X-Captive Nations Mobilize vs. Russian Aggression

This blog was to have appeared last night but in respect for the killed and wounded in the horrible terrorist attacks in Paris, I delayed posting it until today.

The historic words by Colonel Charles E. Stanton voiced in 1917 are quite poignant today: “Lafayette, nous voilà.” (Lafayette, we are here)

East Europeans and the Baltic states are not giving too much credence to western analyses that Putin has abandoned his master plan of subjugating Ukraine in favor of military incursions into Syria. Those x-captive nations are “gravely concerned” especially by regional Russian aggression and have initiated their own defense preparations.

Reuters, The Baltic Times and other news media have reported that leaders of nine Central and Eastern European and Baltic states said in a joint statement on November 4 they were gravely concerned about Russia’s “continuing aggressive posturing” and endorsed a sustainable NATO military presence in the region. (See also my blog “X-Captive Nations United vs. Russian Aggression, Monday, November 9.)

Despite NATO’s vacillation about its mission, the x-captive nations, the countries that were to be beneficiaries of the alliance’s military protection, still believe in its ability and commitment to defend their collective independence.

“We will stand firm on the need for Russia to return to respect of international law as well as of its international obligations, responsibilities and commitments as a pre-condition for a NATO-Russia relationship based on trust and confidence,” they said in the joint declaration.

Polish President Andrzej Duda said NATO simultaneously faces threats from the east and the south, necessitating “more troops, more infrastructure and more common actions” as he and his colleagues urged the alliance to take an active role in safeguarding their and by association global freedom.

Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukrainian Crimea in February 2014 and Moscow’s support for pro-Kremlin rebels in eastern Ukraine as well as its own involvement in the war have alarmed neighboring Baltic and Eastern European countries.

At the same time, leaders of the NATO alliance have been expressing concern at what they see as Moscow’s growing military presence from the Baltics to Syria after Russia launched air strikes in support of President Bashar al-Assad five weeks ago. However, NATO has been caught without an obvious workable response plan.

News reports noted that the x-captive nations’ declaration also said the leaders would join efforts to secure “a robust, credible and sustainable” allied military presence in the region, and would advocate deeper cooperation between NATO and the European Union.  ‘Hybrid’ warfare, cyber defense, energy security and strategic communication were listed in the statement as key areas needing their attention.

The statement was issued after a meeting in Bucharest, Romania, of heads of state including Lithuania’s Dalia Grybauskaite, Latvia’s Raimonds Vejonis, Estonia’s Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Slovakia’s Andrej Kiska, Bulgaria’s Rosen Plevneliev and Hungary’s Janos Ader.

The talks were co-chaired by Romania’s President Klaus Iohannis and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda. The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Jan Hamacek, and Deputy Secretary-General of NATO, Alexander Vershbow, also attended.

Unfortunately, there was no mention of an official Ukrainian presence.

The declaration continues East European leaders’ anxieties about their future in the wake of Russian belligerence that they have voiced publically or privately since the fall of the iron curtain.

At a NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Antalya last spring, Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevičius emphasized that Russia has tested the alliance’s vigilance and unity, and called on NATO to ensure a permanent presence of its troops in the Baltic states.

He noted that activity of the Russian fleet had interfered with international shipping and legitimate commerce in the exclusive economic zone of Lithuania. As for the threats from the south, Linkevičius assured that Lithuania would contribute to joint efforts to fight the Islamic State and search for solutions to problems concerning migration at the European level.

At the meeting, Linkevičius called on NATO to continue its open door policy, especially with regard to Eastern European countries, and to keep the attention on Georgia. The participants also discussed NATO’s response to security threats from the east and south. The meeting was attended by the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini.

The ministers expressed a consensus about the threat of Russian aggression and increasing military power, and the need to take long-term measures to enhance security in the Alliance’s east region and prevent any possible aggression.

Russia’s enhanced militarization and invasions have prompted several nations to announce plans to boost their military and defense spending. Poland is in the midst of modernizing its armed forces, and the Czech Republic also announced its intention to purchase more weapons. Nordic states also reported Russian aggression along their borders and in the Arctic, with Norway saying it needs to update its defense forces.

The Czech Republic has become the latest European nation to announce the purchase of new weapons to modernize its armed forces, Defense News reported on November 2. Czech Defense Minister Martin Stropnicky said the procurements would allow the military to take part in NATO exercises and help secure the country’s border.

“The reason behind this was, in particular, the deteriorating global security situation, which represents a threat to the security of the Czech Republic and Czech citizens,” said Stropnicky. “After a thorough evaluation of the current risks and threats, the ministry decided to make an effective and adequate response.”

The Czech Republic joins an expanding list of countries in the region looking to bolster their defense capabilities. Its military was expected to add armored personnel carriers and reconnaissance systems, as well as technology to prevent electronic attacks to its inventory and additional weaponry to be used by the army, air force and reserves. Prague increased the military budget for 2015 by 4.2% and was expected to spend $1.78 billion on its military.

Several Central and Eastern European states have also started cutting their defense equipment purchases from Russia and shifting instead to buying from NATO member states, Defense News reported. Slovakia said it was planning to replace old military equipment with new purchases likely coming from NATO member states.

Nordic states have also taken notice of Russia’s military buildup in Arctic with Norway announcing a need to modernize its armed forces, Reuters reported. Norway, a NATO member state, shares a small border with Russia in the Arctic where there has been increased military activity.

“Our neighbor in the east has built up its military capacity, also in areas close to us,” said Admiral Haakon Bruun-Hanssen of Norway’s navy. “They have shown that they are willing to use military force to achieve political ambitions.”

Norway’s defense forces would need more than $21 billion beyond what was budgeted for the next 20 years, Bruun-Hanssen said. Russia’s military actions in both Ukraine and Syria have created uncertainty across Europe. Norway also mentioned it was now facing cyber and terrorist threats, as well.

Norway’s Defense Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide said Western relations with Russia had been permanently altered over Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

“We are faced with a different Russia,” Søreide told CNN. “I want to warn against the fact that some people see this as something that is going to pass. The situation has changed. And it has changed profoundly.”

Other European countries have begun to modernize their defense capabilities amid fear and uncertainty over Russia. Poland has begun a military modernization program at a cost of more than $35 billion. Poland and Sweden signed a military cooperation agreement in September that also cited Russian military fears. Sweden said it had increased its own military spending by 11%.

