Worldwide Support Grows for Nadiya Savchenko

Cyberspace has been filled with many recent examples of the growing worldwide support for Nadiya Savchenko not only from Ukrainians but also from a significant number of non-Ukrainian sources.

Savchenko, a Ukrainian military aviatrix, was kidnapped to Russia by Russian invaders and falsely accused of killing Russian non-combatants during the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-16. Held in unjust conditions in a Russian prison, 34-year-old Savchenko launched a hunger strike to protest her unlawful imprisonment.

Often seen in court dressed in a Ukrainian embroidered blouse or a t-shirt emblazoned with a large Tryzub, the national emblem of Ukraine, Nadiya Savchenko has earned the distinction of being this generation’s most prominent Ukrainian political prisoner.

Indeed, Savchenko has demonstrated true grit throughout her military career and illegal incarceration and trial. The latest chapter of her plight shows that she hasn’t tired and continues to maintain her principled, national, patriotic position even while caged in the Russian courtroom.

On March 2, while awaiting the final verdict after the prosecutor demanded a sentence of 23 years behind bars, Savchenko, also a member of the Ukrainian parliament, offered her final statement, in which she laid the complete blame for Russia’s imperialism, invasion, killings and her capture and imprisonment at the doorstep of the Kremlin.

Some excerpts of her remarks:

“During this long and tedious six-month trial we learned that guilt was proven in the course of the judicial process. That guilt is of the Russian journalists [Savchenko was accused of involvement in the deaths of two Russian journalists]. They are guilty of lying and of providing false, distorted information regarding events in Ukraine, the world, and in Russia …

“If they had not hung around where they shouldn't have, they would have stayed alive. Russian TV channels were also found guilty …

“They wanted to boost their ratings and made a quick buck. But they absolutely do not care about their journalists. They are the ones who are above all responsible for the deaths of Korneliuk and Voloshin [the two Russian journalists whose deaths Savchenko is accused of involvement in]…

“The guilt of Russian-backed separatist forces and Russian regular military troops has also been proven. They are guilty of killing Ukrainian people on our Ukrainian land. They are to blame for occupying Ukrainian lands …

“This court also proved the FSB (Security Service) and Russia's Investigative Committee guilty. They are to blame for kidnapping people. They are guilty of torturing people …

“During the trial, the prosecutor and Russian judges were also found guilty. During two years of my imprisonment and my tribulations here, I found out that those people had neither honor nor conscience, nor do they abide by laws. They absolutely do not care about international laws or human rights, they are instructed by the Kremlin, and they are committed to fulfilling this state order …

“The trial proves the guilt of Russian authorities; they are to blame for seizing Ukrainian lands, capturing Crimea and starting a war in the Donbas region. They are to blame for trying to establish - through their foul undeclared wars all over the world - a totalitarian regime dominated by Russia …

“They creep everywhere and kill people through genocide. We could observe the same practice in Chechnya, and Abkhazia. Now we are observing this in Ukraine, Dagestan, Syria …

“I am the only person the court failed to find guilty. I am an officer of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I had every right to defend my land, I was fulfilling my duty …

“You do not judge your own troops - but they also killed many people while defending their country …

“That’s why I want to say - the more I meet these effeminate men, like prosecutors here, the higher grows my self-esteem as that of a woman, of a soldier and of a human being...

“And here is the most crucial thing. Let prosecutors sentence me to as many years in prison, as they wish. Not a day longer, not a day shorter. All 23 years. Do not issue a longer or shorter jail sentence for me - so they won’t make any further appeals or delay the procedure. You have proved that you are utterly impotent. You have already proved that Russia can disgrace itself, as exemplified in my case.

“You have never defeated me and will never do it! Well, let's finish it all as soon as possible, I will not wait any longer. It was not you who have given me life, so you can't own it - and you can't decide upon my fate. If the verdict takes more than two weeks, I will not wait for it. That's all I want to say.”

Powerful words from a Ukrainian soldier regardless of gender.

According to the BBC, her patience evaporated in court on Wednesday, March 9. The news agency reported that at one point in her appearance, she leaped onto a bench inside the cage and showed the judges her middle finger. She mocked the judges in Ukrainian, saying they were proving that Russians were fascists.

Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry joined the chorus of world leaders who have called for Savchenko’s release.

