

“Second, as a sporadic civil war in the form of urban guerrilla of the so-called ‘supporters of the Maidan’ against the leadership of a number of the country’s eastern regions has become a fact, while the disintegration of the Ukrainian state along the line of geographical demarcation of regional alliances – ‘western regions plus Kyiv’ and ‘eastern regions plus Crimea’ - has become part of the political agenda, [and] in these circumstances, Russia should in no way limit its policy toward Ukraine only to attempts to influence the political situation in Kyiv and the relationship of a systemic opposition (A. Yatsenyuk, V. Klitschko, O. Tyahnybok, P . Poroshenko, etc.) with the European Commission.

“Third, in an almost complete paralysis of the central government, unable to form a responsible government even facing threats of default and of Naftogaz lacking funds to pay for Russian gas, Russia is simply obliged to get involved in the geopolitical intrigue of the European Community directed against the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

“First of all, this is because otherwise our country risks losing not only the Ukrainian energy market, but also indirect control over Ukraine’s gas transportation system, which is much more dangerous. This will endanger the position of Gazprom in Central and Southern Europe, causing huge damage to our country’s economy.”

Russian planners also discounted using the Constitution of Ukraine as a mechanism for legitimately initiating the integration of Ukraine’s eastern territories and Crimea into the Russian Federation. If Putin and his junta couldn’t use Ukrainian laws as a Plan B for their diabolical goal of absorbing Ukrainian territory into Ukraine, then they would be set with their original scheme of invading Ukraine.

Still this essay discuses another legal avenue for integrating Ukraine into Russia, which the authors admitted sounded paradoxical.  The authors had in mind “the system of Russian-Ukrainian Euroregions, members of the Association of European Border Regions (which, in turn, is a member of the Assembly of European Regions). For example, the Donbas Euroregion includes the Donetsk, Luhansk, Rostov and Voronezh regions, the Slobozhanshchina Euroregion includes the Kharkiv and Belgorod regions, the Dnepr Euroregion includes the Bryansk and Chernihiv regions, and so on.

“Using the legal instruments of the Euroregions, legitimate from the EU’s perspective, Russia should press for signing agreements on cross-border and trans-border cooperation, and then establish direct public-contractual relations with those Ukrainian territories where a pro-Russia electoral mood is prevalent.”

With a measure of foresight, the authors suggested that in the process of what they called “pro-Russian drift” of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, “certain events should be created beforehand that can support this process with political legitimacy and moral justification; also a PR strategy should be built that draws attention to the forced, reactive nature of the actions of Russia and the pro-Russian political elites of southern and eastern Ukraine.”

The plan also called for subverting the nation by fomenting anti-Kyiv and anti-Ukraine demonstrations in eastern Ukraine, during which regional residents would proclaim that they “can’t be held hostage to the Maidan. Ukraine’s unitary state system, which allows a violent nationalist minority of the population to impose its choice throughout the country, should be reconsidered. Russia is a federal state, and such a thing is unthinkable there. Strengthening the state-legal ties with Russia, we will strengthen the integrity of the Ukrainian state.”

With Russian flags in their hands, the demonstrators were to be instructed not to insist on changing the constitutional order. “They should impute strong condemnation of ‘Western separatists, jeopardizing the country’s territorial integrity at the will of their foreign masters,’ as well as the demands for the swift development of ‘associative relations between the eastern regions of Ukraine and the Russian Federation:’ ‘We are with Russia. No to civil war.’”

The protesters were to be trained to repeat three demands:

* A demand for “federalization” (or confederation) as a guarantee for these regions against the pro-Western and nationalist forces interfering in their internal affairs;

* The eastern and south-eastern areas joining the Customs Union at the regional level independently from Kyiv, which will provide for the necessary conditions for their industry’s normal operation and development;

* Direct sovereignty, followed by accession to Russia - the only guarantor of sustainable economic development and social stability.

The authors suggested that the pro-Russian integration process must be institutionalized and legally registered with local referendums that would decide “self-determination and further possibility of joining the Russian Federation.”

Returning to its outreach effort, the authors urged a PR-campaign in the Russian and Ukrainian media.

“This includes developing and giving out to the media concept documents, a kind of manifesto of the eastern Ukrainian and western Ukrainian separatism. The general public in Russia should speak up in support of the accession of the eastern regions of Ukraine to Russia (a possible slogan ‘Putin 2.0 – we want a Treaty of Pereyaslav 2.0’).”

Clever of them to use computer lingo in their policy paper. They could have added Tyranny 2.0, Russian Imperialism 2.0, Russification 2.0, and No Democracy 2.0

However, any Russian PR campaign would be doomed to failure because the free world realizes that its media disseminates deceit, lies and fabrications in place of news and credible information.

Novaya Gazeta’s editors correctly pointed out that the report is “drafted in a pragmatic, almost cynical style. It has no ‘spiritual-historical’ justification for Russian interference in Ukraine. No arguments about Novorossiya, the protection of the Russian-speaking population, the ‘Russian World’ and the upcoming Russian Spring. There is only geopolitics and cold expediency.”

The absence of defending the pro-Russian population in eastern Ukraine is especially odd inasmuch as Putin, Lavrov, Churkin and other Russian officials have used that argument as justification for invading Ukraine on two fronts.

Novaya Gazeta editor’s further point out that “The document’s authors made a significant error in determining the territories most ready to unite with the Russian regions: they name Crimea and Kharkiv region, considering Donetsk region, ‘Akhmetov’s empire,’ less promising. Reality has altered these calculations. But in general, the scheme was implemented.”

The Kremlin’s policy paper accentuates Russia’s overall age-old goal of destabilizing Ukraine, dividing the country and integrating its pieces into Russia, and restoring the Russian empire. This mission is its national obsession. Russian leaders were fixated by the goal of seizing foreign lands, then maintaining the empire, and now since they have lost the captive nations by restoring the empire. Regardless of the reason – acquisition of warm water ports, forming an anti-NATO buffer, protecting its realm, maintaining an energy customer or recovering its crown jewel, Putin or whoever occupies the head of the table in the Kremlin will not abandon what they consider their sacred mission.

Ukraine and the free world, acquainted with this plan, must not abandon their defensive ramparts. It would be foolhardy to treat this blueprint with derision.

A Look at Human Rights in War-torn Ukraine

Has Ukraine curtailed respect for human rights in the course of the one-year Russo-Ukraine war of 2014-15? For insights into this important aspect of Ukraine’s sovereignty I turned to Halya Coynash of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (www.khpg.org), which connects local human rights organizations throughout Ukraine. It fulfills a vital function as a resource and information center. 