“Once a sea of peace, the Baltic has become a sea of danger,” observed Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak.

Russia has endangered the region and world and disrupted regional and global peace and stability. The x-captive nations are preparing to meet this threat by bolstering their defenses in hopes of changing Russia’s plans.

They at least deserve the active support and involvement of the US and the free world. G20 leaders have their agenda full this weekend, but unfortunately terrorist Russia is in their midst.

X-Captive Nations must Unite vs. Russian Aggression

Twenty-six years ago today, the German people on behalf of the captive nations struck a major blow against the Russian empire by tearing down the infamous Berlin Wall – the physical symbol of the iron curtain that Winston Churchill talked about and Moscow had built to preserve its colonial subjugation.

Germans wielding sledge hammers destroyed the cinderblock, cement and steel structure that divided their nation and the world, allowing the winds of freedom and democracy to sweep into countries that had been oppressed by Russia in some cases for centuries.

This iconic gesture gave hope to millions that perhaps for the first time in their lives the threat of Russian aggression and subjugation would go the way of the Berlin Wall. Unfortunately, the ugly head of historical Russian imperialism and belligerence is still sowing fear and death in Ukraine and beyond.

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2014, other former captive nations – those that were in the USSR and the so-called East European satellites of Moscow – for the most part recognized the latest version of Russian aggression. They’ve expressed their support for Ukraine, condemned Russia and announced renewed efforts to bolster their defenses in case Russia turns its guns against them.

This has not been the case among the countries east of the Caucasus, where most have sided with Russia or haven’t taken sides. Until this month.

During Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s recent meeting with Turkmenistani President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov in Ashgabat, the host country expressed formal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, according to a report from Agence France-Presse.

Writing in The Diplomat website, Casey Michel observed: “To date, Turkmenistan had remained mum in the 20 months following Russia’s incursion into southern Ukraine. While Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan recognized the Crimean ‘referendum’ to join Russia – although Astana later backpedaled, and now claims support similar support for Ukrainian ‘territorial integrity’ – Ashgabat had kept its silence on the matter, wary of unnecessarily provoking Moscow. But no longer. Nearly two years after the Euromaidan protests first began rocking Ukraine in late 2013, Turkmenistan has tossed its rhetoric behind Kyiv.”

Michel explained this move that he said made sense for Turkmenistan:

“First, the Turkmenistani economy’s tailspin shows no signs of slowing – hence, the outreach for new clients.

“Second, Russia recently unveiled a Caspian militarism the sea that has never seen in the post-Soviet period, effectively quashing any momentum behind a trans-Caspian pipeline, to Turkmenistan’s detriment.

“And third, Russia-Turkmenistan relations are further chilled by a drop-off in gas trade, with Moscow’s import of Ashgabat’s gas continuing its precipitous decline.”

He writer concluded:  “As such, these factors came to a head with Poroshenko’s visit. Instead of the bastion of neutrality Turkmenistan has long presented, Ashgabat suddenly thrust itself into Eurasia’s greatest territorial flashpoint. How – or if – Russia responds will be something to watch.”

Turkmenistani support for Ukraine is important because it shows Russia and third party countries that disapproval of Russian belligerence is growing. It also sends an encouraging signal to countries in its region that they should also discard their Russian yoke.

I have written about the need for a revival of a global democratic, anti-aggression movement akin to the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, the National Captive Nations Committee and the World Anti-Communist League, today known as the World League for Freedom and Democracy. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin alluded to such an alliance in a speech in New York City a year ago.

The threat of Russia restoring its prison of nations cannot be disparaged as the 19-month-long Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 demonstrates.

Fortunately, some US military leaders have cautioned that Russian military expansion will definitely endanger not only regional peace and stability but also on a global level.

Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, commander of the US Army Europe, this week warned that Russian military capabilities in the Kaliningrad region and the Suwalki corridor in Poland could hinder the defense of the Baltic states if they should fall victim to Russian military adventurism, reported The Baltic Times. At a meeting with US troops serving in Lithuania at the end of last week, Hodges said that Russian army brigades, a naval brigade, two military airbases, plus part of the Russian Baltic Fleet are already deployed in the Kaliningrad region. 

“Kaliningrad now has the ability to deny access of our Navy or any NATO Navy to come to the Baltic Sea,” Hodges said. “From Kaliningrad Russia can stop from entering coming into the Baltic Sea, and there we have three NATO Allies – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.”

He added that the possibility for Russia to block access to the Baltic Sea is a “serious threat to our allies and friends.”

Fox News and The Wall Street Journal also reported this week that US military officials have proposed sending more troops to Europe to deter the threat of aggression by Russia and have increased training exercises aimed at countering possible interference with troop transfers by Moscow.

The Wall Street Journal reported that proposals for the deployment of several US brigades in Europe were made this past weekend at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, CA.

The US Army currently has two infantry brigades based in Eastern Europe, totaling some 7,000 soldiers. One other brigade rotates in and out of Europe on a regular basis. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the WSJ that he would like to send attack helicopter units and artillery brigades to Europe as well as more rotating brigades.

Gen. Philip Breedlove, supreme allied commander of NATO and a staunch supporter of Ukraine, told the WSJ that decisions on the proposals would be made “in the next couple of months.” Plans for a troop increase must first be developed by the Pentagon, then approved by President Obama and finally funded by Congress. The paper reported that funding for the troop increase would be included in a budget request sent to Congress early next year.

The discussion of such a suggested troop increase comes a day after Defense Secretary Ash Carter warned against Russian aggression in what some have said were his strongest remarks since becoming Pentagon chief this past February. He detailed Russian forces’ “challenging activities” at sea, in the air, in space and in cyberspace. Carter also said Moscow was “violating sovereignty in Ukraine and Georgia and actively trying to intimidate the Baltic states.”

“We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia,” Carter said. “We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all.”

The x-captive nations can’t wait and hope for the best. They know firsthand the danger of procrastination. The Baltic Times reported that Lithuania and eight more countries approved a declaration in Bucharest last week, warning NATO about Russian threats and calling for increased presence to deter Moscow. Ukraine is hoping that the White House will recognize the global threat of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and actively participate in the defense of Europe and the world.

