UN 2030 Agenda: More than Climate Change

After Intense, last-minute negotiations among member states and NGO stakeholders, the 193-member UN General Assembly formally adopted late last September the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with a set of bold new global goals, which are being hailed as a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – previously known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – is the direct descendant of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that concluded this year.

“The new agenda is a promise by leaders to all people everywhere. It is an agenda for people, to end poverty in all its forms – an agenda for the planet, our common home,” declared UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the UN Sustainable Development Summit, which witnessed the adoption of the agenda that will stay in effect as a global guiding star for the next 15 years.

Speaking to the press after the adoption of the agenda, Ban said: “These goals are a blueprint for a better future. Now we must use the goals to transform the world. We will do that through partnership and through commitment. We must leave no-one behind.”

The UN chief, civil society, academics and scientists, cheered the new framework with its inclusion of many human interests and needs in an agenda for shared prosperity, peace and partnership. “It conveys the urgency of climate action. It is rooted in gender equality and respect for the rights of all,” Ban said, urging the world leaders and others convened at the event in New York City to successfully implement the agenda by launching “renewed global partnership.”

Justifiably, climate change, global warming and the environment have attracted almost all of the fanfare leading up to the 2030 Agenda’s adoption and since then. The attention these concepts are attracting has been compounded by the COP21 conference, which is currently being held in Paris. World leaders are expected to adopt a new climate-friendly course that will for the first time in more than 20 years of UN negotiations strive to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on the climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.

“You are here today to write the script for a new future. A future of hope and promise – of increased prosperity, security and dignity for all,” UN’s Ban told the world leaders at the opening of the summit. “Let us build a durable climate regime with clear rules of the road that all countries can agree to follow. Paris must mark a turning point. We need the world to know that we are headed to a low-emissions, climate-resilient future, and that there is no going back.”

However, the monumental and optimistic 2030 Agenda is not only about climate abuse and its expected deleterious effect on future generations. As with the MDGs, the 2030 Agenda focuses on a wide range of climate, sustainability, education, gender, health, environment and human rights issues. Embedded in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’s 17 principles and 140-plus subsidiary points are many references to the urgency of protecting human rights. Human rights include national rights and the fulfillment of the latter usually guarantees the former. Conventional wisdom states that this hopeful, comprehensive package will make life easier and better for future generations.

Among the numerous references to human rights, we find the following two salient passages:

“We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination; of respect for race, ethnicity and cultural diversity; and of equal opportunity permitting the full realization of human potential and contributing to shared prosperity. A world which invests in its children and in which every child grows up free from violence and exploitation. A world in which every woman and girl enjoys full gender equality and all legal, social and economic barriers to their empowerment have been removed. A just, equitable, tolerant, open and socially inclusive world in which the needs of the most vulnerable are met.”

“We reaffirm the importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other international instruments relating to human rights and international law. We emphasize the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to respect, protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status.”

But with wars and sanctioned national malice still plaguing the world, the obvious lack of global emphasis on these painful issues raises the question “what are the UN and global community thinking about?” Will it benefit sustainable development to sweep ethnic prejudice and violence and wars under the carpet? Should Russia’s war against Ukraine and human rights violations against Ukrainians and minority groups be overlooked for the sake of a successful conclusion to COP21? If Russia wages war and violates human rights with impunity will it voluntarily abide by new climate regulations?

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.

President Poroshenko of Ukraine, who attended COP21, speaking at the United Nations on the eve of the ratification of the 2030 Agenda, declared Ukraine’s support for the UN Development Agenda but poignantly pointed out, “There will be no sustainable development without peace and freedom.”

Indeed, how can the global community be expected to evolve ecologically for the benefit of future generations when one outlaw member of the international community wages war against a neighboring state and violates the human rights of its citizens?

Poroshenko said further: “Ukraine’s bitter experience reveals that peace and freedom are principal pre-conditions for achieving the SDGs. Sustainable development is not achievable where explosions are heard and peaceful people are killed. It is not achievable where aggressive ideologies advocating suppression of some nations by other nations reign and key human rights and freedoms are violated.

“Strengthening universal peace and promoting larger freedom should become a driving and unifying force behind our collective efforts towards achieving the SDGs.

“Today Ukraine has to implement so much needed systemic reforms while opposing the Russian aggressor that tries to undermine the democratic European development the Ukrainian people have chosen.

“As a result of Russia’s treacherous annexation of the Ukrainian Crimea and its aggression in the Ukrainian Donbas region, thousands of people have been killed.”

