Russia takes Crimea from Paradise to Hell on Earth

It’s been a year since Russia launched the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 by invading Ukraine via Crimea, home of Crimean Tatars and a picturesque vacation play land on the Black Sea.

Throughout Russia’s war with Ukraine I focused on the political and military battles in the eastern oblasts of Ukraine. However, Moscow’s conquest of Crimea should not be demeaned because Crimean Tatars are suffering as much as all Ukrainians are due to Russian aggression.

The Kremlin executed its fiendish plan several days after the conclusion of the inauspicious Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. I point out this timeline because it shows that Vladimir Putin and the Russian hierarchy had the audacity to engage in seemingly warm and friendly discussions with world leaders for many months and agree to host what is considered the epitome of the world’s festival of peace while plotting an unprovoked military attack on a peace-loving neighbor. But with each day, as the war spread around Ukraine to the east, and the number of sorties over the EU by Russian jets increased, Moscow’s plans started to fill out the missing lines.

In the ensuing 12 months Russia held a fabricated referendum, illegally annexed the peninsula and converted Crimea into a penal colony akin to Devil’s Island and the once nuclear-free cape into a citadel of Russian nuclear weapons and strategic bombers. This escalation of Russia’s nuclear posture and visible threat to global peace and stability should enrage all citizens of the world – Ukrainians, Crimean Ukrainians and others.

In a single cold-hearted fell swoop Russia violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a host of other military and geopolitical agreements, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Led by their spiritual leader septuagenarian Mustafa Dzhemilev, a Soviet-era dissident and laureate of Poland’s Solidarity Award, Crimean Tatars have been the backbone of the resistance to Russian occupation and Crimea’s liberation campaign. Russia has responded with arrests even of those Crimean Tatars who have merely maintained their cultural rights.

Crimean Tatars, who had finally returned to their ancestral land after Soviet Russian deportation and half a century of fighting against the empire, find themselves oppressed by the latest manifestation of Russia’s totalitarian nature. They still nurture horrible memories of the 1944 deportation that ripped them from their native land. With Russia again controlling their land and lives, they fear pressure is building once more. They are again being forced to succumb to new tyrants or leave their motherland.

Dzhemilev recalled those tense days a year ago:

“The ‘green men,’ or, in other words, Russian saboteurs, first appeared in Sevastopol, where they began seizing administrative buildings, and four days later the same thing started happening in Simferopol. There were 110 of them. After this appeared tanks, helicopters, APCs, columns of soldiers. This happened later. At that time Ukraine was asking – in order to avoid bloodshed – not put up any resistance. There were high expectations that the international community would not allow for this international delinquency in the 21st century. But nothing happened.

“All possible measures are being undertaken to compel the Crimean Tatars to become obedient Russian citizens. Since it appears highly unlikely, the main stakes are on creating conditions, which would force them to leave the Crimean territory. At the same time, large numbers of ethnic Russians are being brought in from the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, and are being settled close to the Crimean Tatar villages – seemingly, in case of any possible conflicts. Raids in search of the so-called banned literature and weapons are being carried out. In fact, the term ‘banned literature’ is a novelty for Ukraine, we didn’t know what it was a while back.

“It is a large list of approximately 2,600 book titles, which are constantly being added, and which, as it turns out, you are not allowed to read, not allowed to store, it constitutes a crime. Each person who reads is at risk of being searched, while he might not even be aware that he owns banned literature. Above all, people are fear-ridden about people going missing (initially a person disappears, and then he is usually found dead). I think, mandatory conscription into the Russian armed forces would contribute to the further exodus of Crimean Tatars from their land.

“If you aren’t registered, you pay a large fine, then a criminal case is initiated and you are faced with up to five years of incarceration. I don’t know a single Crimean Tatar who would have wanted to serve within the Russian army. Hence, I fear that they will be moving: either looking for a job or joining the Ukrainian army. But in this case, their family members would be victimized. Therefore, there is now a tendency to leave and to bring along one’s family members. So it turns out that, the Crimean Tatars, who came back to their motherland after the deportation, after half a century of fighting against the totalitarian Soviet regime, have yet again found themselves under a totalitarian regime which is worse than the Soviet one. And they are forced to leave their motherland all over again.”

At least five Tatars have been kidnapped since then, and two more are missing, according to human rights observers. Two Tatars have died under mysterious circumstances.

Other harassment has been more noticeable. Russian security forces shuttered the headquarters of the Tatars’ representative body, the Mejlis, in September, because its leaders had not registered it in Russia. The council members fear that doing so would delegitimize them.