The former captive nations and the free world are caught in a dilemma – do nothing and watch Russia re-subjugate the Ukraine and the other countries or prevent Russian aggression and risk provoking Moscow into a war that would stretch beyond Ukraine and Syria.

“The challenge here is to deter further aggression without triggering that which you are trying to deter,” Gen. Milley told the WSJ. “It is a very difficult proposition.”

On the one hand, the former captive nations must unite to protect and defend their countries from Russian aggression, they must be supported in this urgent task by the US and NATO, the global political campaign against Moscow must continue relentlessly, and sanctions against Russia must be maintained – and expanded – until Moscow withdraws from the occupied territories.

Otherwise, what the West wishes to avoid and prays will not happen may come to pass by default.

Fear Drives Central Europeans to Russia’s Side

Fortunately, Adolf Hitler isn’t alive today, pillaging, killing, annexing and invading European countries because ultimately he would prevail while the free world waxes poetic – or academic, analyzing ad nauseam why he's doing what he's doing or why the downtrodden Europeans prompted his aggression.

However, that is the catastrophic situation that Ukraine is facing today in the wake of the latest Russian invasion and war, which has been continuing since February 2014 and claimed some 8,000 lives, despite escalating punitive sanctions.

While the United States is making an effort to fight the good fight on behalf of Ukraine, most of the remaining world is merely going through the motions of supporting Ukraine when it is expedient but, I suspect, truly hoping that Ukraine would submit to being absorbed into Russia’s renewed prison of nations.

That became apparent at a discussion that I attended last week at the Austrian Consulate General in New York City, at which five experts, including two Ukrainians, attempted to examine what is happening in Ukraine in a session titled “Russia-Ukraine: Which Way Forward?”

If the conclusions that the three non-Ukrainian speakers as well as some of the audience reached were implemented, the result would have indeed allowed Russia to re-subjugate Ukraine before the last of the participants had left the premises.

The speakers included: Assistant Professor Tarik Cyril Amar, Columbia University; Professor Csaba Békés, University of Pecs, Hungary, and Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Dr. Wendelin Ettmayer, former Austrian Ambassador, former Member of the Austrian Parliament; Valerii Kuchinskyi, former Ukrainian Ambassador, currently adjunct professor at Columbia University, and Associate Professor Olena Nikolayenko, Fordham University.

The program was opened and moderated by Consul General Georg Heindl, who bemoaned that the “hot, dramatic topic” of the “conflict in Ukraine … returned war to Europe,” which is terrifying the continent into willingly and prematurely surrendering to Russian whims. The non-Ukrainian experts earnestly coaxed the evening’s tone into finding a non-violent solution, which places the onus of peace on Ukraine, not Russia.

For example, Ettmayer warned that a military solution will lead to millions more refugees swarming across Europe, something that Europeans are loathe to accept. He urged the global community as well as Ukraine and Russia to strive to establish an environment of peace and stability through national reconciliation and cooperation.

He omitted stating what would be the elements of this panacea and who should initiate it, while completely failing to admit Moscow’s culpability in the war. To be sure, he and his non-Ukrainian colleagues noted that looking for the smoking gun would only exacerbate the war as will NATO’s continued expansion.

Even though there seems to be evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking to redraw the boundaries of Europe, in reality, Ettmayer said, that is not possible. His analysis of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is frozen in the present and overlooks traditional, historical Russian imperialism not only against Ukraine but also other countries in the region.

For him, the only way out of this perilous situation is “national reconciliation and international cooperation.” But cooperation between combatants in wartime is difficult and dangerous while reconciliation with the enemy should come after Russia has withdrawn all of its troops and terrorists to a safe distance inside Russia. This line of thinking indicates that the proponents reject the existence of Russian animosity toward Ukraine, likening the war to a schoolyard brawl.

Former Ukrainian UN Ambassador Kuchinskyi several times noted that global peace and stability will continue to be disrupted while Russian boots are on the ground in Ukraine. Furthermore, he correctly called for international sanctions against Russia to be maintained as long its soldiers and terrorists are on Ukrainian soil.

In reply to Ettmayer, Kuchinskyi pointed out that the demise of the Soviet Russian empire brought to the surface so-called internal conflicts in the USSR – or the captive nations’ aspirations to freedom. For Ukraine and the others, declaring their independence a quarter of a century ago was a means to get away from big brother and Russian domination, he added.

Kuchinskyi statistically elaborated that Ukrainians have a desire to be included in Euroatlantic structures rather than Russo-Asian ones. He predicted that a national referendum in Ukraine would demonstrate that the nation’s support for NATO membership because Ukrainians see it as the only way to protect Ukrainian borders, sovereignty and independence.

The non-Ukrainian speakers offered as an explanation – or rather an excuse – for Russia’s imperial behavior its melancholy feeling of failure after losing 14 union republics or captive nations as well as its Eastern European satellite-nations. Moscow’s sphere of influence shrank while NATO has been expanding, they sympathetically suggested. Consequently, they continued, it’s only natural for Russian leaders to strive to rebuild and maintain Russia’s influence in the region.

The non-Ukrainian speakers argued that Moscow is also concerned about the fate of ethnic Russians around the world, including the 8 million in Ukraine, and has anointed itself as their sole defender. During the Q&A at the conclusion of the presentations, a listener rose to reproach the audience for not sympathizing with the poor, anguished Russians. He bewailed the fact that Russia lost its sphere of influence – another antiseptic expression for Russia’s prison of nations – and its aggressive reaction is merely a feedback to NATO’s expansion.

The non-Ukrainians advised the United States, the European Union and NATO to stay out of Ukraine; otherwise Russia could be provoked into a wider war, which would threaten Europeans’ peace and stability. They also placed the responsibility of what they continuously referred to as a conflict and its solution on Ukraine, demonstrating their fear of even including Russia into the equation.

However, their duplicitous vacillation rose to the surface when Prof. Amar observed that the future should be decided by Ukrainians as they want it – but apparently so long as they don’t seek accession into Euroatlantic structures without Russian permission and avoid provoking the Russian bear into hostile activities.

Prof. Nikolayenko demonstrated the pro-Ukrainian role of Ukrainian civil society amid the country’s democratic environment, pointing out, on the other hand, that NGOs in Russia are being repressed by the Putin regime. Some democratically oriented Russian organizations are establishing contact with Ukrainian ones but there are too few of them to make a difference on Russia, where the vast majority of people have strongly endorsed Putin’s policies, according to national surveys.