As far as environmental concerns go, the Ukrainian president pointed out that Russia’s war against Ukraine has also increased environmental and epidemiological threats, as well as the risks of social exclusion.

Poroshenko assured the global community at the UN that Ukrainians are ecologically aware and focused today, first and foremost, on:

·         fighting corruption;

·         ensuring equal opportunities and social justice;

·         effective public health system;

·         promoting decent work;

·         ensuring affordable education for all;

·         promoting innovation development and sustainable infrastructure;

·         ensuring sustainable energy supply;

·         ensuring food security;

·         healthy environment.

These points are also included directly or indirectly in the 2030 Agenda.

Speaking this week at COP21, Poroshenko further noted, “The terrible events that France experienced this tragic November are a daily reality for Ukraine for almost 21 months.” He again placed the blame for Ukraine’s woes directly on Russia, saying that his country “is suffering from terrorism sponsored and promoted by the Russian Federation.” 

Consequently, more than 8,000 Ukrainians, of whom were about 6,000 civilians, lost their lives.

“There can be no compromise on democratic values and principles with terrorists or states sponsoring terrorism,” Poroshenko emphasized.

Convening of COP21 with its pro-climate advocates should give freedom-loving NGOs in the UN system and beyond, the Permanent Missions of the former captive nations, and concurring stakeholders the task of initiating a conversation within the context of the 2030 Agenda about creating a global partnership that would foster and preserve sustainable freedom, liberty, democracy, human rights, stability and peace for future generations while sanctioning Russia for its criminal belligerence.

X-Captive Nations Understand Danger of ‘Russian Partnership’

The murderous rampage by ISIS and the free world’s so-called coalition to defeat the Islamic scourge has again brought to the surface the former captive nations’ distrust and hatred of Russia.

Consequently, Moscow’s erstwhile colonies are not hurrying to join any posse that includes Russia to chase down and destroy ISIS.

Russia’s crimes against each one of them and specifically its current war against Ukraine have convinced them to steer clear of Moscow. The chasm that Russia has dug with its crimes against the former captive nations cannot be filled in even by a global humanitarian or punitive mission.

Indeed, the x-captive nations regard Russia as a terrorist like ISIS.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite, a consistent and unambiguous advocate of Ukraine, in 2014, became the first European leader to speak frankly about the Russian aggression in the Donbas region of Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea. Grybauskaite said candidly in an interview with The Washington Post that she saw both the Islamic State and Russia as terrorists.

“Russia is terrorizing its neighbors and using terrorist methods,” the Lithuanian president was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

After the terrorist attacks in Paris, French President Francois Hollande and some other leaders expressed the idea that Russia should be included in a broad coalition against the ISIS. However, not all EU members support this proposal, noting that Russia is an exporter of terrorism and has violated all international norms by invading sovereign Ukrainian territory, annexing Crimea and then continuing its aggression in the eastern oblasts of Ukraine.

According to the Baltic Times, at a meeting with the presidents of Latvia and Estonia, Grybauskaite asserted that Lithuania “will not be participating in any new coalitions that Russia is or wants to be a part of.”

“Russia still occupies the territory of one country and is carrying out direct military actions in another, even two countries – Georgia and Ukraine,” Grybauskaite pointed out.

Estonian President Thomas Hendrik Ilves said: “With all the focus these days on terrorism and on Daesh, we have to still keep in mind that the largest act of aggression since the end of World War II is a continuing process with the annexation of Crimea.”

“And I would say that I think we are all concerned about this sort of falling behind or some kind of development in which we stop paying attention to Crimea, or we even forgive the annexation because of the newer threats. We cannot allow that to happen,” Ilves said, according to the Baltic News Service.

Latvian President Raimonds Vejonis emphasized that the situation in the European Union and on its southern borders should not distract attention from Ukraine, Delfi news agency reported. “Our common task is to keep the issue of Ukraine high on the EU agenda until the full resolution of the Minsk Agreements,” he said.

The Baltic trio, together with Poland, are insisting on utmost firmness regarding Russia. They fear that the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine will be lumped together as some pundits have also suggested by writing that Putin hopes to use Syria to deflect attention from Ukraine.

“These are different crises and we must not link them, we must assess them separately,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius told AFP. “It is unacceptable to talk about some kind of trade, concessions or spheres of influence.”

The Latvian Ministry for Foreign Affairs suggested last week Friday that “the Baltic countries should continue to constantly remind the world about the illegal annexation of Crimea. The fight against terrorists and resolving the conflict in Syria should not be at the expense of Ukraine.”