In the years of Ukrainian independence, Crimean Tatars have said they had forgotten what security police alarms or raids sounded like. They said with independent Ukraine they had the freedom to promote their language, culture and religion.

Dzhemilev, now living in exile in Kyiv, observed: “The Russian Federation is a totally alien country. We have always declared that we see the future of our country as part of Ukrainian territory.” Other Tatar leaders who tried to meet him at the security checkpoint at the border have been fined up to $220, a sum that is close to the average monthly income in Crimea.

After Moscow seized Crimea, Dzhemilev said Russians invited him to Moscow. “I talked to Putin for half an hour. He promised me they would help the Crimean Tatars. I told him, ‘You can assist us by taking away the military,’ ” he recalled.

International observers are keeping tabs on events in Crimea and have condemned Russian occupational authorities for their repressive treatment of the Tatar community.

“This is a population with a really tragic history that went through hell to get back to their historical homeland, were not successful in having their rights fully recognized by the Ukrainians, and are now coming under huge pressure from the Russians,” stated Nils Muiznieks, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, who compiled a report about the Crimea crisis that was released in October 2014.

Muiznieks explained that Russia’s security agency “has one playbook and it’s based on the North Caucasus, and they’re treating many Tatars as being potential jihadis.”

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein lamented last month the “worrying developments” in Crimea, where “multiple violations” of the rights of Crimean Tatars are being documented. He said earlier the premises of ATR, the only television channel broadcasting in the Crimean Tatar language, were raided by armed, masked men in unmarked military clothing, and the Deputy Head of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis, Ahtem Ciygoz, was detained, the OHCHR reported. Ciygoz faces up to 10 years in prison for creating mass disturbances.

Amnesty International said on the eve of the year since Crimea was seized by Russia, with journalists, activists and peaceful protestors facing increasing harassment and intimidation in Crimea, there is an urgent need for a strong international monitoring mission in Ukraine. It is calling for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to urgently establish a strong international monitoring mission in the country.

“Attempting to monitor the human rights situation in Crimea has become a near impossible task. Self-styled Crimean self-defense groups are harassing pro-Ukrainian protesters, journalists and human rights monitors with complete impunity,” said John Dalhuisen, Europe and Central Asia Director at Amnesty International.

In the eastern oblasts of Ukraine, similar self-defense groups, under Russian tutelage, evolved into mercenaries and terrorists, fighting side-by-side with Russian soldiers against Ukrainian armed forces.

Recently, two representatives of the OSCE were forced to cut their visit to Crimea short due to security concerns, Amnesty International wrote in its report. In a separate event, members of the organization were prevented from even entering the peninsula by unidentified military personnel.

On March 5, the UN Special Envoy to Crimea was also forced to cut his visit short. Only a few hours after arriving in Crimea, he was threatened by an aggressive crowd chanting pro-Russian slogans and forced by armed men to get back in his vehicle and return to the airport.

Amnesty International said Russian occupying authorities in Crimea have failed to investigate a series of abductions and torture of their critics since the violence that led to Russia’s mostly unrecognized annexation of the peninsula from Ukraine a year ago. The human rights NGO said Crimea’s Russian-supported leaders have cracked down on dissent, creating a climate of fear in the annexed Ukrainian region, with many of the regime's more vocal critics opting to leave.

It cites “violations of the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association in Crimea [and] highlights human rights abuses by the de facto authorities, including the failure to investigate a series of abductions and torture of their critics, and their unrelenting campaign of intimidation against pro-Ukrainian media, campaigning organizations, Crimean Tatars and other individuals critical of the regime.”

The global human rights watchdog said it has documented the disappearances of three Crimean Tatars: Islyam Dzhepparov, 19, and Dzhevdet Islyamov, 23, were pushed into a van by four men in black uniform on September 29, 2014, and have not been seen since. Reshat Ametov, 39, was seized while attending a demonstration in March last year. His body was found later with signs of torture. Andriy Schekun, the leader of Ukrainian House, an organization promoting Ukrainian language and culture, was abducted by pro-Russian paramilitaries and held for 11 days in a secret location where he was electrocuted in March 2014. He was eventually handed over to the Ukrainian military.

Amnesty International said no one was held responsible in none of these cases.

The organization said the Russians and their puppets are also using intimidation and restrictive laws to silence the media and NGOs.

At a UN Security Council meeting on March 6, Ivan Šimonović, assistant secretary-general for human rights, noted that the situation in Crimea was deteriorating with systematic human rights violations affecting mostly Crimean Tatars and those who had opposed the March referendum.