Responding to his colleagues’ admonitions against Ukraine, Kuchinskyi declared that Ukraine is making headway with reforms, democracy and decentralization and its battle with corruption – though it remains problematic. He believes that time is on Ukraine’s side but warned the free world not to offer Russia any relief as long as Ukraine’s sovereign territory is occupied.

The west should not force Ukraine into deep concessions under the guise of peace at any cost, he said, but rather it should raise the risk and costs to Russia of renewed violence against Ukraine. “If the costs are high, Russia will listen; Putin won’t escalate,” he believes.

Ukraine’s fighting forces are improving their strength and prowess but there is still a possibility of an all out Russian invasion against Ukraine, Kuchinskyi said.

As an example of the non-Ukrainian speakers’ fondness for blaming Ukraine for the region’s calamity while oozing sympathy for Russian hardships, Prof. Békés called on Ukraine’s President Poroshenko to do everything possible to create a harmonious environment for Russians in Ukraine.

In response, during the Q&A, I rose and rebuked all of the speakers for their Russian sympathies by saying that it is a callous conclusion to place the onus on Ukraine for the war which Russian launched against Ukraine. On the contrary, I continued, they should be forcing Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.

As my frustration with the anti-Ukrainian rhetoric continued and I challenged the speakers to consider if there are any similarities between Hitler’s annexing of European countries, including their Austria, ahead of invading Poland, and Putin’s Anschluss and invasion of Ukrainian Crimea and the eastern oblasts. And if there are, I continued, then does Ukraine deserve to be betrayed by Europe?

After my comments were derided as being belligerent, Amar expressed his offense at my statement about their dancing around the core reason of Russia’s aggression without addressing the issue, and went on to say that while he sees “certain similarities,” he doesn’t see such comparisons heading in a positive direction. Emotional discussions are dangerous to reaching a peaceful solution, he and his colleagues opined.

Ettmayer emphatically declared that Putin is not Hitler.

Kuchinskyi, on the other hand, said he does see similarities between both historical events that I cited. But the question remains, he continued, what the free world should do when one country unleashes a war against another country.

“Putin has a vision and he can’t be bought. He wants to return the glory and might of Russia,” he said.

Too bad that Kuchinskyi’s voice was in the minority that evening.

Rather than finding false solace in their own academic pontifications, central Europeans should heed the opinions of their neighboring east Europeans. Otherwise they’ll be welcoming Russian tanks on their territories.

For a Comprehensive post-2015 SDG Agenda

Countries around the world together with civil society – non-governmental organizations (NGOs) – are feverishly working to devise a practical process for adopting for the good of humankind the principles contained in the ambitious post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals.

The post-2015 SDG agenda is a follow up to the Millennium Development Goals created by the United Nations 15 years ago in order to improve the quality of human life in eight target categories including extreme poverty in its many dimensions, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion while promoting gender equality, education, maternal and child health, and environmental sustainability. The deadline was 2015.

A two-year multi-stakeholder program called “Sustainable Development 2015” (SD2015) has been undertaken by Stakeholder Forum in partnership with CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, a major South African NGO, in collaboration with UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which with the UN Department of Public Information/Non-Governmental Organizations (DPI/NGO) works closely with civil society, and with the financial assistance of the European Union. The program provides tools and opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in the global deliberations about the sustainable development goals and the wider post-2015 development agenda, through five focus areas: raise awareness; increase engagement; empower stakeholders; coordinate advocacy and strengthen governance.

According to this program, SD2015 will inform parliamentarians on the global goals agenda, develop global institutions and engage existing networks and infrastructure for all stakeholders. It will identify areas of synergies between national and international policy making in order to offer guidance to all concerned.

While the world has been only moderately successful in attaining the eight MDGs, the United Nations oddly concluded that the global community would have better luck in achieving 17 post-2015 SDG goals along with 140-plus sub-points.

Preparations and negotiations are currently under way in the United Nations ahead of a summit in September.

As with the MDGs, the SDGs also focus on a wide range of climate, sustainability, education, gender, and health, environment and human issues.

But with wars and sanctioned national malice still plaguing the world, the obvious absence of references to these painful issues raises the question “what are the UN and global community thinking about?” Will it benefit sustainable development to sweep violence and wars under the carpet? Should Russia’s war against Ukraine be overlooked for the sake of the uncertain fulfillment of the SDGs?

Of course not and that’s where Ukrainian and other former captive nations’ NGOs, as well as their Permanent Missions to the United Nations along with indigenous Crimean people, and relevant human rights and disarmament groups have an opportunity to compel the UN and global community to remain focused on freedom, democracy, peace and stability by recognizing and punishing recidivist international aggressors like Russia.

Incorporated in the 140-plus SDG points are a host of issues that could be used to build this case. Among them are the following:

1.4 by 2030 ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services including microfinance

4.7 by 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

9.1 develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all

12.8 by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature

12.b develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism which creates jobs, promotes local culture and products

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

16.1 significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

16.2 end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence and torture against children

16.3 promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and ensure equal access to justice for all

16.4 by 2030 significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen recovery and return of stolen assets, and combat all forms of organized crime

16.5 substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all its forms

16.6 develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

16.7 ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

16.8 broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance

16.9 by 2030 provide legal identity for all including birth registration

16.10 ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements

16.a strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacities at all levels, in particular in developing countries, for preventing violence and combating terrorism and crime

16.b promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

The best place to start the conversation about building coalitions is within the so-called third leg of the United Nations system – civil society. Ukrainian and former captive nations’ NGOs that are in consultative status or associated with UN agencies or programs, such as the Ukrainian World Congress and the World Federation of Ukrainian Women’s Organizations, can take advantage of each one of these points to highlight Russia’s recurring transgressions.

Remember, Russia’s war with Ukraine violates international law and order and the UN Charter, Russia violates the rights of ethnic minorities and indigenous communities, LGBT, the news media, religious minorities and others, and Russia is expanding its nuclear stockpile – all of which diminish the global community’s level of confidence in Moscow’s peaceful and stability-driven commitments.