Even though Ukraine is embroiled in a war with Russia, what is the status of human rights in Ukraine?

I think the war is getting in the way of vital reforms, which is frustrating since there finally seemed to be a political will for such reforms. Reforms are urgently needed, for example, for the police, the prosecutor’s office and most importantly, the judicial system. There are reforms as well as with anti-corruption measures, but they’re very slow in coming.

Some events may be occurring for the worse, or are at least dangerous for society, such as, for example, the arrests and detention of Ruslan Kotsaba and Andriy Zakharchuk on various dubious “treason” charges. Also, attempts to regulate what is shown or not shown on television are overly clumsy, and the creation of an Information Policy Ministry is, in my opinion, a very dangerous step for Ukraine. (http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1417619985) (I criticized the establishment of this Ministry on December 8, 2014.)

Since your organization has Kharkiv in its name, can you please summarize the status of human rights in this eastern Ukrainian city?

Because of its geographical position, its political leaders and politically more divided population, Kharkiv has been one of the targets of terrorist acts, which are almost certainly part of the undeclared war waged by Russia against Ukraine. The bomb on February 22 aimed at killing or maiming people preparing for a unity procession is only the latest of a number of such attacks. (Four people were killed as a result of this terrorist act. The Security Service of Ukraine has blamed Russia for this bombing.)

But there have been some positive court rulings (especially over protests in Gorky Park). One court ban, however, (http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1418820500) showed that the city authorities under Hennadiy Kernes have not renounced their repressive attempts to restrict peaceful protests.

Has Russia’s conduct during its war with Ukraine been in accordance with globally accepted conventions regarding war, prisoners of war, protecting civilian lives and human rights?

Anything but. I think there are ever increasing grounds for taking Russia and its proxies to the International Criminal Court and it is therefore very important that Ukraine ratifies the Rome Statute that established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Those crimes shall not be subject to any statute of limitations. Russia has not declared war but is fighting in Ukraine, and is providing its proxies with sophisticated weapons that they have already used to down a passenger airliner, to shell Mariupol, and a bus at a checkpoint (where there was every likelihood of hitting a civilian target). It is also guilty of torture, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, abduction, and gross violations of the European Convention in its treatment of Nadiya Savchenko.

And that’s just to begin with.

Do you think President Poroshenko will maintain human rights principles after the war while protecting Ukraine’s independence, statehood and sovereignty?

I hope so. Maidan is a responsibility – his and also those Ukrainians who will, I hope, not allow Ukraine’s new leaders to revert to old patterns.

Does the continued imprisonment of Nadiya Savchenko and others constitute a case of prisoners of war or are they victims of human rights violations? Have international agencies been contacted on their behalf? 

To the last question, yes. Amnesty International has responded with regard to Sentsov and Kolchenko, but I don’t think it or Human Rights Watch have responded about Nadiya Savchenko – I don’t know or understand why not.

Formally, Nadiya Savchenko is not a POW because there is no official state of war. She has been recognized by EU, USA, PACE, etc. as falling under the first Minsk agreement – she is illegally held. Particularly because she was captured by Kremlin-backed militants in Luhansk oblast and abducted to Russia.

Oleg Sentsov and Oleksander Kolchenko are political prisoners. There are others who I believe are being held illegally, but each case is specific and doesn’t fall into simple categories.

What is status of Ruslan Kotsaba, about who you wrote recently on your website? 

He is still in detention with the appeals court unfortunately upholding a wrong decision (http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1424091914).

Is Russia a threat to regional peace, stability and justice or is it a global threat that the free world must deal with?

Both! Even if it is mainly a threat to the region, its breach of fundamental principles of international law and the fact that some of the countries are members of NATO mean that the West is reacting to Russia much too slowly, much too weakly.

Beyond merely Russia, what are the major external threats to human rights in Ukraine? And internal? 

External – I would say only Russia.

Internally, all the bitterness, the chaos and destruction caused by the war, and the desperate difficulty that the situation creates for carrying out real reforms.

What is the state of human rights for Ukrainians in Russia? Are their cultural, linguistic, religious and national rights threatened because of Russia’s war with Ukraine?

I haven’t heard of anything particular, but I don’t think their rights as a national minority have ever been greatly observed. 

Is the Ukrainian nation – the people – aware enough of human rights abuses and their rights as citizens to defend their human rights? Will the government help them protect their rights?

By comparison with Russians, for example, yes, but probably not like in Canada and the United States. There is still a huge weight of cynicism and brutal realism about a system where the police is not seen as a protector of the population, and people don’t expect justice from the courts. I think that perpetuates corruption and fatalism. But not always because Maidan won, so awareness is growing. As for the second question – well, I hope so!

How can Ukrainians in the Diaspora and free world in general help in preserving human rights in Ukraine?

Through helping inform their societies and governments about what is happening, through pressure on their governments, for example, to take much tougher measures against Russia, which is the main source of Ukraine’s problems at the moment. 

I think it is also important not to be tolerant of failings of the new administration. President Viktor Yushchenko’s failure to deliver on reforms was tolerated for too long because the people didn’t want to help Russia and the opposition by criticizing a popular pro-Ukrainian president. And also because many people in the Diaspora liked his stands on the Holodomor, on Shukhevych (Roman Shukhevych-Taras Chuprynka, commander in chief of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army killed in a skirmish with MVD in March 1950) and Bandera (Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists assassinated by a Russian agent in October 1959), and did not consider the fact that this was happening in lieu of urgently needed reforms.

I will be tapping Halya Coynash’s insights for time to time in future blogs.

Debaltseve: Russia’s Pyrrhic Victory

Debaltseve – perhaps a sleepy town tucked away in the southeastern corner of Ukraine, in the Donetsk oblast, not centrally located, some 201 km (125 miles) from Rostov on Don, a major Russian city, would not have attracted any interest if it weren’t for the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15.

The city, with a current population of 25,000, was established in 1878 when railway station was opened in Donetsk. Russia’s self-styled victory last week over combined Ukrainian forces at Debaltseve’s strategic railway station, a local landmark, shoved the town to the forefront of global attention.

News reports from the battlefront bolstered by Russia’s propaganda gave the impression of a significant military defeat for Kyiv and a slap in the face of President Poroshenko. Some pundits have called the evacuation of about 2,000-3,000 troops Ukraine’s Dunkirk. Others have opined that what they described as an insurmountable embarrassment signals the beginning of the end for Ukraine’s military campaign to rid its land of Russian invaders.

However, the triumph was more Pyrrhic for Russia than fatal for Ukraine.