At that meeting, Ambassador Raimonda Murmokaite, permanent representative of Lithuania, a leading supporter of Ukraine in its war with Russia, pointed out “There were disturbing reports of violations against the Tatar community, which had largely opposed the ‘sham’ referendum a year ago, and fundamental freedoms had been severely curtailed in Russian-annexed Crimea.”

Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, permanent representative of Ukraine, added then: “The human rights situation in Crimea was deteriorating, and the Council should act immediately to deal with those and other outrages.  Under no circumstances could the United Nations accept that Russia had turned Crimea into an isolated military camp and its residents into recluses.”

Beyond persecution, Russia has also begun to build a dangerous stockpile of nuclear and conventional weapons that has the potential of changing the balance of power in the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea regions, and destabilizing global peace.

“We have seen a drastic buildup of military capabilities of the Russian armed forces in Crimea [which added to] already existing naval capabilities,” Maxim Shepovalenko, a senior research fellow at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, recently told NBC News.

Russia has reinforced ground forces and air defense on Crimea — roughly doubling its military manpower there — with some 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers.

According to state news agency TASS, Russia is planning to send Tu-22M3 bombers capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Crimea as part of its massive nationwide military drills. The plan repeats earlier claims by the Russian Foreign Ministry that Russia does not rule out placing nuclear weapons on the peninsula and conventional Russian forces in Crimea are set to increase, military observers say.

Additionally, a separate report said Backfire Tu-22M3 bombers and Tupolev Tu-95s will join Iskander mobile ballistic missile systems already believed to be on the peninsula.

Most of the world’s leaders have condemned Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea and support maintaining sanctions against Moscow until it returns Crimea to Ukraine. Unfortunately, contemporary history has shown that words do not dissuade Russia from war.

Jen Psaki, US State Department spokesperson, reaffirmed the US position, saying: “On this one year anniversary of the sham ‘referendum’ in Crimea, held in clear violation of Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution, the United States reiterates its condemnation of a vote that was not voluntary, transparent, or democratic. We do not, nor will we, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation and call on President Putin to end his country’s occupation of Crimea.
“This week, as Russia attempts to validate its cynical and calculated ‘liberation’ of Crimea, we reaffirm that sanctions related to Crimea will remain in place as long as the occupation continues. The United States continues to support Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and right to self-determination.”

For the past 12 months, and despite Western sanctions, Crimea has been rapidly becoming a central plank of Putin’s political platform. State media has portrayed the annexation as an historic victory against an encroaching West intent on degrading Russia. In a documentary broadcast earlier this month, Putin revealed, sometimes with evident satisfaction and almost step by step, how Russian special forces had taken control of Crimea, rescuing its people, he said, from rampaging Ukrainian nationalists. Russia initially also used this ruse to launch the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15.

Nonetheless, Crimean Tatars continue with their resistance. In early March, troubled by the rising number of pro-Russian rallies, they began to stage demonstrations in Simferopol and elsewhere.

​​The resistance reached its peak with mass protests on International Women's Day, March 8, when as many as 15,000 protesters – mainly women and children – lined roadways throughout Crimea waving Ukrainian and Tatar flags and holding posters calling for peace.
“Many Crimeans came out, no matter their nationality,” said Andriy Shchekun, a Simferopol-based activist. “It was a consolidation, a demonstration of how all Crimeans felt. In principle it was the real majority, and we saw the real picture. We organized a major event without allocated money or political connections. It was a true civil protest against what was happening in Crimea.”
Many of the protesters extended their activities to include aiding besieged Ukrainian soldiers and fighting off members of the so-called self-defense forces of pro-Russian youths harassing activists and others.

Members of the Crimean intelligentsia were also active during the protests. Halyna Dzhikayeva, whose Karman art center was known for staging politically provocative works, said a majority of her audiences were openly opposed to the Russian invasion.
“We cultivated our audience to think,” she said. “Our performances weren’t light entertainment. They forced people to think critically about the things going on around them. So the people who went to the theater, who came to see our performances, were independent-minded.”

With tourists deterred from vacationing in Crimea after Russia militarized it, Moscow has had to subsidize Crimea’s floundering budget at the level of 85%, just like in the troubled territories of Chechnya and Ingushetia, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported, with reference to Russian daily newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Russia has had to sign all of the invoices for the peninsula’s utilities.
World leaders have cast their support for Ukraine and Crimea, pledging not to reverse their position until Crimea is returned to Ukraine.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson marked the first anniversary of the referendum in Crimea this week by vowing Canada will never accept the outcome.