The United Nations is based on coalitions and representatives of Ukrainian NGOs must devote time and energy – at least 20 hours a week per person – to building a partnership that I would call the Post-2015 Sustainable Coalition for Freedom and Democracy. These NGO representatives must walk the hallways of the UN, meet and greet other NGOs and delegates, and regularly engage them in conversations about these overlooked points of the post-2015 SDG agenda.

They should mobilize support of NGOs from the other captive nations and like-minded stakeholders.

They must attend meetings, participate in the discussions, make their faces, names and voices known, and organize their own meetings.

They must seek the active support of the Permanent Missions of Ukraine, Lithuania, the United States, Canada and other member states that recognize the global danger posed by Russian hostility.

Statements in the Security Council by Ukraine, the United States, Lithuania, Canada and others have been helpful but they have not been able to bring Russia’s violence in Ukraine to a halt.

However, this is a major opportunity for freedom-loving NGOs in the UN system, the Permanent Missions of the former captive nations, and concurring stakeholders to continue the conversation within the context of the post-2015 SDG agenda about preserving sustainable freedom, democracy, stability and peace for future generations while sanctioning Russia for its criminal belligerence.

Ambassador Power in Ukraine: Russia Underestimated Ukrainians’ Resilience

It is safe to say that there has not been another American official who understands the plight of Ukraine so precisely as Samantha Power, the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

Even before visiting Ukraine last week, Power, an Irish American academic, journalist, author, diplomat and Cabinet official, earned the admiration of Ukrainians around the world for her steadfast support of Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Seated at the circular table of the UN Security Council, she never hid behind diplomatic courtesies in responding to Russian fabrications about its invasion of Ukraine. Power convincingly pointed her finger at Russia’s Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin when accusing Moscow of launching the brutal, bloody war against a peaceful neighbor.

At the same time, Power is respected for her support for the downtrodden wherever they live and a host of contemporary sustainable issues.

No wonder, President Poroshenko quipped to her in Kyiv: “You cannot even imagine how famous you are in Ukraine.”

And not only in Ukraine.

During her trip to Ukraine, Power had the opportunity to witness first hand Ukraine’s difficult evolution from Russian subjugation through homegrown crooks and traitors and finally to today’s clear course toward national sovereignty, democracy, wellbeing and European integration. She appreciates that the past 24 years have not been a walk in the park for Ukrainians and their nationally-minded elected officials because Russia has been shadowing their every step in the hope of catching Kyiv unaware and then re-subjugating it behind a restored iron curtain.

She also had the opportunity to experience the devastating effect of Russia’s war against Ukraine that so far has claimed some 6,500 lives as well as the high moral commitment of everyday Ukrainians and their brave fighting men and women to defeat the enemy and resume their peaceful, democratic transition from slaves to free people. She honored the memory of the martyred Maidan defenders in Kyiv and felt in her soul that the issue was not speaking or not speaking Russian or Ukrainian but living as Ukrainians without regard for language and faith so long as it is without Russian interference.

Samantha Power expressed many powerful words and assurances to the Ukrainian nation but perhaps the most indicative of her views and America’s policy were articulated in the phrase: “The United States are with you as you fight on two fronts: countering Russian aggression and building an open, responsive government.” She emphasized that Washington supports Ukrainians and Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty “in the face of Russia’s hostile actions in eastern Ukraine and continuing occupation of Crimea.”

Here are some more of Power’s supportive declarations made in Ukraine:

Speech to Ukrainian nation June 11

“Building a system of new rules will never depend on what your government does, but rather on what you (Ukrainians) make it do, and what you do yourselves.”

“You are not alone. The US have never left your side, and will not leave your side.”

“If Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest, then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia. And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian aggression will not placate Moscow; it will only embolden it.”

“But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia’s efforts to impose its will on Ukraine. And that is you – the people of Ukraine – and your right to determine the course of your own country’s future.”

“It is about restoring your voice – a voice too often ignored by corrupt politicians, oligarchs, and foreign powers. Or, as one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukrayina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!”

“Maidan was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers. Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews.”

“Maidan was not just about reversing a cynical political decision or unseating a single kleptocratic government. Instead, it was about dismantling a generations-old system that kept producing rotten decisions, broken institutions, and corrupt leaders – and it was about replacing it with one that was accountable to the Ukrainian people.”

“But the Kremlin made a very serious miscalculation: it underestimated your resilience and your willingness to unite to help your fellow citizens. And it underestimated your tenacious determination to fix a broken system.”

“To understand what is meant by Ukrainian solidarity, look at the countless civil society groups that have sprung up to respond to the massive humanitarian crisis produced by Russian aggression.”

“The Kremlin also underestimated your resolve to see through the process you started on the Maidan – to build a system that answers to you, the Ukrainian people, rather than to the oligarchs or to Moscow.”

“These new members of government – together with civil society – are pushing for greater transparency.”

“Hard as it is, remember what is at stake – not only for yourselves, but for generations of Ukrainians to come. Remember that the yearning to have a voice – which brought so many Ukrainians out to the Maidan, and resonated with so many millions more – the cry of Hid-nist! Hid-nist! Dignity! Dignity! – is just as powerful now as it was then.”

“That means that Ukraine is stronger when it listens to those calling on its military to respect international law while defending its people from attacks by combined Russian-separatist forces – even as its enemies ignore those same standards. It means that Ukraine should zealously protect freedom of the press, including for its most outspoken and biased critics – indeed, especially for its most outspoken and biased critics – even as the so-called separatists expel journalists from the territory they control, and even as Russia shutters Tatar media outlets in occupied Crimea. It means that politicians and police across the country should recognize how crucial it is that people be able to march to demand respect for LGBT rights and the rights of other vulnerable groups without fear of being attacked. And it means that the Ukrainian government should do everything in its power to get humanitarian aid to the civilians trapped along the line of contact and those struggling to survive in separatist-controlled areas, as well as to ensure the swift freedom of movement across the line for humanitarian actors.”

“The United States will continue to press tirelessly for Nadiya's (Nadiya Savchenko) release, as well as the release of all Ukrainians who are being held illegally by the so-called separatists and by Russia.”

“The Ukrainian people are one-of-a-kind, but the situation you find yourselves in is not. People around the world find themselves facing similarly daunting obstacles: corrupt politicians, rotten institutions, powerful oligarchs, and even aggressive neighboring countries intent on meddling in their sovereign affairs. And these people are watching you. They learned from your stand on the Maidan. And they are learning from the struggle that you are waging right now – to build a democracy from the grassroots up.”