“We’re not talking about a defeat,” declared Valeriy, my retired airborne friend from Lviv, who I have cited several times in past blogs. “Our military and political leaderships were presented with the task of deciding several issues regarding the defense of Debaltseve.”

Indeed, the last days of the Russian army’s siege of Debaltseve looked bleak for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, National Guard and volunteer battalions. War correspondents were filling newspaper columns and web pages with disappointing accounts about Ukraine’s war effort, without scratching the surface in search of news about what was being planned elsewhere, in Kyiv and command headquarters.

Not knowing if the siege would end with a surrender, evacuation or slaughter, Vladimir Putin vulgarly urged Ukrainian soldiers to surrender to save their lives – Nazi and Japanese radio propagandists tried this ruse during World War Two.

“Nuts,” as General Anthony McAuliffe famously replied to Nazi officers during the defense of Bastogne.

After Ukrainian soldiers strategically withdrew, Putin continued his typical insensitivity by saying: “It’s tough to lose. But life is life. It just goes on. No need to dwell on it.” Those words should be engraved on his tombstone.

Valeriy, who has more than 28 years of airborne experience as a soldier and instructor first with the Soviet army and later independent Ukraine’s armed forces, observed: “Our forces pretty competently and often heroically engaged the enemy and caused considerable damage to his soldiers’ lives and equipment.”

After the withdrawal, Poroshenko explained to the nation what had happened at Debaltseve.

“We can assert that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have fulfilled their tasks completely. This position and success were urgently necessary for us in the course of the Minsk negotiations and after them. We managed to show to the whole world the true face of bandits-separatists backed by Russia, which acted as guarantor and direct participant of the Minsk negotiations.

“We were asserting and proved: Debaltseve was under our control, there was no encirclement, and our troops left the area in a planned and organized manner with all the heavy weaponry: tanks, APCs, self-propelled artillery and vehicles…

“It is a strong evidence of combat readiness of the Armed Forces and efficiency of the military command. I can say that despite tough artillery and MLRS shelling, according to the recent data, we have 30 wounded out of more than 2,000 warriors. The information is being collected and may be clarified.

“I would like to say that Russia, which yesterday required the Ukrainian warriors to lay down arms, raise the white flag and surrender, was put to shame by the given actions. Ukrainian warriors honorably approved the high rank of the Ukrainian Defender of the Homeland. As I promised, they repelled those who tried to encircle them and left Debaltseve pursuant to my command, which I gave yesterday, when Russian servicemen forbade the OSCE representatives to come to Debaltseve to reaffirm our readiness to begin the withdrawal of heavy weaponry and demonstrate the absence of encirclement. They knew it was not true. We demonstrated and proved that with our operation. We are holding the new defense lines.”

Valeriy similarly explained that Ukraine won time to remobilize and regroup its units, and undergo fresh training with restored weaponry for its replacement frontline military units. New defensive lines are being established in the strategic southeastern port city of Mariupol, 188 km (117 miles) south on the shores of the Sea of Azov.

“Thanks to the bravery in Debaltseve, we were able move the line of defense to the more important location of Mariupol and consequently strengthen defense readiness there,” he said.

Enemy losses in battles around Debaltseve in September and October of last year totaled some 3,000 killed and two to three times more wounded. Enemy losses after Minsk 2 were more than 800 killed and about two to three times more wounded.

“We also suffered significant losses, but far fewer,” he wrote.

However, Valeriy said the Ukrainian troops did not withdraw without troubles of their own and incurred losses but according to most estimates some 80% of them relocated to new defense positions, where they could rebuild and plan to fight another day.

Ukrainian soldiers displayed heroism in battle with many of them saying that would rather have fought to the last soldier than withdraw. There was also an account of one battalion, which was located on another side of Debaltseve, still holding its position after the order to withdraw.

Significantly, Debaltseve served as a major political defeat for Russia and Putin because it showed that even after coming to terms about a new ceasefire agreement in Minsk, Russian soldiers and mercenaries continued escalating their hostility. Putin again demonstrated that he is not a leader who could be trusted. Russian deceit led free world leaders to threaten deeper sanctions. Valeriy observed that the non-combatant participants of the negotiations in Minsk belatedly realized that the peacemaker wreath would not be theirs and Putin is probably worse than Hitler because the former has his finger on the nuclear button.

“The negotiations barely concluded as ‘Moskali’ moved to seize Debaltseve with such strength and equipment that it was surprising that our soldiers were even able to withstand the assault for as long as they did,” Valeriy said. “Therefore there are reasons to expect that next time the West will stop expressing ‘deep concern’ and will proceed to provide Ukraine with normal weapons and equipment. Nobody is asking them to fight in our place. Give us instructors for the new generation of weapons.”

Intensifying economic and financial sanctions against Russia and Russians is another imperative that Valeriy cited though, he cautioned, not one for the future but an urgent need because, as he emphasized, Ukrainians are dying. European tycoons are opposed to sanctions because they fear they would also suffer financial losses, he admitted, but if they were made to realize that their losses would be worse when the Russian armies enter Warsaw, Prague or the Baltics, then perhaps they would agree with sanctions.

“It’s better to stop the aggressor in Ukraine rather than lament for the murdered and raped residents of Europe. After all, did they forget what the ‘liberators’ did in 1945?” Valeriy asked.

Russian dishonesty, aggression and imperialism were again presented on center stage. Ceasefire agreements and sanctions have had no effect on Putin’s belligerence. Valeriy and Dmytro Tymchuk, a Ukrainian military officer and member of the Verkhovna Rada, have warned that fresh Russian troops are pouring into Ukraine. Ukraine’s military said last Friday more than 20 Russian tanks, 10 self-propelled artillery systems, 15 trucks and busloads of soldiers crossed Ukraine’s border and headed toward Novoazovsk, a Russian-held town east of Mariupol.

Tymchuk said there were signs that mercenary forces would try to seize additional territory. In a posting on Facebook, he said it appeared the terrorists were preparing to advance north from Debaltseve.

“The entire world must appreciate that Ukraine is fighting against one of the world’s strongest armies, which has nuclear weapons. Things don’t always happen as planned but we are holding our own. And ‘Putler’s’ plans to occupy the southeast of our country by winter and seal itself in Transdnistria have failed,” Valeriy wrote.

“So we not only hope for victory but we also believe in it. The only question is where and when,” he concluded.

And with you, the free world also hopes and believes.

German MDs' OK Diagnosis of Savchenko Dubious

A couple of days ago Nadiya Savchenko, the Ukrainian army pilot and member of the European parliament who was kidnapped and imprisoned in a Russian jail, was examined by German and Russian doctors but their favorable conclusions are deemed dubious due to a diabolical Russian-German conspiracy.