In his statement, Nicholson said Canada’s position on the issue remains firm. “Canada will never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea,” he said.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the following statement to mark illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia:

“A year ago this week, the so-called Crimean ‘referendum’ was held under the Putin regime’s influence to legitimize the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia two days later.

“Whether it takes five months or 50 years, Canada will never recognize this annexation as being the genuine will of the Ukrainian people. We have instead maintained our call that the Putin regime cease the destabilization campaign it has orchestrated and fully withdraw from Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

To mark the repulsive anniversary of Crimea’s enslavement, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine wrote in a column titled “Crimea Is Still Ukraine” in the March 19 edition of The Wall Street Journal. In which he wrote:

“I myself witnessed the illegal and shameful occupation, and never will I forget or excuse it. When I visited the Crimean capital of Simferopol to help negotiate a settlement one year ago, I saw many ‘little green men,’ who were in fact heavily armed professional soldiers. Although they were masked and disguised, with their uniforms and markings altered, it was clear that every command for the occupation had come from one source: the Kremlin…

“However, we cannot for a moment ignore the brutal violence currently being inflicted in eastern Ukraine, nor can we forget Crimea’s annexation…

“Crimea is not merely a Ukrainian issue. For arguably the first time since World War II, one country has unilaterally appropriated the territory of another, setting a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international relations…

“On March 27, 2014, 100 United Nations member states voted in favor of a resolution affirming support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and recognition of Crimea as a part of Ukraine. We remember and appreciate this display of international solidarity in a time of need. And we believe that the Crimean people will regain their native land…

“One year later, Crimea still is Ukraine, and it is our joint responsibility with the rest of the world to undo the injustice de facto and de jure—to make the aggressor go. Sooner or later Crimea will return to where it belongs, and our joint duty is to make it sooner—out of respect of the rights of our citizens, to international law and for the sake of safeguarding global security.”

The United Kingdom also favors maintaining sanctions against Russia for occupying Crimea.  Adam Thomson, Britain’s permanent representative to NATO, wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “That is why remembering this anniversary matters. We must not accept Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea as a new reality and still less as a new normal.

“Russia, tragically, has suffered strategic derailment through its adventure in Ukraine. But that does not make its behavior safe. There is a way out. Russia can still withdraw its troops from Crimea and eastern Ukraine, abide by its commitments under the Minsk agreements and let the Ukrainian people run their own country.

“But until this happens, our established position is firm: Crimea’s annexation is unacceptable, and we will continue to defend our values with sanctions that punish those responsible.”

Mustafa Dzhemilev arrived in New York City on Thursday, March 19, to attend an informal meeting of the UN Security Council about Crimea. At a press conference he urged the free world to maintain strong sanctions against the Kremlin to pressure the Russian aggressors to leave without using military force.

Dzhemilev warned that “if the war starts in Crimea, it will mean the extermination of the entire Crimean Tatar population in Crimea.”

Dzhemilev painted a grim picture of people in Crimea seeking to remain part of Ukraine being repressed, of more than 4,000 businesses closing down and being taken over by “so-called self-defense groups,” and of “very tense” inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations.

The Tatar leader bemoaned that Crimea used to be a popular tourist area but is now “being turned into a military base.”

The informal Security Council meeting was called by Ambassador Murmokaite of Lithuania. The gathering revealed who are friends of Ukraine and Crimea and who are enemies of human rights and global peace and stability. Russia, China, Venezuela and Angola, by their absence, demonstrated that they are from the dark side.

 “Russia is normally very quick to criticize Ukraine on alleged human rights violations, but completely ignores human rights violations happening under its own rule or under its proxy’s rule,” Murmokaite told reporters.

After 12 months of subjugating Crimea and the free world’s condemnation and sanctions, Russia is adamant about pursuing its colonial plans. Russia’s escalation of oppression and terror, militarization of the peaceful peninsula, and amassing a nuclear stockpile in a former nuclear-free zone demonstrates that it is the global enemy that must be defeated and not merely forced into a neutral corner.

The invasion and annexation of Crimea by Russia is a devastating precedent for the free world, which cannot remain unchanged.

#CrimeaIsUkraine

‘I Can’t Believe Russia Lied to Me’

On the night of August 20, 1968, some 200,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 5,000 tanks, led by Russia, then called Soviet Russia or the USSR, invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the “Prague Spring” – the Czecho-Slovak people’s short-lived period of liberalization, democracy and distancing itself from Moscow’s captivity. The Kremlin justified its invasion of Czecho-Slovakia with the recently proclaimed Brezhnev Doctrine, enunciated by General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, which gave Moscow the red light to invade any captive nation that sought to deviate from the Soviet Russian prison of nations. Czecho-Slovaks protested the invasion with public demonstrations and at least one young hero self-immolated, but in the end they were no match for the Russian tanks. The historic, liberal reforms of First Secretary Alexander Dubcek were revoked and a so-called “normalization” and re-subjugation began under his successor Gustav Husak.