Biden: “Nadiya has been unjustly imprisoned in Russia since 2014—detained and facing trial on trumped up charges. Nadiya was proudly serving her country as a member of the Ukrainian armed forces, fighting in the eastern part of the country when she was abducted by separatists and taken across the border against her will.

“During the past 20 months, she has become a symbol of Ukrainian national pride and strength. She was even elected to the Rada from her prison cell. Her unlawful continuing detention is a clear violation of Russia’s commitment under the Minsk agreements, and she should be freed at once. Recently, Nadiya has begun a new hunger strike to protest her detention, and her health has begun to deteriorate after five days with no food or liquids.

“Today, as we mark International Women’s Day and honor all the brave women who struggle against injustice in this world, we also stand with Nadiya and with the Ukrainian people. And we call on Russia to make the right choice—to drop all charges and release her at once. Nadiya deserves to go home to her family and friends and join her fellow Rada members to begin shaping a new Ukraine.”

Kerry: “In the 20 months since she was captured in eastern Ukraine and taken to Russia, Ms. Savchenko has reportedly endured interrogations, solitary confinement, and forced “psychiatric evaluation.” Her trial and continuing imprisonment demonstrate disregard for international standards, as well as for Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreements.

“The United States once again calls on Russia to immediately release Ms. Savchenko and return her to Ukraine.”

Ambassador Daniel B. Baer to the OSCE Permanent Council: “We must take this opportunity to remind the Russian Federation that Russia has committed, under the Minsk agreements, to the release of Nadiya Savchenko and others held on politically-motivated charges in the Russian Federation.”

Russia must not be permitted to get away with another crime against humanity. Please visit the following website and sign the open letter to European leaders to demand freedom for Nadiya Savchenko.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/free-savchenko-open-letter-to-european-leaders

Eternal Shame on Russia

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom,” the 2016 Oscar nominated documentary movie about Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity has been broadcast on Netflix for several months but I mustered the resolve to view it for the first time only a few days ago. The historic images of the Ukrainian nation arising against foreign and domestic tyrants two years ago and the accompanying emotions were still fresh in my mind, restraining me from watching it.

The momentous events on Maidan in Ukraine’s capital in 2013-14 that attracted more than a few million Ukrainians from around the country kept the world glued to live web streams of what was quickly evolving into the nation’s latest manifestation of its invincible will to live free, without foreign domination.

The movie instantly brought back memories of parades, speeches, rallies, fires, dedication, police depravity and barbarism, beatings, bravery, heroism, patriotism, gunshots, and blood that ultimately forced Russian flunky Viktor Yanukovych to flee from Kyiv into the arms of his benefactor and Ukraine’s oppressor Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The 1-hour and 42-minute movie that covered 93 days in the life of the Ukrainian nation will contribute to Russia’s eternal shame regardless of the outcome of Academy Awards. Subsequent generations of Russians will have to answer a host of muted questions about their country’s role in trying to quash liberty in Ukraine just like today’s Germans are attempting to cope with Nazism. Likewise, future generations will have a glimpse of one episode from a millennium of examples of Ukrainians’ unconquerable, freedom-loving spirit to live in their own independent, sovereign, democratic and indivisible Ukraine.

The film conveys the background and reasons for the Revolution of Dignity, including Ukraine’s subjugation by Russia, the nation’s desire for accession to the European Union, Yanukovych’s acquiescence, Putin’s opposition and finally Yanukovych’s last-minute turnaround. The nation couldn’t stand the government’s duplicity and subservience to Moscow. The people demanded that the accession process go forward and that ex-convicts like Yanukovych by removed from power.

Social media was the instrument for capacity building in Kyiv. It summoned Ukrainians of all walks of life to Kyiv to voice their disgust and opposition to Russia’s corrupt, anti-Ukrainian colonial administrators in Ukraine. National opposition grew from a few hundred protesters in the center of the capital to several thousand to more than a million, testifying that this was, in fact, a popular, national movement for freedom.

The nation again awakened to stop those who sought to subvert Ukraine’s fate. The marchers emphasized that Ukraine, as a European nation, is part of the European Union and the nation’s youngest generation demands that Ukraine finds its rightful place among European countries and not in the Russian prison of nations.

The protestors, whose numbers swelled from grassroots levels, were emboldened into believing that they could change the country. Fed up with Yanukovych’s corruption and submission to Moscow, their movement evolved into a revolution whose goal was to depose the government and liberate Ukraine from Russia’s bonds. Their daring and power grew from their unwavering beliefs and expanding numbers. They were determined to fight for Ukraine and that victory would be theirs.