Polish lawmaker Marcin Kierwinski from the liberal Civic Platform (PO) opposition party observed that “The need to settle the IS issue shouldn’t change our position regarding Russia.”

“Even if it’s not officially on the table, Moscow hopes that if the anti-IS coalition sees the light of day, pressure in the case of Ukraine will lessen and a certain number of countries will say, since we’re fighting together, the sanctions shouldn’t be renewed,” Polish analyst Wojciech Lorenz told AFP. “That's what we have to fear.”

The x-captive nations broad unity was accentuated by Eiki Nestor, the president of Estonia’s parliament: “Even now after the tragedy in Paris, this understanding of new democracies, what the three Baltica and Nordic states (have), we’re trying to help Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova to develop, it's very important, especially in Ukraine's case.”

Separately, newly elected Polish President Andrzej Duda observed recently in the website http://www.ji-magazine.lviv.ua that contemporary Russia has nothing to do with democracy.

In addition to violating its own constitution every day, Duda said Russia “is the first European country which has committed military intervention in the affairs of other independent European state, taking away part of its territory” referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Russia should not be the focus of any negotiations, he said, adding that the Minsk discussions involving Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France reminded him of Yalta of 1945, at which the free world surrendered parts of Europe to Soviet Russia.

“We cannot accept the fact that Russia should swallow Ukraine by pieces. We are responsible for the integration of European states and the integrity of borders in Europe. Stopping this decaying process will be a triuimph for Europe. To accept a rotten compromise will defeat it,” the Polish president said.

Since the start of the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15, the former captive nations have proudly and bravely defended Ukraine against the Russian invasion and warned that Russia’s appetite for conquest has not abated. They have also cautioned that the free world shouldn’t betray Ukraine for the sake of an ersatz greater good. They rightly fear that including Russia in the anti-ISIS coalition could lead the free world to halt sanctions against Russia, which would unleash a major backlash against it.

Predictably, France’s Holland is rounding up countries to track down the ISIS killers. However, the x-captive nations have not forgotten his and France’s current offenses. France maintains an honorary consulate in occupied Donetsk which would be akin to the US supporting a consulate in Vichy during WW2. Hollande suggested to Kyiv to negotiate with Russian terrorists in the occupied territories but wouldn’t even consider following his own advice.

I have advocated that the x-captive nations must revive the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, the World Anti-Communist League or the Captive Nations Week Committee for their common defense. They should form global, regional, academic and UN coalitions to defend democracy, liberty and human rights as bulwarks against Russian aggression.

What Ukraine and the former captive nations have experienced in the Russian prison of nations has convinced them that Russia can’t be trusted today – despite the need to destroy ISIS. Their counsel should not be belittled by Islamic terrorists’ victims.

Holodomor, Revolution of Dignity and War

Ukrainians around the world took a moment on Saturday, November 21, to reflect on three significant events in their history that contributed to defining who they are as a nation.

The oldest of the three events is the Russian murder by starvation of 7-10 million Ukrainian men, women and children in 1932-33 – known as Holodomor. This heinous premeditated crime against Ukrainians caused by man-made design is considered an act of genocide by governments and scholars around the world, including Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word genocide for the United Nations soon after it was established.

“Genocide is the crime of destroying national, racial or religious groups,” Lemkin wrote. Certainly Moscow’s intentions with regard to Ukraine over centuries can be similarly explained.

Lemkin further observed about the Holodomor:

“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.”

“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. 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.

“It is difficult to imagine the calculated death of millions, but history is filled with similar atrocities, of which the Jewish Holocaust is another example. In both cases, the victims were annihilated merely because of their nationality.”

Today, non-Soviet Russia continues to deny the Holodomor as it does all of its crimes against humanity committed against Ukrainians.

Fortunately, since independence, Ukrainians have uncovered numerous additional Russian records that bear witness to Moscow’s guilt. This evidence has supplemented the scholarly research on the subject and added a historical background to the abundant monuments and memorials that have been dedicated to the famine victims around the world. The latest one was unveiled two weeks ago in Washington, DC.

On Saturday, Ukrainians filled St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City for the annual observance, at which Ukrainian diplomats and US officials paid tribute to the martyrs and pointed an accusing finger at Moscow.

William Paul of the US Permanent Mission to the United Nations read a statement from the White House, in which President Obama said he joins Ukrainian Americans and Ukrainians everywhere to mark the catastrophe of millions being starved to death by Stalin’s regime.