About the United Nations

“We can’t get out of the (UN) Security Council what we need, and the Security Council doesn’t live up to its responsibilities because it has given a country – that is an aggressor – in 2014 and 2015 this privilege of having a veto, but we can work through other mechanisms.”

"And the other mechanism … is Western democracy, is Europe and the United States, and others who have – within their power – the ability to stand up for these norms and to put in place measures that will definitely take their toll on the Russian economy in the first instance and – over time – will take their toll on the Russian calculus.”

About Crimea

“The United Nations is documenting what is happening in Crimea. We always emphasize, that, although, the focus now is on the situation in the east of Ukraine, we will never forget about Crimea, and will not stop until Crimea is back under the control of Ukraine.”

“Crimea will remain in our thoughts and in our hearts, and in all our dialogues with the Russian Federation.”

“On all maps the United Nations, Crimea will remain a part of Ukraine, where it should be, and this, believe me, enrages Russia.”

Interview with BBC

“I am very sorry for the Ukrainian government because of what is happening in the country in the past year and a half, because all of this time Russia is trying to turn every aggravation of the situation in the East is somewhat bigger, capturing town after town.”

“Our main task is to try to isolate Russia so that Putin’s conduct changes.”

“The G-7 made it clear that the United States and leading European countries are ready to introduce more stringent sanctions in the event of further aggression.”

“It is important to shame Russia, it is important to tell the truth and it is important that Russia not only feel pressure from the United States that will always be close to the Ukraine, but also the voices from Africa and other regions of the world that are as outraged by the actions of Russia in Ukraine, as United States.”

Polish Newspaper

“America clearly sees the truth about the destabilizing actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine.”

“How I'd love to have veto power over their (Russia’s) veto.”

Witnessing Ukraine’s Freedom Mission

During her brief trip to Ukraine, Samantha Power witnessed the Ukrainian nation endeavoring like no other country in history to defend itself against a vicious aggressor, build a democratic life for itself, encourage nascent NGOs to take an active role in civic affairs, and purge the country of internal and external corruption and traitors. She witnessed Ukraine’s genuine achievements, dreams and nightmares. And she saw that Kyiv is striving to fulfill this mission without wide foreign support but unfortunately with a great deal of cynics and naysayers.

At the end of her speech and visit, Ambassador Power reached into the not-too-distant past and cited the heroic Ukrainian poet and national activist Vasyl Stus, who was persecuted by the Soviet Russian regime, and spent 23 years behind bars, where he died in 1985.

“Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain,” she said, “but you are strong and defined. And if you stay strong together, no kleptocrat, no oligarch, no foreign power can stop you.”

Too bad that Samantha Power is not vying for the Presidency of the United States. She would find many ardent supporters among Americans of Ukrainian and other Eastern European descent.

Don’t Stop Until Ukraine Has Democracy, Territorial Integrity, Sovereignty

Ambassador Samantha Power, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, has been an ardent supporter of Ukraine as it has been forced to defend itself against blatant Russian aggression. Power does not shirk from any occasion to refute Russian lies about its invasion of Ukraine and the 15-month-old Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15. In the Security Council of the UN, she regularly challenges and disproves every fabrication uttered by the Russian Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin, oftentimes overlooking diplomatic niceties.

In the aftermath of Russia’s escalation of its war with Ukraine last week and the intensification of fighting in Maryinka and Krasnohorivka, Power forthrightly assured her Russian counterpart and Security Council colleagues that the fight in defense of Ukraine will not end inconclusively. There is a definite mission and goal, she declared.

“The consequences of Russia’s contempt for Minsk and the rules undergirding our international peace and security are too great – both for the integrity of the international system, and for the rights and welfare of the Ukrainian people. We cannot fail to see and fail to act. We must not stop applying pressure until Ukrainians get the stable democracy, the territorial integrity, and sovereignty they yearn for and deserve,” Power said during another special Security Council meeting on Ukraine on Friday, June 5.

Her eloquent support for Ukraine should only be matched by other leaders of the free world, who unfortunately display far less mettle. Power is heading to Ukraine on a fact-finding mission this week and we look forward to reading her eye witness account of what she sees.

Among other her other observations made at the Security Council meeting, Power said Russian forces launched on June 3 multiple, coordinated attacks west of the Minsk line of contact in Donetsk. They were definitely concentrated on the towns of Maryinka and Krasnohorivka, she said.

Russia and its terrorist allies offered multiple – often conflicting – explanations for these attacks, she said tongue in cheek.

But this set of arguments, Power continued, has been undermined by some of the mercenaries themselves, who seem to have forgotten to run their tweets and their blog posts by Moscow for approval. During the attacks, one tweeted, “‘Maryinka is ours!’ – posting a photo of armed soldiers atop a tank flying the separatists’ flag. A post on a separatist website said, “‘As a result of a massive attack by [DPR] armed forces, Maryinka has been liberated.’”

The problem with the terrorists’ line of argument that Maryinka and Krasnohorivka are internal – or occupied towns – quite simply, is that it is false, Power said. “At no point did the Minsk Agreements recognize Maryinka and Krasnohorivka as separatist-controlled territory. Nor did they grant the separatists control over Debaltseve or other areas combined Russian-separatist forces have seized, or tried to seize. Yet for Russia and the separatists, it seems the contact line can shift to include the territories that they feel they deserve.”

Power pointed out that objective eyes in eastern Ukraine belong only to the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission, the SMM. “And what they tell us is that, on the evening of June 2nd and early morning of June 3rd, ‘SMM observed the movement of a large amount of heavy weapons in DPR-controlled areas – generally in a westerly direction toward the contact line – close to Maryinka, preceding and during the fighting.’ So, to repeat: according to the SMM, heavy weapons from the Russian-backed separatist side moved westward ‘preceding as well as during the fighting.’”

She said these and other joint attacks by Russian forces have had deadly consequences.

“At least five Ukrainian soldiers were killed, and 38 wounded, in the assault on the towns. The number of casualties is surely higher, but we do not, unfortunately, have reliable reports from the separatists’ side. That is because, as the UN’s Human Rights Monitoring Unit noted in its May 15th report, independent media have been prosecuted, threatened, and otherwise muzzled in separatist-controlled territory.