Those who were interviewed and appeared in the movie underscored that the Revolution of Dignity was popular and national. Busloads of demonstrators from across Ukraine participated. Doctors from around the country came to Kyiv to treat the wounded and dying. Young and old helped with food and other provisions. Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian speakers, including Russian speakers, were equally vocal in their disdain for Moscow’s subjugation of Ukraine. Serhiy Nigoyan, an Armenian, was the first to shed his blood for Ukraine’s freedom. Among the Maidan Defense Units were Jewish Maidan Defense Unit and Women’s Maidan Defense Unit. All religious hierarchs, representing the broad swath of faiths of Ukraine, Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist and others prayed in unison for the nation’s salvation.

Teenagers and even younger Ukrainians were involved in the movement. One seemingly pre-teen spoke of helping with medical supplies and provisions. Another boy, a teenager, wearing a t-shirt of Stepan Bandera, leader of OUN assassinated by the Kremlin, was seen speaking with his mother on his cell phone. Not knowing what will be his destiny, he ended the call by saying “Mamtsiu, I love you.”

The documentary did not show the involvement of civic leaders except for boxer Klychko and pop singer Ruslana, which further confirmed the people’s mass dedication to the cause of Maidan.

It was pointed out by many that the participants maintained the highest level of moral behavior during the revolution. Drugs and alcohol were not seen in their encampments. The participants were peaceful and unarmed as they faced the depraved barbarism of the Berkut security officers, whose brutality was clearly visible throughout the documentary. They repeatedly charged into the nonviolent protesters wildly swinging their truncheons without regard for life or limb. Our 9-year-old son was shocked when he saw the attackers beat and kick defenseless, cowering protesters on the ground. Army veterans observed that the Berkut officers “didn’t act like human beings” even destroying makeshift red cross stations. For the first time since 1240, the bells of the St. Michael Sobor tolled anxiously, summoning more and more people to join the protests on Maidan.

Despite repeated waves of baton-wielding officers, none of the protesters broke rank and fled. They were committed to their mission, realistically noting that even if they abandon their cause now, eventually they would be hunted down and eliminated. In a comical, futile effort to protect themselves against the police, protestors covered their heads with kitchen utensils, pots, pans and colanders.

The documentary offered many insights about the Ukrainian nation for all viewers but one, in particular, was clearly, warmly perceptible by Ukrainians. Repeatedly throughout the documentary individuals or mass throngs chanted “Glory to Ukraine,” and “Glory to the Heroes,” an old Ukrainian mantra that was adopted by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and was banned by Soviet Ukraine and Russia and ridiculed by some others. Goose bumps ran up and down my arm while listening to the refrain as flames rose in the night sky.

In time, truncheons were exchanged for rubber bullets and then for live ammunition and Putin/Yanukovych’s organized killers began shooting unarmed demonstrators from rooftops like fish in a barrel. The Revolution of Dignity lasted 93 days during which 125 innocent, peaceful citizens of Ukraine were murdered on the orders of officials in the Kremlin and Kyiv. They indisputably earned the moniker “Heavenly Hundred.”

Push came to shove after the timid members of the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law outlawing demonstrations and Klychko’s ineffective attempt to convince the lawmakers to rescind the vote. I recalled watching this live two years ago. His effort was rejected by the crowd on Maidan. Infuriated by the slow evolution of events, Volodymyr Parasiuk, a young defense unit commander, seized a historic moment, jumped on the stage and grabbed the microphone from the Ukrainian boxer. He declared that Yanukovych must present himself to the crowd on Maidan and resign by 10 am the next day or else he would lead the nation in storming his multi-million dollar estate and removing him by force.

Yanukovych secretly fled to Russia the next day, February 22, and almost simultaneously the Russian army invaded the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine and then regions in eastern Ukraine. The fight for Ukraine’s freedom continues.

“Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom” fulfilled its mission of telling the world of Ukrainians’ indomitable spirit to fight for their freedom and that the generation that stood on Maidan for three months and faced the enemy without weapons is the latest generation of Ukrainian patriots to refresh the tree of liberty with their blood.

The Elephant in the Room is Finally Recognized

The elephant in the room has finally been recognized. The words Ukraine, Russia, Putin, aggression and NATO were raised during the latest round of debates among six Republic presidential hopefuls in Ashville, SC, on Saturday, February 13.