Recently appointed Ukrainian Ambassador to the US Valery Chaly likened the Holodomor to the 18-month long Russian war against Ukraine and added the 8,000 killed to the famine figures. He said the Ukrainian nation is facing another attempt at being destroyed by Moscow, but he expressed confidence that Ukraine will persevere but with aid from Washington, DC.

Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations, reflected on the validity of remembering the Holodomor. In reply to numerous questions from fellow diplomats at the UN, Sergeyev pointed out that Ukrainians recall the Holodomor and other brutalities against their nation for the sake of “our children and grandchildren.” He said the incredible figure of millions killed can only be attributed to a concentration camp and, poignantly clarifying, that place of forced confinement was called the Soviet Union.

Archbishop Antony of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church urged his fellow Ukrainians never to forget the horror of the Holodomor because if its memory disappears from the memories of people – all people – then the occasion for the crime to be repeated will arise.

“God forbid,” the Archbishop intoned repeatedly.

Yesterday was also the second anniversary of what has become known as the Day of Dignity – the start of the national revolution in 2013 that sought to rid Ukraine of Russia and in the end ousted its corrupt lackey Viktor Yanukovych. Enraged by Yanukovych’s last-minute decision not to sign the European Union accession documents, Ukrainians from across Ukraine, lead mostly by young people, descended on Kyiv and occupied the capital for weeks until Yanukovych finally read the writing on the wall and fled to Russia out of fear for his life. His cronies also hightailed it with him.

What the crooked oligarchs left in their wake was a treasure trove of gaudy and not-so-gaudy stolen and accumulated wealth as well their Russian patron who was left wondering how such a buffoon of a president could have been allowed to lose Ukraine for Russia.

According to satellite photographs, 2 million Ukrainians filled the center of the Ukrainian capital, displaying their disgust with Yanukovych and Russian subjugation, while expressing support for a Ukrainian Ukraine, one that is aligned with Euro-Atlantic structures. The astounding, historical number of peaceful demonstrators could not be disregarded by friend and foe.

As revolutions go, Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity that began on the Maidan had its share of bloodshed before victory was finally claimed and peace restored. More than 100 defenders of Ukraine were killed by uniformed traitors, who shot at unarmed civilians from rooftops. Ultimately the nation was victorious and all of its denominations – men and women, senior citizens and youth, professionals and workers, Ukrainian and Russian speakers, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims – could unite under one Ukrainian flag, one Ukrainian spirit and one Ukrainian cause.

The only casualties on the enemy side were the numerous statues of Lenin – symbols of Russian oppression – that were torn down by the people like the Germans that demolished the Berlin Wall.

As has often happened in Ukrainian history, this triumph was short lived. Putin and his Russian band of imperialists in the Kremlin couldn’t stomach losing Ukraine and their henchmen in Ukraine. Barely two weeks after the end of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi and before the triumphant cheers of Ukrainians fell silent, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine by storming the Crimean peninsula and imposing a reign of terror against the local Crimean Tatar population, outlawing their culture and heritage. Within a few weeks, Russia expanded its invasion of Ukraine by attacking the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts.

Even though Soviet Russian communist domination of Eastern Europe and Ukraine came to an end a quarter of a century ago, Moscow’s desire to rebuild its empire and re-imprison the now x-captive nations is avaricious. Russia is still seeking to repair the iron curtain separating free men from slaves.

The Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 has raged since then, with some 8,000 soldiers and civilians killed, according to the United Nations. The Ukrainian Armed Forces, National Guard and independent battalions, mobilized in an Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) have been heroically defending their country from Russian air and ground attacks in eastern Ukraine. Three distinct sections of Ukraine are currently occupied by enemy forces: Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk.

There seems to be no end in sight to the war despite the free world’s mixed support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, which is as culpable of terrorism as is ISIS.

How have these events defined the Ukrainian nation?

The Holodomor shows that Russia will not be restrained in its tactics to destroy the Ukrainian nation – even resorting to starving to death men, women and children.

The Revolution of Dignity shows that the Ukrainian nation will mobilize to defend itself against homegrown and foreign enemies.

And the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-15 shows that Russia’s quest to restore its reprehensible empire is insatiable.

Throughout hardships and sacrifices, Ukrainians have remained undaunted in their commitment to the nation. Ukrainians have learned that freedom and independence aren’t abstract terms. They have been compelled to experience it, live it and defend it every day. They’re really left with one recourse. Thomas Jefferson, among other philosopher-statesmen who have said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, wrote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Keep faith in Ukraine.

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.