What was strange about this invasion was that none of the intelligence services, analysts, spies and satellites of USA and the other free world countries even caught a glimpse of Russia’s mass aggression – or suspected it.

Forty-six years later, on February 28, 2014, a few days after the closing ceremony of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, Russian troops invaded Ukraine by way of Crimea and ultimately staged fabricated elections and annexed the Ukrainian peninsula. The number troops and armor did not equal the army that invaded Czecho-Slovakia but still none of the intelligence services, analysts, spies and satellites of USA and the other free world countries even caught a glimpse of Russia’s latest aggression against a former captive nation – or suspected it.

The dangerous trend that I am alluding to is not Russia’s invasion of neighboring countries in the persistent imperial belief that once a Russian captive nation, always a Russian captive nation, and its imperial messianic vision of itself. The pattern that I’m referring to is the absence of any intelligence about Russia’s belligerent intentions that would have saved the captive nations from bloodshed and shielded free world leaders’ from foolish admissions that the West was caught totally off guard by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

How can that be? While, to quote Winston Churchill, Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma for many in the free world, there have been volumes of practical and anecdotal evidence of Moscow’s threatening activities and plans. Since being allowed by western powers to seize Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, Russia continued in the ensuing decades to demonstrate its penchant for building and preserving its empire. It quashed freedom uprisings in Poland, East Germany, Hungary and Czecho-Slovakia. National, human and religious activists in the USSR and East Europe waged peaceful and not-so-peaceful opposition against Russia while it arrested and incarcerated them in psychiatric asylums, prisons and concentration camps.

Shouldn’t this have sent a compelling signal to the free world leaders that something amiss is brewing in Russia’s captive nations and it is compelling the Kremlin to counterattack against peaceful civil activists? The West should have then applied multilateral pressure and sanctions on Moscow to cease and desist persecuting and oppressing them rather than open trade with the Russian dictatorship.

Leaders of the captive nations’ liberation movements have also publicly warned that Russia cannot be trusted and even if it undergoes political and social transformations – like from tsarism to communism to federal presidency – its imperial nature will not diminish.

Stepan Bandera, leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, who was assassinated by a Russian agent on October 15, 1959, wrote in his Perspectives of a Ukrainian Revolution: “There is only one Russia – imperialist. It will be so until Russian imperialism will be totally obliterated and the Russian people will recover from it by understanding that Russia’s imperialism it the source of its greatest disaster – victims, anguish and decline. This is still a long way off.”

Bandera also said as if writing about today’s Russian war against Ukraine:

“If bolshevism is replaced tomorrow by another form of Russian imperialism, it will first of all turn against the independence of Ukraine, turn to enslaving it. This is clearly proven by state political thought and attitude of the Russian masses, all of Russian media, communist and anti-bolshevik alike. All of them are extremely hostile toward the idea of a ​​separate, sovereign state of Ukraine.”

“The idea of ​​dignity and respect for people, the free development of their own initiative, creative and worthy self-inclusion into a harmonious collective of national and social life is diametrically opposed to bolshevik tyranny, its enslavement and exploitation of people, its trampling of their dignity and ruining freedom. "

The free world cannot hide behind the excuse that it never heard of Bandera and the aspirations to freedom of the captive nations because the post-war intelligence services of the US, Britain and other countries solicited their knowledge, ideas and analyses. So what happened to the archives?

That may be history, but statements by today’s former captive nations’ leaders also warn against Russian threats and aggression. Lithuania’s President Dalia Grybauskaitė is a staunch support of lethal aid to Ukraine and is preparing her nation in case Russian armies cross its border. Poland, Latvia and Estonia are also increasing military training and expenditures.

Andrius Kubilius, former Prime Minister of Lithuania, was quoted as saying: “This is Putin’s war, which was initiated by him, which has been supported by him, which is being implemented by him, and which can only be stopped by him. Ukraine has shown clear signs that it no longer wants to support this post-imperial Russian entity, and Mr. Putin, along with the mainstream political class in Russia, is still living with a lot of nostalgia for the imperial past. Dismantling the Russian Empire has been a very painful and very difficult process. And the only way in which we can assist Russia in overcoming their psychologically painful situation is by helping Ukraine. The biggest mistake would be to allow ourselves to be threatened by statements about red lines.”