Not that their conclusions and remarks will lead to significant changes in America’s policies towards Ukraine, but, at least, the villain and victim received a hearing.

The first to bring up this topic that is dear to the hearts of many American voters was Sen. Marco Rubio. He said the third major topic that he would tackle if elected President of the USA would be “rebuilding and reinvigorating NATO in the European theater, particularly in Central Europe and in Eastern Europe, where Vladimir Putin is now threatening the territory of multiple countries, already controls 20% of Georgia and a significant percentage of Ukraine.”

Rubio, whose website www.marcorubio.com elaborates on his plan to “Defend and Restore Ukrainian Sovereignty” and “Protect Europe from Further Russian Aggression,” states he would bolster NATO as a major bulwark against Putin’s belligerent adventurism. He also reminded voters that Putin occupies “significant” portions of Ukraine.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio then picked up the baton by replying to CBS’ John Dickerson’s question about his wanting to punch Russia in the nose for moving into Crimea and eastern Ukraine, saying: “Yes. First of all, look, we have to make it clear to Russia what we expect. We don’t have to declare an enemy, rattle a sword or threaten, but we need to make it clear what we expect. Number one is we will arm the folks in Ukraine who are fighting for their freedom. They deserve it. There will be no ifs, ands or buts about it.

“Secondly, an attack on NATO, trumped up on any excuse of Russian-speaking people, either in the NATO countries or in Finland or Sweden is going to be an attack on us. And look, I think we have an opportunity as America to put something really great together again.”

Arming Ukraine is a great first step because it will help Kyiv repel Russian invaders from Ukraine. The Republican presidential candidates and the free world should understand that Ukraine is the first country in recent memory to stand up to invading armies from Russia and – as Kasich said – Ukrainians “deserve it.”

Ukrainians deserve a lot more than military aid from the western democracies. They serve economic and commercial support, civic consultation and understanding that two dozen years after proclaiming its independence and sovereignty from Russian captivity it is again fighting the same powerful external foe that bred the internal enemy of corruption.

Kasich’s observation contains a detraction in his assurance that America doesn’t “have to declare an enemy.” On the contrary, Washington must declare Moscow an enemy for its aggression and violations of human rights of its citizens. Without the admission that it is an enemy, some will regard Russia as such while others will shake its hand and seek to do business with it. That would certainly be the wrong message to the Kremlin.

Jeb Bush, whose father, President George H. Bush, was leader of the free world when Ukraine declared its independence prompting him to observe that he would not recognize countries making such declarations in the basement, castigated Vladimir Putin by emphasizing “The very basic fact is that Vladimir Putin is not going to be an ally of the United States. The whole world knows this. It’s a simple basic fact.”

Bush also took a jab at Donald Trump for wanting to accommodate Russia – “It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this.” Trump reaffirmed his easy-going attitude toward Putin by nonchalantly stating “I like him so far, I have to tell you.” Trump is already known for making similar positive remarks about Putin a few times during this election season.

Do these meager but to be sure welcome comments by presidential aspirants bode well for the plight of the x-captive nations in the face of consistent Russian aggression? Unfortunately not. They have not reach a political critical mass that would resonate among friends and foes alike and force Moscow to take note that the next leader of the free world – regardless of who he or she will be – will not be as tolerant of its warlike designs as the current one is.

The x-captive nations community of American voters must press the case on behalf of their besieged ancestral homelands.

During the days of the evil empire, Eastern European Americans and their supporters, organized groups such as the American Friends of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, National Captive Nations Committee, World Anti-Communist League and their national affiliations and would lobby both sides of the political aisle with a strong, straightforward message: Free the captive nations! And Washington listened.

In the Ukrainian American community, civic leaders such as the late Joseph Lesawyer on the Democratic side and the late Lev Dobriansky on the Republican side mobilized partisan advocates to force inclusion of appropriate pro-captive nations and anti-Soviet planks in the parties’ platforms.

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America and its Ukrainian National Information Service have detected this current dangerous state of affairs and are urging Ukrainian Americans – and by association all Eastern European American voters – to convince elected officials and candidates as well as news media to place Russia’s war against Ukraine and the occupation of Ukrainian territories on the political agenda.