Interfax quoted a Russian official as saying about the Ukrainian aviator: “A council of Russian doctors has once again examined the arrested Ukrainian military service member, Nadia Savchenko, and concluded that her health condition is satisfactory, says Kristina Belousova, a spokeswoman for the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN).”

Savchenko, 33, who appears in court in a white t-shirt emblazoned with large Tryzub, trident – the national symbol of Ukraine, has become the subject of a worldwide defense campaign, which includes variations of the Twitter hashtag #FreeSavchenko. She was captured by Russian troops in eastern Ukraine and has been illegally incarcerated in a Russian prison since July 2014. Savchenko has been on a hunger strike for more than 70 days and her lawyer and doctor fear that she may fall into a coma because her sugar level, blood pressure and body temperature are dangerously abnormal.

Concern about her welfare is rising, Halya Coynash of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (www.khpg.org) observed, because of the underhanded secrecy about her condition and the doubtful nature of the examining team’s conclusions. Coynash wrote that Vladimir Putin and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier had reached a secret agreement to cover up Savchenko’s health. Historically, Russians and Germans are known for reaching secret pacts such as the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement that divided Europe between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany at the start of World War Two.

“While Ukrainian doctors are refused permission to examine Nadiya Savchenko, Russia’s Penitentiary Service continues quoting anonymous ‘German doctors’ whose anonymity would seem to be part of a secret agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.  Since these ‘German doctors’ are reported to have agreed entirely with the conclusion of the Penitentiary Service and found Nadiya Savchenko’s state of health to be ‘satisfactory,’ this secrecy raises some very serious questions about Germany’s role in the ongoing detention of the Ukrainian MP and delegate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,” Coynash wrote in her column on the group’s website.

Savchenko is demanding that she be examined by an international group of specialists, including a cardiologist, because she doesn’t have confidence in the doctors that checked her.

“Repeated attempts on Thursday afternoon (February 19) to gain confirmation or denial from the German Foreign Ministry of the assertions made by Deutsche Welle’s Russian Service were unfortunately unsuccessful.  DW states that the ‘German doctors’ were examined as part of an agreement behind the scenes in Minsk between Steinmeier and Putin.  No details are given since the Russian side demanded ‘total silence,’ however the Foreign Ministry has not confirmed the information issued earlier about Savchenko’s health.

“It remains, however, silent about the visit, which is the only examination by non-Russian doctors of Nadiya Savchenko whose condition after over two months on hunger strike must arouse grave concern. 

This is extraordinary given that Ukrainian doctors from the official Feofaniya Clinical Hospital were on Feb 18 refused permission to examine Savchenko,” Coynash continued.

Savchenko’s release was included as a prerequisite of the Minsk 2 accords that were to bring a ceasefire to Ukraine but Russia not only violated the ceasefire but also said it would not release her and the other political prisoners and prisoners of war.

“Western governments and PACE (Parliamentary Assembly and Council of Europe) officials have all repeatedly expressed ‘grave concern’ over Nadiya Savchenko’s hunger strike and detention.  They have been disappointingly silent in recent days over this first flagrant violation by Russia of the commitments made in the Minsk 2 agreement. 

“When this silence includes information of critical importance regarding Savchenko’s health, Germany’s insistence on ‘diplomatic solutions’ looks very hollow and suspect at best.

“Defense lawyer Nikolai Polozov reported on Thursday that Savchenko has refused to have any more glucose injections. He told Radio Liberty that the tubes they have inserted have led to an inflammation of the veins, making it impossible to insert any more. The prison staff proposes giving her some kind of ‘protein drink.’  She is refusing to take any food at all, and has stated clearly that she would view any attempt to force-feed her as a form of torture,” Coynash wrote.

At this time, the need for supportive, conscientious doctors to examine Savchenko is critical. Ultimately, she must be released from Russian illegitimate imprisonment.

The US Senate adopted on February 14 a resolution demanding that Moscow immediately release Savchenko. The resolution condemns the Russia for unlawfully jailing Savchenko, calls on the US, Europe and international community to support efforts to free her and other illegally detained Ukrainian citizens, and expresses solidarity with the Ukrainian nation.

The UN Human Rights Office is reportedly preparing a separate appeal on behalf of Savchenko, noting that she has been on a hunger strike for 70 days and that her condition is deteriorating. It is to call on Russia to release her on humanitarian grounds.

“An international team of doctors is needed now, as well as clear and unequivocal reaction to Russia’s failure to comply with the Minsk 2 agreement,” Coynash concluded.

Savchenko’s case must be first on the global to-do list of humanitarian issues.

My interview with Halya Coynash about human rights will appear in a subsequent blog.

#FreeSavchenko (Support Nadiya and use it in your tweets)           

Roundup of Editorials & Columns about Russo-Ukraine War

For more than a year, at least since Maidan 2, the national revolution that ousted Russia’s minions in Ukraine led by Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine has been in the forefront of global news coverage. International interest in Ukraine further increased thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by way of Crimea and shortly afterward the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts.

Traditional and new media have been filled round the clock with stories of Ukrainian heroism and death in the face of Russian crimes and brutality.

Despite the Kremlin’s denials, most everyone, except for the Russian media which has come to be ridiculed and disbelieved for disseminating bald-faced falsehoods, has accepted that Russia and President Putin launched the invasion and war with dual goals of keeping Ukraine from acceding to the European Union and, God forbid, NATO, and ultimately re-subjugating Ukraine.

Beyond the supportive Ukrainian news media, coverage of the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 has tended to present Ukraine’s case as a former captive nation that is again feeling the imperial wrath of Russia. However, there have been examples of an abuse of the newsroom principle of balanced reporting. With the absence of stories from enemy’s perspective during World War II, does that mean that the news media of the day presented Nazi Germany in an unfavorable, prejudiced light?

There were disturbing examples of war correspondents writing articles from the standpoint of Russian soldiers and mercenaries. There were also stories that seemed to present equal culpability in today’s degeneration of peace and stability in the region. Fortunately, these incidents were not nearly the majority.

Editorials and pundits’ columns showed sympathy for Ukraine even while opposing arming Ukraine with lethal weapons and pointing out that Vladimir Putin was the victor of Minsk 2. Other publications came out strongly in support of a Ukrainian victory over Russia, arming Ukraine with lethal weapons, intensifying sanctions against Russia and Russians, and opposing Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov.

In this vein, a column’s headline in the New York Post painfully summarized Ukraine’s situation: “The Rape of Ukraine; America Stands By.”