It is safe to say that if the free world leaders had paid attention to Bandera and the other liberation ideologues – past and present, the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 would not have occurred or at least it would not have surprised, shocked and dismayed the US, Britain, Canada and the other democracies.

Thirteen months after Russia launched its war against Ukraine, western newspapers are filled with headlines that do not bode well for the competence of free world leaders. Here are a few that I have gleaned in the past three weeks:

Ukraine: UK and EU ‘badly misread’ Russia

Errors over Ukraine ‘catastrophic’: UK parliament report

Russia's Putin Took European States ‘By Surprise’ in Ukraine: Report

Britain ‘at mercy’ of Putin in a war against Russia, former defence chiefs warn

UK guilty of ‘catastrophic misreading’ of Ukraine crisis, Lords report claims

Russia ‘undermining’ global world order: US

Russian expansionism may pose existential threat, says NATO general

Russian tensions could escalate into all-out war, says NATO general

Ukraine: Kerry threatens further sanctions over ‘craven’ Russian actions

PARALYZED BY UKRAINE, DUMBFOUNDED BY RUSSIA

Kerry: Russia has lied about its activities in Ukraine

US furious over Russia’s ‘lies’ on Ukraine

And a few paragraphs from articles about what newspapers call the “Ukraine crisis.”

** “London (AFP) – Britain and the European Union are guilty of “sleepwalking” into a crisis in Ukraine, a scathing report from a British parliamentary committee said on Friday.”

** “LONDON — America’s European allies sleepwalked into the conflict with Russia in Ukraine and should now find ways to stop the relationship with Moscow from deteriorating further, according to a report by British lawmakers.”

** “Sir Michael Graydon, a former chief of the air staff, told The Times newspaper: “They have got us more or less at their mercy. We only have two bases where we have got Typhoons. One is in Scotland, one is in Lincolnshire. “The guys in Lincolnshire were having to go all the way down to Cornwall just to get anywhere near.”

** “The UK is guilty of sleepwalking into the crisis in Ukraine and has not been as active or visible as it should be, according to a damning report into the British and European approach to the crisis by the main House of Lords committee on foreign affairs.

“The report – the fullest evaluation of the Ukraine crisis to emerge from the British parliament – also finds that expertise within the Foreign Office towards Russia has diminished significantly, and according to the committee chairman, Lord Tugendhat, ‘led to a catastrophic misreading of the mood in the run-up to the crisis.’”

** “Washington (AFP) – In some of its sharpest criticism to date, Washington accused Moscow on Friday of ‘undermining’ the global order by supporting rebels in eastern Ukraine.

“The sluggish disintegration of a weak peace deal in Ukraine has come as nothing less than a blessing for President Obama. It has helped mask his administration's inability to determine the best response to the crisis, and to Russia.

“But this respite will not last. Given the events on the ground, Obama will soon have to decide whether to send weapons and trainers to the Ukrainian government and risk turning what has been largely a border skirmish into a major conflict by proxy with serious implications for the United States, Europe, and American interests worldwide.”

** “WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Russia has repeatedly lied to him about its activities in Ukraine where pro-Russian rebels are fighting national forces.

“‘Russia is engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I’ve seen since the very height of the Cold War,’” Kerry told a U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee. ‘And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations — lies — whatever you want to call them about their activities there to my face, to the face of others on many different occasions.’”

John Kerry’s bizzare admission is perhaps the most detrimental.

These headlines and sentences prove in retrospect at least that the free world understands that it has been duped by Moscow. But what actions will it take to rectify the situation?

Russia is a formidable enemy by itself. It devotes a great deal of attention and rubles to its armed forces and flaunts its vision of global imperialism. However, when you combine its saber rattling with free world’s naïve incompetence, then the western democracies are just leaving the door open to their own demise.

Without meaning to aggravate their calamitous mistakes, if Ukraine loses its war with Russia – and by loses I mean anything except a complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russia from Ukraine – then this generation of world leaders will certainly be inscribed in history as the one that lost Ukraine on its watch.

Russian Cynicism: Condemning Genocide

The speech wasn’t regarded as a major news story. It didn’t even warrant inclusion in the catchall “In the World” column in any newspaper. But a Russian official bemoaning the international community’s failure to eliminate genocide certainly caught my attention.