“Now six months into the debate process, while some candidates have formulated substantive policy positions regarding Putin’s criminal regime, and others have quietly chosen to defer making any such decisions, we call on debate moderators and journalists covering the US presidential campaigns to question the remaining candidates on their positions regarding this rogue nation which US military commanders have gone on record to describe as ‘the greatest threat to our national security.’ It is unacceptable that throughout twelve presidential primary debates thus far, the number of questions asked relating to Putin, Russia or Ukraine can be counted on one hand,” the UCCA statement said.

“The US Presidential candidate selection process has now begun in earnest, with the first votes having been cast in Iowa. Today, there are more Ukrainians living amid the ruin of war than there are people living in the entire state of Iowa. And we, Ukrainians, Americans and allies united in seeking safer future for all mankind, ask for your assistance in getting this issue included in the upcoming debate schedule. Candidates should be asked to lay out their foreign policy agenda as it relates to Putin’s kleptocratic regime in Russia, and to address the first military annexation in Europe since World War II. Will any candidates for the position of “Leader of the Free World” call out Putin for his numerous political assassinations, or mention the name of Iraq War veteran Lieutenant Nadiya Savchenko and others illegally held by Russia, and call for their immediate release?”

At a time of war against Ukraine and potentially all x-captive nations, Eastern European American civic organizations should form alliances for the purpose of awakening Democratic and Republic presidential hopefuls against policies that would accommodate Russia or warm up to Moscow and Putin. This is not the time for pragmatism and responsibility, which are synonymous with placating Russia.

For the sake of the x-captive nations and the free world, the platforms of the Democratic Party and Republican Party must contain planks that proclaim unwavering support for their independence and territorial inviolability and condemn Russia for its current belligerence.

Mr. Secretary, Don’t Blink First

“We’re eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked” – observed memorably Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

In October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave in to US pressure and ordered the removal of Soviet missiles from its Caribbean colony, signaling a major Cold War victory for Washington.

Today, if recent news about lifting or softening sanctions against Russia is any signal of future relations, then Washington may have just blinked and betrayed war-torn Ukraine and the other x-captive nations.

But it’s unfortunate for the US to have blinked while eye to eye with a country like Russia that is standing at the edge of a precipice, perhaps deep in its death throes but still mustering its last ounce of strength to invade and occupy Ukraine and bomb Syria.

Recent weeks have been red letter days for Russia watchers, as the country and its leader, Vladimir Putin, sink deeper into a cesspool of shame:

·                     Russia is still reviled for invading and occupying regions of Ukraine
·                     Russia’s economy is tanking, causing the people excessive pain
·                     British investigators have accused Putin of ordering the murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko
·                     Human Rights Watch again chastised Russia for continuing to violate human rights
·                     The US Treasury described Putin as being corrupt

With a report card such as that, wouldn’t it be embarrassing for any world leader to shake hands with the likes of Vladimir Putin?

Apparently not. The free world is willing to forgive and forget. Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos seem completely out of place as they serve to presage his fellow statesmen’s utterances about similar, tragic policy changes. “And earlier this week here at Davos, Vice President Biden and I met with Ukrainian President Poroshenko to help ensure full implementation of the Minsk agreements. And I believe that with effort and with bona fide, legitimate intent to solve the problem on both sides, it is possible in these next months to find those Minsk agreements implemented and to get to a place where sanctions can be appropriate, because of the full implementation, removed,” he said.

Free world leaders bullying Ukraine to surrender its positions because Russia certainly won’t budge.

Kerry also said in his address: “In Ukraine, under the previous regime, official venality and greed triggered an international crisis.” This incredible comment completely absolves Russia of a thousand years of aggression and Russification. It pardons Russia for crimes against humanity in Ukraine and for bringing Yanukovych to power. The “international crisis, that he cited, was caused by domestic crooks. Kerry’s remarks resemble President Obama’s statement during the State of the Union: “Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine.”

Kerry’s misguided assessments lead pundits to observe that a series of recent misinterpreted “encouraging” meetings with senior Russian officials have raised hopes in Washington, Paris and Berlin that Putin is serious about settling the dispute over eastern Ukraine. They believe that Russia’s false positives could then pave the way for sanctions to be eased before the year is out. None of Kerry’s expectations and Putin’s actions are borne out by reality. Russia’s troops and terrorists are still pouring into Ukraine with military hardware and occupying regions in the east and Crimea. There the Kremlin’s gauleiters have deprived local residents of their human, civil, cultural and religious rights and turned them into vassals of Russia. Moscow has not lived up to any of the conditions of the Minsk Accords and minor steps don’t count.