Some editorials and columnists painted Putin as a latter-day Stalin though that pejorative description has more meaning in the free world than it does in Russia, where he is still revered; and they warned against Russian expansion beyond Ukraine, into the Baltics or Poland. Editorialists returned to the war in Ukraine a few times even in the course of a week, occasionally adjusting their positions.

The following are excerpts from an assortment of editorials and columns in American periodicals and news agencies.

Bloomberg

Putin's Ukraine War Is Back

The fighting in Ukraine has returned to an intensity not seen since last summer, and the government claims Russian weapons are once again streaming across the border to support the rebels. So it is a curious moment for the European Union's top foreign policy official to bring up the prospect of normalizing relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Instead, the EU should be bracing to make sure that every member supports sanctions, because unanimity will be needed to extend them in March when they begin to expire…

… Everybody wants to see the sanctions removed someday. Yet to do so before Putin withdraws Russian troops from Ukraine and its border, and before that border is put under the control of international monitors, would be to waste the pressure already applied. It would also put significant trust in Russia's good faith -- even though there's been little evidence lately that such trust is warranted.

Russia continues to support the separatists militarily while lying about it. Putin says he wants peace and even sent a letter to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko proposing that both sides withdraw heavy artillery from the front lines. Yet this offer came only after a rebel assault had driven Ukrainian forces from the fiercely contested Donetsk airport and Ukrainian tanks were smashing their way back in. A withdrawal at that point would have consolidated the gains of pro-Russia fighters, so Poroshenko refused, as Putin knew he must…

… Putin seems always to assume the EU will be too weak and disunited to say no to him. By imposing economic sanctions, Europe's leaders surprised him. Until Putin puts a full Russian withdrawal from Ukraine on the table, the EU has to maintain its unanimous resolve. 

Bloomberg, January 20, 2015

Why Arming Ukraine Will Backfire

… Ukraine is already buying weapons from other countries in the region, but if anything can stir the Russian people to accept an open war with fellow Slavs in Ukraine (so far they don't), it is the idea that they would be fighting not Ukrainians but NATO, the military alliance they have grown up believing was bent on their destruction. A U.S. intention to provide only "defensive" weapons may be an important distinction in the U.S., but it's meaningless in Russia. Anti-tank weapons and even radar that allows Ukraine's military to locate and strike enemy artillery positions will still kill Russian soldiers. They would be perceived by ordinary Russians as offensive weapons, even without help from Russia's inflammatory propaganda machine.

These are large risks that can't be waved away. If the goal of military assistance is not to defeat Russia and its proxies, but to pressure Putin, then the weapons would have to be accompanied by a plausible diplomatic track. Yet the law that President Petro Poroshenko signed in December to end Ukraine's neutral status and set a course for membership in NATO has removed the minimum requirement for diplomacy leading to peace.

The U.S. and its allies should make clear to Ukraine that its NATO ambitions are unrealistic. Right or wrong, the alliance doesn’t want Ukraine, and Russia sees its membership in NATO as a red line. So long as that’s the case, the U.S. should stay out of eastern Ukraine.

Bloomberg, February 3

Putin Can't Have the Last Laugh in Ukraine

Say this much for Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: His comments Saturday on his country’s role in Ukraine were so absurd that they united Europe. Now the challenge is to turn that laughter and derision into something more constructive…

… In the U.S., meanwhile, and in several ex-Soviet-bloc states in Europe, there is growing sentiment to supply Ukraine with defensive weapons in order to counter advances by Russian-supported separatists. Lavrov's delusions effectively undermine the logic of this position. If Russian President Vladimir Putin sees everything that has happened in Ukraine in the last year as part of a U.S. and NATO plot against Russia, then a U.S. or NATO arms program is unlikely to cause him to rethink either his position or his strategy.

That might happen if Putin believed the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were ready to do whatever it takes to defeat him in Ukraine. But he knows they aren’t.

Part of the problem is that the West is deluding itself, too -- about the level of commitment necessary to drive Russia out of Ukraine. A failure to recognize this could result in the worst of all worlds: a Russian invasion that leaves Ukraine dismembered and deep fissures both within the EU and between the EU and the U.S…

… A stronger commitment to spend whatever it takes to keep Ukraine financially solvent while defending itself is just as important, accompanied by a promise from Ukraine that it will not join NATO. In return, Putin should be required to withdraw Russian troops, allow an international force to seal the border and accept that Ukraine gets to choose its own government and trading partners.

These are the kinds of issues that should be on the table as representatives from Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine meet later this week in Minsk, Belarus. If the U.S. and Europe instead split over whether to give Ukraine anti-tank weapons, or insist on continuing an unproductive debate about just how warped Lavrov's worldview is, then Putin will get the last laugh.

Bloomberg, February 8, 2015

Chicago Tribune

Stop Stalling. Arm Ukraine.

… Putin likely won't be satisfied with last year's conquest of Crimea, one vital component of Ukraine. He wants a larger chunk of Ukraine if not other lands as well. He seeks to recapture Soviet glory. Stoking the conflict in eastern Ukraine keeps the pressure on the West-leaning Ukrainian government. It undercuts the democratically elected leaders there and sends a shiver through other Russian neighbors.

Putin isn't deterred by the tough economic sanctions that the European Union and the U.S. have imposed. Nor is he slowed by the tumbling price of oil and his country's crumbling economy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's scolding hasn't stopped him. His domestic approval rating is stratospherically high. (Then again, what would you say to a Russian pollster about the ruthless Putin?)

Putin dares the West to deliver on its threats of deeper sanctions. So far, it hasn't. In its last meeting, the EU extended current sanctions but showed little appetite to ratchet up the pressure.

So Putin leans in. He'll stop meddling in Ukraine only when the cost exceeds his ability to pay.

Strength is a currency Putin respects. The West has to arm Ukraine to punch back.

Chicago Tribune, February 4, 2015

Los Angeles Times

U.S. Giving Ukraine a Defensive Military Boost

… Fearful of provoking a new Cold War with Russia, the Obama administration has for months resisted pleas that it provide weapons to the government of Ukraine. This page has supported that cautious policy, worrying that military assistance to the government in Kiev would seem to create a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.

But the collapse of a cease-fire and recent gains by Russian-supported separatists are causing U.S. officials to question their policy of relying on economic sanctions to alter Russian behavior. There are good reasons for such a reconsideration…

… There is no guarantee that arming Ukraine will succeed in persuading Putin to change course, but we believe the administration should make the effort. In doing so, however, the administration must strive to preserve a united front on economic sanctions with European nations such as Germany that choose not to provide military aid. It also should continue to encourage negotiations on the political future of Ukraine.