Vitaly Churkin, permanent representative of Russia to the United Nations, known as the permanent apologist for Russian crimes of aggression and a bald-faced liar in the UN Security Council, recently devoted 1,280 words to condemning past and present genocides of old and new terror-states without the slightest sense of remorse for Russia’s genocide against Ukrainians and other crimes against humanity.

Churkin was invited to speak at an ECOSOC conference titled “Why have we failed in preventing genocides and how to change that?” on January 21 of this year. While Russian cynicism is customary and even expected, ECOSOC’s naiveté in inviting a genocide perpetrator to speak at such a forum is appalling and does not speak well for that UN organ.

The conference dealt with the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II and Nazi Germany’s crimes against Jews and other nationalities. Churkin spoke eloquently about the Nazis and their reign of terror.

“Tragically, the shock and horror of that war did not prove enough to prevent another global calamity. A terrible force devoid of humanity, real machine of death emerged in the middle of the 20th century in the heart of Europe and struck with unimaginable ferocity. The continent that centuries earlier had passed through the fires of Inquisition to Enlightenment, rolled back to the theories of racial and ethnic superiority, the ideas of ‘liberation of living space’ at the expense of the territories of the so-called ‘inferior races.’ Millions of innocent people of various ethnicities fell victim of heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity which were committed by the Nazis. What is especially striking – that regime came to power through what looked like democratic elections,” he said.

Ironically, what he assigned to the Nazis, as true as it was, can also be assigned to Russia.

“According to the Encyclopedia of Genocide published in 1999 ‘a gross estimate of the results of Nazi genocide against the Slavs comes to somewhere between 15.5 and 19.5 million in the USSR, between 19.7 and 23.9 million when the Poles, Slovenes, Serbs and others are added in,’” he said.

“Around 100 thousand Poles were massacred in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia in Nazi occupied Poland. Polish historians calculated that 135 sadistic methods were used to kill innocent people. Terrible mass execution happened in Khatyn, where entire population of that Byelorussian village was massacred thus becoming a symbol of all the towns and villages in Belarus burned down by the Nazis. Belarus lost a quarter of its population.”

Indeed, very true. But that encyclopedia and other verified sources also list Russian acts of genocide and crimes against humanity overlooked by Churkin and by association ECOSOC.

“Political and legal framework established after the Second World War, especially with the creation of the United Nations and the conclusions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, raised hopes that mankind has finally learned its lessons,” Churkin continued. “Nazi crimes including persecution on racial and religious grounds, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against civilian population were condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal… Following Nuremberg further vital instruments were developed, notably the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.”

He concluded with a warning to genocide perpetrators: “And just like in case with the Nazis, there cannot be good or bad terrorists. Double standards are deadly dangerous to our civilization. It is vital for the decision-makers all over the world to remember that attempts to achieve geopolitical goals by whatever means may lead to tragic consequences. No nation can be immune or afford to be indifferent.”

Hopefully, one day Russia, a terrorist state, will be hauled in front of an international tribunal for all of its acts of genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the Russo-Ukraine war of 2014-15.

In the meantime, it is historically and morally appropriate to juxtapose Churkin’s comments with those of Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer who immigrated to the United States in 1941 and coined the internationally recognized concept of genocide that has served as the foundation of the United Nations’ resolutions condemning this heinous crime. Lemkin also accused Russia of committing genocide against Ukrainians.

“The mass murder of peoples and of nations that has characterized the advance of the Soviet Union into Europe is not a new feature of their policy of expansionism, it is not an innovation devised simply to bring uniformity out of the diversity of Poles, Hungarians, Balts, Romanians — presently disappearing into the fringes of their empire. Instead, it has been a long-term characteristic even of the internal policy of the Kremlin — one which the present masters had ample precedent for in the operations of Tsarist Russia,” Lemkin wrote in a 1953 article “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine.”

Then the Polish lawyer resoundingly declared: “What I want to speak about is perhaps the classic example of Soviet genocide, its longest and broadest experiment in Russification — the destruction of the Ukrainian nation.”

Lemkin noted that Russia not only set its sights on liquidating the Ukrainian nation, but also all non-Russian peoples in its prison of nations: “Each is a case in the long-term policy of liquidation of non-Russian peoples by the removal of select parts.”

Among the acts of genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Russia Lemkin listed:

1. Tsarist crimes as the drowning of 10,000 Crimean Tatars by order of Catherine the Great, the mass murders of Ivan the Terrible’s ‘SS troops’ — the Oprichnina;

2. The extermination of National Polish leaders and Ukrainian Catholics by Nicholas I;

3. The series of Jewish pogroms that have stained Russian history periodically. And it has had its matches within the Soviet Union in the annihilation of the Ingerian nation, the Don and Kuban Cossacks, the Crimean Tatar Republics, the Baltic Nations of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

Lemkin pointed out that Russia’s acts of genocide are not 20th century Communist or Soviet crimes but they began during reign of Russian tsars.