Kerry and other free world leaders quickly cautioned that progress toward lifting sanctions have to be substantiated by the warring sides’ implementation of the Minks Accords, maintenance of ceasefire, and holding of local elections. These sanctimonious politicians continue to obnoxiously place Ukraine in the same kettle as Russia without differentiating between victim and aggressor. The free world believes culpability is equal. It refuses to acknowledge that Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2014 and occupied at least three regions of sovereign Ukraine for the sole purpose of restoring the iron curtain. Even with its strength waning, Russia continues to evoke fear in the free world.

Ukrainian officials suggested Moscow is portraying itself as a “good cop,” and presents Kyiv as the party that is not delivering on its Minsk commitments.

The global community, at least that portion that in the past has opposed Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, seems to have become bored with this state of affairs and is hankering to turn back the clock 24 months, return Russia to its pedestal and resume trading with it. Free world leaders are suffering from Kerry-like myopia, and see specters of Russian transformation. Sadly, they are wrong.

“There have been clear signs of a ‘pacification’ process recently,” opined Simon Quijano-Evans, chief emerging markets strategist at Commerzbank AG, on Bloomberg News. “It does look as though all sides are starting to push more markedly for resolutions to the current geopolitical mess.”

All sides? Including Ukraine, the victim of a Russian invasion and occupation. What kind of resolution can the world expect from Kyiv, which is struggling to save its freedom and build a democratic country in the middle of a war without outside help?

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble similarly wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper Monday, January 25, that the EU should build closer ties with Russia to help resolve the civil war in Syria and reduce tensions in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia Muslims. That remark came on the heels of French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron telling his country’s businessmen in Moscow that France would like to see sanctions lifted by the summer.

Should the world urge Paris to suspend martial law in the wake of the ISIS terrorist attacks?

Mark Katz, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., observed that “Kerry is holding the possibility of lifting the sanctions but Russia has to do certain things, like cooperate on Ukraine and Syria and then the US would reverse some sanctions.”

Katz, a Soviet expert, added that the top US diplomat was also seeking to “appease those European allies who are not happy with sanctions.” Thus Russia, with all of its ignominious crimes against humanity, moves to center stage in the eyes of the self-righteous free world and is viewed as a savior of Syria.

Timid Europe has a long-standing reliance on Russia’s gas supply and is struggling to cope with the throngs of migrants seeping through its borders from Syria. With Syrian peace talks planned to start January 29 – and Russia a key player at that negotiating table – the fate of Ukraine caught in a war with the largest country on earth is no longer the only consideration for policymakers. X-captive nations leaders, quoted in my previous blogs, have warned against accepting Russia’s Syria for Ukraine switch ploy.

Calls for better relations with Russia show Putin’s uncanny ability to convince the free world that he’s interested in conflict resolution, even when he’s lying, according to James Nixey, head of the Russia and Eurasia program at the UK’s Chatham House think tank.

“The West’s priority is Syria, Russia’s priority is Ukraine; their interests are substantially different from ours,” Nixey said in an interview. “Putin can say, ‘If you do me a deal on Ukraine and give me a Syria influence, then I’ll turn around the direction of my bombers and I’ll do more to come onside,’ which is attractive for the West whose primary problem is not Russia but Islamic fundamentalism.”

Kerry and his European counterparts might heed the sobering words of newly elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Pedro Agramunt. He said during his first speech as PACE president at the Winter Session in Strasburg that Russia should stop backing separatists in Donbas, return control over the occupied territories to Ukraine and release Ukrainian pilot Nadiya Savchenko.

“Russia is still supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine. It should do everything possible to return these territories to Ukraine’s control. It is necessary to release [Nadiya] Savchenko,” the PACE president said. According to him, the situation in Ukraine still raises concerns and is dangerous.

“Separatist-controlled territories are remaining the place where mass human rights violations are taking place,” Agramunt said.

Finally, if skepticism persists, the free world shouldn’t discount statements by Russian officials.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov boastfully admitted that Russia would not comply with any of the free world’s expectations. He was quoted by The New York Times as saying on Tuesday, January 16, that Moscow wouldn’t budge on any of the issues that put it at odds with the world.