Finally, the U.S. must emphasize why it is acting: not to move a pawn on what Obama once called a "Cold War chessboard" but to support the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and every other nation in Europe. If Russia wants a respectful hearing for its views about the future of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, it will commit itself to the same principles.

Los Angeles Times, February 2, 2015

Ukraine Agreement could Vindicate Use of Sanctions

Assuming it doesn’t unravel — a big assumption — the agreement on the future of Ukraine announced last week is preferable to the continuation of a conflict in which 5,000 people have died and nearly a million have been displaced. The deal, negotiated by Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany, calls for a “comprehensive” cease-fire and envisions a political settlement that would preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity while granting some autonomy to pro-Russian regions of the country…

It’s crucial that all parties to this agreement abide by its provisions, which also include the withdrawal of heavy weapons, amnesty for separatists and new political arrangements, beginning with interim self-rule for areas in Donetsk and Luhansk. From the standpoint of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the most important provision is the requirement that foreign troops be withdrawn. Bizarrely, Russia agreed to this provision even as it continued to maintain that its forces never crossed into Ukraine…

If Russia is now willing to cease its military subversion in Ukraine in exchange for autonomy for pro-Russian regions, that’s a positive development. It is also, arguably, a vindication of economic sanctions. But, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, the agreement offers a “glimmer of hope,” not a guarantee, that this conflict will be resolved peacefully.

Los Angeles Times, February 13

New York Post

The Rape of Ukraine; America Stands By

By Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama touted his Ukraine strategy as a demonstration of “the power of American strength and diplomacy.” Word of this stirring success has yet to reach the Kremlin.

While President Obama praised his mastery, Russia’s troops and associated thugs were pressing ahead with the on-and-off invasion of Eastern Ukraine that has seized roughly another 200 square miles of territory the last few months…

… Russian President Vladimir Putin believes in the power of lies and brute force and implicitly asks, in the spirit of Joseph Stalin, “How many divisions do international norms have?” …

… To lend a symbolic poignancy to the end of the Minsk agreement, pro-Russian forces shelled the city hall in the Ukrainian town of Debaltseve that had served as the cease-fire control center under the Minsk agreement.

Give them credit, Putin’s minions leaven their murderous disregard for civilian life with a perverse sense of humor…

… The Ukrainian government wants to defend its territory and had some success at it last August, before regular Russian military units entered the fight.

It is a democratically elected government that is determined to make itself part of the West and is getting dismembered for the offense of replacing a Putin-style kleptocrat…

… There is no appeasing Putin. Frankly, there is no directly stopping him, either. It is only possible to raise the costs to him of his war, including the military costs.

If we won’t provide military materiel to Ukraine now, we deserve the contempt with which Putin regards us.

New York Post & Columbia Tribune, February 2, 2015

The New York Times

Making the Ukraine Cease-Fire Stick

The last cease-fire negotiated in Minsk, in September, quickly unraveled, and the new one is very limited, leaving hard problems to be settled in coming weeks and months. And in the end, it is still for Mr. Putin to decide whether this is to be a real step toward peace or just another cynical feint in his campaign to dismember Ukraine.

Mr. Putin won a lot in Minsk. The fact that the cease-fire is to start on Sunday — and not immediately, as the Ukrainians wanted — gives the Ukrainian separatists a couple more days to press their siege on Debaltseve, a key rail hub where thousands of Ukrainian troops are surrounded, and in their attack on the Black Sea port of Mariupol. If the cease-fire does take hold, which is far from certain, both sides are to pull their heavy weapons out of range of each other. Then the deal requires both sides to withdraw “foreign” fighters and equipment, though Mr. Putin has never acknowledged the obvious presence of Russian forces and weapons in eastern Ukraine.

On the political side, the agreement says Ukraine can recover full control over its border with Russia by the end of 2015, after local elections in rebel-held areas and constitutional changes that would give these areas considerable autonomy. The degree of self-rule for pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine is at the core of any sustainable settlement, but the negotiations will take place while Russia remains free to move men and equipment over the border.

In short, the deal is a bitter pill for Mr. Poroshenko. But he was right to accept it, and Ms. Merkel and Mr. Hollande were right to press it…

What remains incontrovertible is that Ukraine is Mr. Putin’s war. Mr. Putin has been offered a far better deal than he deserves. Now it is imperative for the West to keep his feet to the fire; there should be no easing of sanctions until he demonstrates a willingness to live by the agreements reached in Minsk. And if he does not, there should be no doubt of more sanctions.

The New York Times, February 13, 2015

Western Illusions over Ukraine

By Roger Cohen

The most difficult thing for a communist, it has been observed, is to predict the past. I was reminded of this as I listened to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in full Soviet mode at the Munich Security Conference, suggesting that after World War II it was “the Soviet Union that was against splitting Germany.”

People laughed; they guffawed. Germans recall the Soviet clamp on the east of the country and the Berlin Wall. But in a way Lavrov was right: The Soviet Union would have been quite happy to swallow all of Germany, given the chance.

Today, in similar fashion, President Vladimir Putin’s Russia would be quite happy to absorb all of Ukraine, which it views as an extension of the motherland, an upstart deluded by the West into imagining independent statehood…

… In fact, the Russian annexation of Crimea tore up by forceful means “the territorial integrity” and “political independence” of Ukraine, in direct violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. It also shredded Russia’s formal commitment under the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 to respect Ukraine’s international borders. The “nationalistic violence” that has again raised issues of war and peace in Europe stems not from Kiev but from Moscow, where Putin has cultivated a preposterous fable of encirclement, humiliation and Western depredation to generate hysteria and buttress Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine…

… The Russian leader has invoked history the better to turn it into farce. He has persevered in the nonsense that all the Russian forces and matériel in eastern Ukraine are figments of the world’s imagination.

The New York Times, February 9, 2015

Newsday

Crisis in Ukraine

The spinning wheel of foreign crises these last few weeks has landed mostly on the Islamic State group and the Middle East. But Vladimir Putin’s continuing attempts to conquer Ukraine are back on top after German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande made an emergency trip on Friday to meet with the Russian president.

The two leaders have failed to persuade Putin to stop his aggressive moves to annex several regions of the former Soviet satellite. And heavy fighting has caused more than 1.5 million people to flee their homes….

… As Ukraine fights to survive, there are likely to be more economic sanctions imposed on Russia, as well as demands in Washington that more weaponry be sent to the beleaguered Ukrainian army.

Escalation is likely, peace is not.

Newsday, February 6, 2015

Standard-Times

West Dithers while Ukraine Struggles

… In the meantime, while the West is assessing and considering, the government and the rebels, with covert help from Moscow, are waging a bloody battle over the city of Debaltseve, a rail and road hub, control of which would unify the two rebel-held areas.