But throughout, he noted: “The Ukrainian is not and has never been, a Russian.”

“The nation is too populous to be exterminated completely with any efficiency. However, its leadership, religious, intellectual, political, its select and determining parts, are quite small and therefore easily eliminated, and so it is upon these groups particularly that the full force of the Soviet axe has fallen, with its familiar tools of mass murder, deportation and forced labor, exile and starvation,” he wrote.

Lemkin elaborated that Russia’s assault against the Ukrainian nation was targeted at four national segments.

The first blow was aimed at the intelligentsia, the “national brain” in order to paralyze the remainder of the national body. Then there was an attack on against the churches, priests and hierarchy, the ‘soul’ of Ukraine. The third area of the Soviet Russian plan was aimed at the farmers, the large mass of independent peasants who are the repository of the tradition, folklore and music, the national language and literature, the national spirit, of Ukraine. The final, fourth step in the process consisted in the fragmenting the Ukrainian people by adding to the Ukraine of foreign peoples and by the dispersion of the Ukrainians throughout Eastern Europe.

“In 1920, 1926 and again in 1930–1933, teachers, writers, artists, thinkers, political leaders, were liquidated, imprisoned or deported. According to the /Ukrainian Quarterly/ of Autumn 1948, 51,713 intellectuals were sent to Siberia in 1931 alone. At least 114 major poets, writers and artists, the most prominent cultural leaders of the nation, have met the same fate. It is conservatively estimated that at least 75% of the Ukrainian intellectuals and professional men in Western Ukraine, Carpatho–Ukraine and Bukovina have been brutally exterminated by the Russians.”

“Between 1926 and 1932, the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, its Metropolitan Lypkivsky and 10,000 clergy were liquidated. In 1945, when the Soviets established themselves in Western Ukraine, a similar fate was meted out to the Ukrainian Catholic Church.”

“Only two weeks before the San Francisco conference (that established the United Nations), on 11 April 1945, a detachment of NKVD troops surrounded the St. George Cathedral in Lviv and arrested Metropolitan Slipyj, two bishops, two prelates and several priests. All the students in the city’s theological seminary were driven from the school, while their professors were told that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church had ceased to exist, that its Metropolitan was arrested and his place was to be taken by a Soviet-appointed bishop. These acts were repeated all over Western Ukraine and across the Curzon Line in Poland.”

“The third prong of the Soviet plan was aimed at the farmers, the large mass of independent peasants who are the repository of the tradition, folklore and music, the national language and literature, the national spirit, of Ukraine. The weapon used against this body is perhaps the most terrible of all — starvation. Between 1932 and 1933, 5,000,000 Ukrainians starved to death, an inhumanity which the 73rd Congress decried on 28 May 1934… As a Soviet politician Kosior declared in Izvestiia on 2 December 1933, ‘Ukrainian nationalism is our chief danger’, and it was to eliminate that nationalism, to establish the horrifying uniformity of the Soviet state that the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed. The method used in this part of the plan was not at all restricted to any particular group. All suffered — men, women and children.”

Lemkin also detailed that thousands have been executed, untold thousands have disappeared into the certain death of Siberian labor camps. He called the city of Vinnitsa the Ukrainian Dachau. In 91 graves there were buried the bodies of 9,432 victims of Soviet tyranny, shot by the NKVD in about 1937 or 1938. “Among the gravestones of real cemeteries, in woods, with awful irony, under a dance floor, the bodies lay from 1937 until their discovery by the Germans in 1943,” he noted.

“This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation. If it were possible to do this even without suffering we would still be driven to condemn it, for the family of minds, the unity of ideas, of language and of customs that form what we call a nation that constitutes one of the most important of all our means of civilization and progress,” Lemkin wrote. “What then, apart from the very important question of human suffering and human rights that we find wrong with Soviet plans is the criminal waste of civilization and of culture. For the Soviet national unity is being created, not by any union of ideas and of cultures, but by the complete destruction of all cultures and of all ideas save one — the Soviet.”

Russia is the last country on earth that can address genocide and what should be done to eliminate it. It committed crimes against humanity in the past and continues to do us with its undeclared war against Ukraine. Putin, Lavrov and Churkin, as its leaders and spokesmen, must be brought to justice for their complicity in killing innocent civilians in Russia’s latest war.

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.