Speaking at an annual news conference in Moscow, Lavrov said Russia was ready to cooperate with the West, but only on what it sees as equal terms. It other words, Russia will not give into US pressure, it won’t blink first.

“There will be no ‘business as usual’ anymore, when the US and the European Union tried to impose agreements on us that were most of all in their interest, and tried to persuade us that it will not damage our interests,” Lavrov said. “This story is over.”

As for occupied Crimea, Lavrov said Russia would not negotiate the status of Crimea. “We have nothing to return,” he said. “Crimea is a Russian territory.”

The sanctions were originally designed to force Russia into withdrawing from Crimea and ensuring the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Kerry and others want to lift them prematurely. And, in view of Lavrov’s admission, will Russia be inclined to withdraw from the eastern oblasts of Ukraine? It doesn’t look like it.

Compare these statements about Ukraine with Vice-President Joe Biden’s recent observations about the escalating war in Syria: He held a meeting with the Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at Istanbul’s Dolmabahçe Palace, according to Politico. “It is there he made known the possible new direction for US policy towards Syria. Biden said the US is ‘neither optimistic or pessimistic,’ but are ‘determined’ to reach a political solution. However, Biden also suggested the US is willing to use military force if necessary. ‘We do know that it would be better if we can reach a political solution, but we are prepared — we are prepared if that’s not possible to make — to have a military solution to this operation in taking out Daesh.’”
Syria deserves a solution via US military intervention but not Ukraine.

Fortunately for Ukraine and the other x-captive nations, they understand their own needs. Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, during the 9th Europe-Ukraine Forum in the central Polish city of Łódź, said Ukraine is an important ally of Poland, and will continue receiving assistance from Warsaw. “Ukraine is a sovereign nation and has the right to choose its own path of economic development and international cooperation. Poland will support it on this path,” he declared.

With little hope for genuine US or NATO political or military support for Ukraine and the x-captive nations, they are forced to be their own best guardians. The joint brigade that Lithuania, Poland in Ukraine announced they will launch in 2017 is a step in the right direction.

The three countries said last week they would mobilize 4,000 troops that would be operational next year, as the x-captive nations maintain a wary eye on Russia and its invasion of Ukraine.

“The multinational brigade is a sign, symbol and very clear signal to anyone who would want to undermine peace in Europe,” Polish Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz said in a ministry statement.

Macierewicz spoke after meeting with his counterparts from Lithuania and Ukraine, Juozas Olekas and Stepan Poltorak, respectively, in the eastern Polish city of Lublin. 

“We see this brigade as a driving force that will improve our army,” Poltorak was quoted as saying by the Polish news agency PAP. Additionally, Poland plans to establish 46,000-strong national guard in the face of war in eastern Ukraine.

Thus, Ukraine and other x-captive nations may again become the victims of a sellout of the free world that hopes that Putin will be pacified with promises of greater gains at least until he launches another invasion.

I’ve suggested this before: X-captive nations’ sinn fein.

Mr. President, Do You Know which Side You’re On?

And they ridiculed George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign for not knowing who the presidents of Chechnya, Taiwan and Pakistan were.

Last week, during his last State of the Union, President Barack Obama became the latest president to flub a major foreign policy issue.

With two references to Ukraine in his annual speech, President Obama’s second reference was acceptable on the surface: “When we help Ukraine defend its democracy, or Colombia resolve a decades-long war, that strengthens the international order we depend upon.”

Obama at least acknowledged that the US is helping Ukraine defend its democracy and defending Ukraine means that international order, peace, stability and security will be strengthened – a point that I’ve promoted. The statement would have been stronger if he, speaking from such a visible pulpit, named the offender – Russia. The global community may be aware that for almost 24 months, Russia has been waging a war against its neighbor in defiance of numerous international charters. But emphasizing the name of the belligerent perpetrator once more in the presence of all three branches of the American government, the Joint Chiefs, and Chief Justices, as well as the public would have sent a clear message to the world: Russia can run but it can’t hide from the truth and, hopefully, the consequences.

As President Poroshenko, global observers, Ukrainians and Ukrainian American voters painfully know, America can do a lot more to help Ukraine defend its democracy, independence and sovereignty. Washington can abandon its lukewarm support and send arms and advisers to Ukraine to help stem the unlawful flow of Russian troops, mercenaries and arms into Ukraine, and ultimately, unconditionally push back Russia from Ukraine. The US can also intensify economic sanctions against Russia until the oligarchs and people feel the pain and ignobility of Putin’s aggression.