That would make eastern Ukraine effectively a semiautonomous region subservient to Moscow, joining the other cowed ministates — Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Moldova, Crimea — with which Moscow is padding its border.

Chancellor Merkel is in Washington this week and Secretary of State John Kerry is in Kiev. This may be the week that decides whether Ukraine remains whole and democratic — unless, of course, the leaders of the West decide more "assessments" are needed.

San Angelo Standard-Times, February 5, 2015

Star Tribune

Send Ukraine Defensive Arms

The United States and other NATO nations should send lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine to help that country better protect itself against Russian-backed rebels, as well as to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that his illegal, immoral aggression will not go unchecked by the West.

To be sure, Western nations have taken Putin’s moves seriously and have responded with relatively effective economic sanctions. Combined with the collapse of the price of oil, the sanctions have sent the Russian economy reeling.

But clearly this is not enough. The separatists, aided by Russian troops that NATO estimates at up to 1,000 and Ukraine estimates at up to 9,000, are on the march. The results are tragic…

… This isn’t only about Ukraine. Putin has menaced neighboring nations with his revanchist policies, and the West’s current timid course may embolden him to make a military miscalculation that could spark a broader war, especially if he moved on Baltic members of NATO…

… Russia is counting on the West to hesitate. The West cannot afford to. It should consider levying even stricter sanctions. And just as the United States and the European Union tried to deter Russia and the Ukrainian separatists economically, it should do so militarily by sending lethal defensive aid, giving the preferred method of crisis resolution, diplomacy, a fighting chance.

Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 2, 2015

Peace Talks in Ukraine are the Best Way Forward

There’s no “winning” strategy for dealing with Russia’s unrelenting incursions into the Ukraine — just a choice between greater and lesser evils.

Armed escalation, with Western powers providing modern weapons to Ukraine, seems particularly fraught with peril. Yet the status quo won’t do…

… But given the Ukrainian government’s weakness and the limited alternatives available to the West, an agreed upon end to the fighting — even with disappointing conditions — remains the best way forward…

… Nothing else has worked so far. Economic sanctions imposed almost a year ago, as Putin seized the Crimea, have sapped Russia’s economic growth, set the ruble on a downward slide and slammed its entrepreneurial class. An unexpected plunge in oil prices escalated this damage, and Russia has been repeatedly snubbed on the global diplomatic stage. But none of that has changed Putin’s behavior or halted Russian-back attacks in Ukraine. And there’s no indication of when it might.

The threat of facing Ukrainian forces carrying sophisticated weapons supplied by the United States opens another channel for applying pressure on Putin. Whether such an escalation should be more than a threat — and actually carried out — requires further evaluation, especially in light of opposition from Merkel and other Western powers. For now, it’s at least a useful bargaining chip toward obtaining a less-miserable outcome for Ukraine.

Minneapolis Star Tribune, February 10, 2015

Tampa Tribune

Obama's Ukraine Choice

If President Barack Obama follows the advice of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he'll do so knowing that prominent Republicans strongly disagree with Merkel's no-arms approach to the crisis in Ukraine.

Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker (chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) have all supported sending lethal weapons to help Ukrainians thwart the separatists seeking to oust the government from the eastern part of the country.,,

… In short, political and military objectives aside, many Ukrainians are seriously suffering the consequences of conflict.

Should Obama accept Merkel's advice to stick with sanctions and other nonlethal tactics, he'll face criticism in the Senate. His tendency to want to avoid conflict may be supported by a war-weary public but has not proved particularly successful, particularly in Iraq, which the president was too eager to abandon…

… The president must be mindful of these domestic divisions as he decides what would be the best U.S. contribution to the international effort to aid the Ukrainian government. There's urgency involved. More than 5,000 civilians, Ukrainian soldiers and pro-separatist fighters have been killed since the separatist campaign began in earnest.

The Western nations need to persuade Putin to belatedly honor the September agreement that called for a cease-fire and the removal of Russian troops and weapons from eastern Ukraine.

He, more than anyone, holds the fate of Ukraine in his hands.

Whatever Obama's decision, it will be difficult and eventful. But his decision won't be as crucial as Putin's.

Tampa Tribune, February 10, 2015

USA Today

Arm Ukraine to Deter Putin: Our View

For most of the past year, Russian President Vladimir Putin's stealth invasion of Ukraine has been out of the spotlight, overshadowed by the sudden rise of the terrorist group Islamic State. But Russia, with nuclear arms and Putin's czarist ambitions, has always posed the greater threat, and it is becoming glaringly obvious that the West's strategy of deterring Putin with economic sanctions is failing…

… Left undeterred, there is no reason to believe Putin will stop there. He has already menaced Latvia and Estonia, both Baltic nations are members of NATO, obligating the U.S. to defend them if they're attacked.

The purpose of arming Ukraine is to pre-empt that threat and to preserve the post-Cold War security order Putin seems bent on destroying…

… As the cost of war rises, and as Russia's economy continues to sink under the weight of sanctions and falling oil prices, the more likely it is that Putin's popularity, built on stoking nationalist passions, will dissipate — a prospect he cannot easily ignore.

To further counter Putin's ambitions, the U.S. should beef up NATO and put at least a tripwire force into the Baltics. But sending arms to Ukraine is something that can be done quickly if Obama chooses to do so, as he should.

Sanctions were the right first step, but they have failed. The choices now are to increase the costs for Putin or to appease him. That should not be a hard choice to make.

USA Today, February 4, 2015

The Wall Street Journal

Putin’s Latest Victory

The Minsk accord ratifies a Russian satrapy in Ukraine

The last time the Kremlin signed an agreement to end the war in Ukraine—as recently as September—it promised to withdraw “military equipment as well as fighters and mercenaries” from the war zone, ban offensive operations and abide by an immediate cease-fire. In exchange the Ukrainian government granted unprecedented political autonomy to its rebellious eastern regions.

Moscow and its proxy militias in Ukraine have been violating the so-called Minsk Protocol ever since. Russian troops and equipment have poured across the Ukrainian border to support the separatists. Together they have seized an additional 200 square miles of territory, rained deadly rocket fire on the port city of Mariupol and encircled thousands of Ukrainian troops defending a strategic railway link in the village of Debaltseve…

… Then again, nobody should be surprised if this cease-fire collapses as quickly as the last one did. The eagerness with which France and Germany proved willing to renegotiate a cease-fire that Mr. Putin had already broken only shows that future violations will carry no real price. So he will continue to alternate between brute force and fake diplomacy, as his political needs require.