“We also do not know how many Russian soldiers were killed in recent attacks – or in any of their operations in eastern Ukraine, for that matter. Russia continues – despite incidents such as the recent capture of two special operations Russian soldiers in Schastya last month – to deny any military involvement in eastern Ukraine.”

Putin continues to violate the right of the bereaved of Russians killed in action in Ukraine by depriving them of information of their fate, Power noted.

“Just last week, President Putin signed a decree classifying any death of Russian soldiers in ‘special operations’ in peacetime a state secret, a policy which previously was limited to wartime only. Not content with denying their military service in life, Russia now denies their loved ones the respect and closure – not to mention social services – for their service in death. And it denies the Russian people knowledge to which they are entitled – of a conflict their government has been fueling with weapons, training, and soldiers. No matter what your opinion of the open secret that is Russia’s military involvement in eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea, the dignified recognition of one’s dead should have primacy.”

But suffering is hardly limited to those involved in the fighting, Power said.

“Civilians living near and along the front lines continue to endure profound hardship. Approximately 1.3 million Ukrainians have been displaced by the fighting. Small children on the front lines have gotten used to going to school and sleeping in basements. Families live underground for months at a time. The elderly and disabled are trapped with little access to vital medicine and other forms of assistance. A health professional working in Debaltseve said, ‘I’ve met elderly people who say that they would just like to die. They don’t have depression; they just don’t want to be 80 years old and living in a basement.’”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine follows what Power called Moscow’s playbook of occupying foreign lands or, in other words, how Russia repeats its own imperial history.

“By now, the international community is quite familiar with Russia’s playbook when it comes to efforts to occupy the territory of its sovereign neighbors – as it did in Crimea, and before that in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. The consensus here, and in the international community, remains that Minsk’s implementation is the only viable way out of this deadly conflict.”

Power also offered praise for the Ukrainian government’s efforts to address crime and corruption.

“The Ukrainian government has made good faith efforts to honor that consensus – notwithstanding the seemingly endless violations by Russia and the separatists – and deliver on the commitments made at Minsk. Ukraine is holding direct dialogue with the separatists, a bitter pill to swallow, but one they have swallowed for the sake of peace and for the sake of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. At the same time, Ukraine has undertaken critical efforts, with the participation of Ukrainian civil society, to address pervasive problems it inherited from its predecessors, like widespread corruption, as well as to pursue crucial reforms such as decentralization. Ukraine cooperates with the international monitors and bodies, and has committed to address identified areas of concern. The United States will continue to raise tough issues and these areas of concern, including some raised here today by the briefers, with the Government of Ukraine, and we will support the government and Ukrainian people as they continue their efforts toward meaningful reform.”

While Russia arms its mercenaries and escalates the war, Power criticized the Security Council and the world for turning a blind eye.

“Yet Russia – and the separatists it trains, arms, fights alongside, and with whom it shares command and control systems in eastern Ukraine – continues to ignore this consensus, flouting the commitments it made at Minsk. It goes right on applying its playbook in new territories – as though this Council and the world are too blind, or too easily deceived to notice.”

Can the Free World Launch New D-Day to Rid Ukraine of Russia?

Seventy-one years ago, the free world, feeling that the time was ripe for an endgame to drive Nazi Germany’s armies from Europe and defeat Hitler’s plans for world domination, launched the historic, multi-national D-Day invasion of occupied France.

It took 11 months of blood-and-guts warfare for Gen. Dwight Eisenhower’s armies to push the Nazi armies back to Berlin and force Germany to sign an unconditional surrender that halted the killings and crimes against humanity and brought peace and stability to Europe.

The free world demonstrated political and military dedication, determination and the right stuff in mobilizing itself to defeat an enemy that had set sights on dominating the entire world.

So what’s changed in the ensuing seven decades with the free world’s dedication to freedom, democracy and national sovereignty? Why is the United States, the European Union, and NATO hiding behind tepid and ineffective threats and sanctions while Russia intensifies with impunity its war against Ukraine? Have Russia’s energy reserves, trade potential and nuclear weapons paralyzed the free world into blind hope about Moscow’s intentions and reprehensible ambitions about global domination?

The leaders of the free world, gathering now at the G-7 summit in Germany, have an opportunity to send Russia a forthright and most importantly united message that it will no longer tolerate its unrestrained arrogance and aggression. The threat against Ukraine and the free world is no less dangerous than was the threat against Poland, France and the free world seven decades ago.

Since earlier this spring, Russia has been massing its regular army and mercenary detachments along the border with the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine, raising the threat level not only against Ukraine but also the entire world. Simultaneously, Moscow is eroding the world’s confidence in its assurance to uphold peace and stability today.

Despite the imperfect Minsk Accords, Ukraine has been abiding by them while Russia has been conducting hit-and-run attacks against Ukrainian positions until last week, when fighting surged in the war zone. Ukrainian troops and Russian mercenaries fought their first serious battles in months.

The Ukrainian military said the Russian terrorists had tried to advance using tanks and up to 1,000 fighters west of the main rebel stronghold of Donetsk, in what was described in news stories as the most significant escalation of the conflict in about three months and in defiance of a ceasefire deal. Ukrainian military command called it a “large-scale offensive against Ukrainian positions.” Russian mercenaries claimed that 15 of their terrorists and civilians were killed but denied that they had started the new assault.

President Poroshenko reported to the Verkhovna Rada on June 4 that some 9,000 regular Russian soldiers are deployed in Donbas and warned of a “full-scale” Russian invasion of Ukraine. He said Ukraine has deployed 50,000 troops in the conflict zone to meet the threat. His address to parliament was one of the first times the Ukrainian commander-in-chief used the word “invasion” to refer to Russia’s assault since the start of the war, in which the United Nations has said more than 6,400 people have been killed.

“A colossal threat of renewal of full-scale military actions by the Russian terrorist groups remains. Now on the territory of Ukraine there are 14 Russian tactical groups with total number of personnel exceeding 9,000 servicemen. Concentration of the Russian servicemen near the state border is bigger by half than a year ago,” Poroshenko said. “The military must be ready as much for a renewal of an offensive by the enemy in the Donbas as they are for a full-scale invasion along the whole length of the border with Russia. We must be truly ready for this.”