Having ratified a rump Russia in Ukraine, Europe and the U.S. should be planning to deter Mr. Putin’s next move. That would mean broader sanctions to exacerbate his economic troubles at home, as well as arming Ukraine to raise the cost to Mr. Putin when he next breaks the cease-fire.

This would include forward NATO deployments in the Baltic states that would complicate an attempt to stir ethnic Russian populations in those former Soviet satellites. And it would include more efforts to export U.S. natural gas to Europe to reduce Mr. Putin’s energy leverage over neighboring states.

Instead the West is likely to use the cease-fire as an excuse to do little or nothing. Mr. Putin will consolidate his latest victory, survey the European landscape for weak spots, and make another move before America gets a new President who might do more to resist his conquests.

The Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2015

The Washington Post

Ukraine needs Strong Western Support to Fend off Russia’s Aggression

Though President Obama has yet to agree, proposals that the United States supply Ukraine with defensive weapons have already had a tangible impact. On Friday, they prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande to rush to Moscow in what looked like a long-shot attempt to broker a peace deal with Vladi­mir Putin…

… Other than the talk in Washington about arms supplies, the West has given Mr. Putin no incentive to drop his new offensive, which appears aimed at expanding the territory held by Russian proxies to the point where it can become a de facto statelet, like those Moscow has set up in occupied areas of Georgia and Moldova. European Union leaders and the Obama administration have discussed new sanctions, but so far those have been limited to individuals. Steps that might inflict significant further damage to the battered Russian economy, such as the exclusion of its banks from an international payment system, remain off the table…

… Yet to push Mr. Poroshenko toward such an accord while denying him the means to resist an invasion gives him few alternatives other than to capitulate to the Kremlin.

There’s nothing wrong in talking with Mr. Putin, provided that the West’s message is clear. Russia should be required to withdraw all its forces and equipment from Ukraine, reestablish the border under international monitoring and cease its support for a separatist statelet — or face a significant escalation of economic sanctions and a Ukrainian army with better weapons.

The Washington Post, February 6, 2015

The Ukraine Cease-fire Does Little to Restrain Mr. Putin

It was far from clear Thursday if a new accord on Ukraine would last long enough for the implementation of its first and most tangible provision, a cease-fire set to begin Sunday. If it does, Ukrainians may be spared, at least temporarily, the deaths of more soldiers and civilians and the loss of more territory to Russian aggression. However, the deal brokered by German and French leaders with Russia’s Vladi­mir Putin does little to restrain his ambition to create a puppet state in eastern Ukraine that could be used to sabotage the rest of the country. In fact, in the unlikely event that its terms are fully carried out, the pact would enable his project…

… In exchange for the promise of a “deescalation” that was their overriding goal, the European leaders induced Mr. Poroshenko to accept terms that give Mr. Putin a veto over any final political settlement in eastern Ukraine — and permission to continue violating the country’s sovereignty in the meantime…

Mr. Obama was content to stand back while Germany and France struck the deal, and the State Department quickly endorsed it. The administration rightly said that it would consider easing existing sanctions on Russia only when the agreement is “fully implemented,” including “the withdrawal of all foreign troops and equipment from Ukraine [and] the full restoration of Ukrainian control of the international border.” But without additional economic and military pressure, Mr. Putin will never meet those terms.

The Washington Post, February 12, 2015

Ukraine Sold down the River, Again

By Jennifer Rubin, Right Turn blog for The Post

It is not often Europe gets to throw a country to the wolves twice. But that’s precisely what the European Union — quickly applauded by the Obama administration — has done with regard to Ukraine. To call it a “truce” is a farce…

… It is not hard to see why our allies are so unnerved and aggressors are so emboldened. Congress can vote sanctions on Iran. It can vote for aid to Ukraine or to Syria, but ultimately it is the commander in chief who must follow through and present a believable threat to rogue regimes. The president has not the will nor the ability to do so. We’ll see aggressors grab whatever they can get (nukes, territory) in the next two years while there is a U.S. president who lacks the will to stop them.

The Washington Post, February 12, 2015

Russia should be Prosecuted for Its Crimes against Humanity

By Paul Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs from 2001 to 2009, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

…There is also consensus that Russian activities in Ukraine are destabilizing European security and have violated numerous international legal norms.

Unfortunately, a robust, punitive Western response, deterring Moscow from future misconduct, has been lacking. Even worse is that the West has proven unable to distinguish different types of Russian misconduct, much less to deal with them in a differentiated fashion.

Russia’s grave violations of international humanitarian norms, especially the law of armed conflict, should be a main target of Western criticism, drawing a decisive response. That response should come not only in the form of diplomatic and economic sanctions but also include investigations and prosecutions at the International Criminal Court at The Hague...

Hence, the court’s failure to take action against Moscow’s war crimes casts doubt on its integrity. This is particularly poignant because the ICC was created to ensure that war criminals would not be accorded immunity and that purely legal imperatives, rather than politics, would drive prosecutorial actions. As such, the ICC’s inaction should be of grave concern to European states and nongovernmental humanitarian organizations, particularly the International Committee of the Red Cross, which have been the primary movers in the Rome Statute negotiations.

Failure to call Russia to account will only embolden Moscow to continue on its course of action. Pragmatic and legal imperatives call for a course correction. This is a rare circumstance in international affairs, and it’s one not to be forfeited. As European leaders continue to consider how to deal with Russia’s aggression, the ICC investigation of Russian war crimes should be at the top of the agenda.

The Washington Post, February 12, 2015

A Cynical Ukraine Cease-fire is better than none

Friday morning's cease-fire agreement for Ukraine is horribly flawed, yet far better than the alternative: Without it, the country would continue losing lives, territory and hope for a more stable and prosperous future — whether or not the U.S. sends arms…

… Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was negotiating from a far weaker position. But this agreement at least creates a framework for his country to regain control of the Russian frontier, ensuring that Ukraine can remain whole and free…

… Unfortunately, though, in a clear concession to Putin, the agreement turns re-establishing the border into a process that will take at least until the end of the year, after the separatists have consented, the two regions have held elections, and Ukraine has adopted a new constitution. Until then, Russia may continue to supply the rebels with weapons and troops as needed, until it gets what it wants from the government in Kiev…

… The U.S. and the European Union will need to add their support by supplying more money, more technical support for reform-minded ministers in Kiev, and continued pressure on Putin to abide by the cease-fire and get the border sealed.

After last September's agreement was reached, Western leaders let down their guard, even proposing to end economic sanctions against Russia. They cannot afford to make the same mistake this time. The new cease-fire is welcome, but it is at best the beginning of a process to achieve peace in Ukraine.

The Washington Post, February 15, 2015