Despite Moscow’s claims to the contrary, Russian mercenaries in the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 are backed by thousands of regular Russian soldiers, which has been substantiated not only by Ukrainian government and military officials but also by NATO, the United Nations and even careless, boastful Russian troops. Certainly, the smoking gun has been Russian soldiers taken prisoner on Ukrainian territory and those convalescing in Ukrainian hospitals.

Fortunately for Ukraine, Poroshenko said Ukrainian forces successfully mopped up in Maryinka after repelling the rebel attack. He said Ukrainian soldiers ousted pro-Russia terrorists from that eastern town and captured 12 saboteurs, including one Russian. Ukrainian armed forces and the volunteer battalions have again proven their military skills, dedication, heroism and patriotism – features the Russian invaders lack.  

London’s Daily Mail confirmed Poroshenko’s statement by reporting that Ukrainian troops thwarted pro-Russian separatists’ attempt to take Maryinka as they fought their first serious battles in months.

The White House said President Obama spoke with Poroshenko last Friday about the war in Ukraine and both leaders expressed their “deep concern” about fighting near Donetsk and urged rebels to respect the Minsk ceasefire. Beyond listening and expressing concern, Obama is not prepared to offer greater aid to Ukraine.

Russia’s escalation of the 15-month unprovoked war with Ukraine threatens global peace and stability though not all world leaders are brave enough to admit it.

US officials have acknowledged that economic sanctions haven’t forced Putin to change his militant policies regarding Ukraine, and they voiced concerns about an increase in violence in Ukraine and the use of heavy weaponry that was restricted by the cease-fire deal.

“It’s clear the sanctions are working on the Russian economy, but what is not apparent is that that effect on his economy is deterring Putin from following the course that was evidenced in Crimea last year,” said Defense Secretary Ash Carter, noting that Russian aggression would be “an enduring challenge.”

Carter is one of the more vocal supporters of a hardline approach to dealing with Moscow because of its war against Ukraine. He has urged the US to increase the number of military exercises and training programs across Europe and strengthen NATO’s intelligence sharing to better counter Russian aggression in the region.

Carter also said the US and others are worried Putin would use similar tactics elsewhere in the region and is positioning Russia as a US adversary. That is a likely scenario given Russia’s hostility and the former captive nations’ preparations.

“There are other things we need to be doing in recognition of the fact that, at the moment at least, Vladimir Putin does not seem to be reversing course,” Carter told reporters. “Therefore we need to adapt, in a long-term sense, to that reality.”

Unfortunately, adapting to that reality means learning to live with it rather than working to change Putin and Russia.

Many in Congress also support a hardline position vis-à-vis Russia and helping Ukraine with additional aid. Among them is Sen. Bob Portman (R-OH), who recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Ukraine. Writing in The Cleveland Plain Dealer on May 31, Portman urged NATO to step up and help Ukraine. Without this aid, Ukraine will not be able to stave off Russian aggression and embark on a national course to democracy, wellbeing and national sovereignty.

Portman wrote: “Ukrainians have made incredible sacrifices in the hopes of securing a democratic future but they need sustained economic, political, and military support from the United States and NATO to ensure a successful future.

“They have also made an unequivocal choice to pursue a pro-Western, democratic path, and are making progress in fighting decades of corruption that left Ukraine weak, while dealing with a blatant Russian invasion. Successful follow-through on these reforms will be essential to the long-term success and prosperity of Ukraine.”

He concluded: “Our efforts must be part of a broader strategy to support regional allies and deter Russian aggression. We must demonstrate America's commitment to the security of our friends through a reinforced NATO presence in Eastern Europe and more vigorous engagement in training and security cooperation. President Putin's actions upend decades of established international norms and the response demonstrates the weakness of the Western alliance and America's leadership.

“Confidence in America and our European allies' commitment to uphold these norms deters bad actors and incentivizes other countries to play by the rules. If our credibility is in doubt, the chance for violence and instability increases. Nearly every Ukrainian official I met with understood this. It's time the White House did as well.”

That’s why the G-7 meeting underway in Germany is vital to Ukraine’s independence and future. Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a leading champion in Ukraine’s corner. He is bravely urging his G-7 leaders to ban Russia from returning to their ranks at least while it’s waging war against Ukraine. Canada is also giving financial assistance to Ukraine to help it build its struggling economy, which has been beset by corruption. Canada's help includes $202 million in development assistance and $400 million in low-interest loans.

Harper told Poroshenko on Saturday that Canada will make Ukraine’s case at the G-7 summit in the Bavarian Alps.

“While Ukraine may not have a seat at the table, I can assure you, Mr. President, the situation will be very high on Canada’s agenda,” Harper said with Poroshenko at his side.

Ukraine has made no secret of its urgent desire for weapons to fight the Russian terrorists as well as Russian troops equipped with their latest armament. While there has been some talk about this request in G-7 circles, Harper was quoted as saying that he has made it clear that Ottawa was not yet willing to send Ukraine weapons but would continue to assist the Ukrainian forces in other ways.

“We supply a range of non-lethal military equipment,” Harper said. “We would only go beyond that in concert with our allies and that are matters on which we have an ongoing dialogue.”

While disappointed about this, Poroshenko praised Canada for supporting Ukraine since “the first hours” of his presidency and said the military aid it had provided to his country, such as medical kits and mobile hospitals, “addressed an acute problem.”

Poroshenko characterized his talks with Harper as “effective and very relevant” and said the Canadian leader had become locally famous for his remark earlier in the week that Russia needs to “get out of Ukraine.”

All G-7 leaders must stand shoulder to shoulder with Poroshenko and reiterate Harper’s thoughts so Putin is not mistaken about their meaning.

Indeed, today’s free world would probably reject any suggestion of sending their armies into Ukraine to help expel and defeat the Russian invaders. However, the G-7 leaders can launch a political and economic D-Day against Russia for violating international laws, invading a peaceful neighbor and committing crimes against humanity not less abhorrent that those of Nazi Germany.

For the good of global peace and stability and their own integrity and righteousness, the G-7 leaders must emerge from their summit with a single-minded, forceful commitment to present Russia with the option of unconditionally withdrawing from Ukraine and returning to good graces of international community or being banned forever. Moscow must understand that its brand of international lawlessness will not be endured.