However, it was President Obama’s first reference to Ukraine that was deplorable and quickly sent shockwaves around the world: “Even as their economy contracts, Russia is pouring resources to prop up Ukraine and Syria — client states they see slipping away from their orbit.”

Twitter sphere lit up with comments, ridicule, criticism and condemnations even before the speech concluded, with my tweets also being mixed into that political caldron.

The first question that erupted was what, according to the President, is Russia attempting to prop up in Ukraine? Does President Obama mean to say that Russia is propping up Russian rebels, terrorists, secessionists in Ukraine? He certainly can’t mean that Russia is propping up legitimate Ukraine with its capital in Kyiv and President Poroshenko? What did the President mean by saying Ukraine is a client state of Russia? And is Ukraine merely slipping away from Russia’s orbit or has it already left in favor of moving to the west, the EU and NATO?

Before the White House issued its public clarification, officials in Ukraine were magnanimously quick to soothe the wound saying that Obama’s wording should not be taken as a sign that US policy on Ukraine has shifted. A fair assessment because the policy basically hasn’t shifted but rather the President’s words called into question the Administration’s command of the issues.

“It is important to make the right emphasis in assessing this comment,” Svitlana Zalishchuk, a member of the Verkhovna Rada’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service. “This is an error on the expression level, a failed impromptu. It shouldn’t be considered as the position of the US president on Ukraine.”

Zalishchuk was gratified that Obama mentioned Ukraine twice in the speech, noting that the second reference showed US support for Ukraine and other countries transitioning to democracy helped make the world more stable.

Kyiv was diplomatically correct not to aggravate Obama’s lapsus by publically reprimanding him and US policy toward Ukraine. But all others can have at him.

President Obama, with a few misguided words, managed to create a negative legacy of his and Washington’s miscomprehension about Russia’s global threat and Ukraine’s quest for self-determination, independence and sovereignty. While he has a few solid, astute members of his cabinet who understand what’s at stake in Russia’s war with Ukraine, such as Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Permanent Representative of Ukraine to UN Ambassador Samantha Power, President Obama needs a refresher course about Ukrainian history.

President Obama’s thoughtless remarks about Ukraine brought to mind President Gerald Ford’s comment during a debate with Jimmy Carter on October 6, 1976, that the USSR is not dominating Eastern Europe. Ford talked himself into a corner by declaring “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.”

Max Frankel, associate editor of the New York Times, in disbelief gave Ford the opportunity to take back his declaration: “I’m sorry, I – could I just follow – did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying mo- most of the countries there and in – and making sure with their troops that it's a – that it’s a Communist zone, whereas on our side of the line the Italians and the French are still flirting with the possibility of Communism?”

Ford didn’t take advantage of the opportunity and failed to exonerate himself. He repeated the mistake: “I don't believe that the Rumanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous.”

Jimmy Carter finally replied softly: “I would like to see Mr. Ford convince the Polish-Americans and the Czech-Americans and the Hungarian-Americans in this country that those countries don't live under the domination and supervision of the Soviet Union behind the Iron - uh - Curtain.”

Certainly, during this 2016 election year, Ukrainian Americans will listen attentively to what Democratic and Republican hopefuls have to say about the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-16 and make their decisions accordingly.

In both instances, the critical reaction was quick and the administrations’ excuses were immediate but equally preposterous.

Four decades ago, Al Haig, Ford’s chief of staff, futilely tried to clean the dirt from the President’s face by coming to the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America’s quadrennial convention to explain that the President’s words were a lapsus linguae.

Last week, Obama’s staff and the State Department, feeling the critics’ hot air on the backs of their necks, mobilized a defense.

The State Department officially responded the next day to a request by an Ukrinform reporter for a comment on Obama’s statement about Ukraine during his address.

The response was signed by deputy State Department spokesperson Mark Toner.

“The President was referring in his remarks to Russia’s previous long-term efforts to bolster the regime of former President Yanukovych as a way to prevent Ukraine from pursuing further integration with Europe, and its current occupation of Crimea, extensive efforts to support armed groups operating in eastern Ukraine, and other efforts to destabilize the country,” the statement read.

So, in other words, President Obama and his key advisors forgot that Russian lapdog Yanukovych was deposed in January 2014, 100 Ukrainians paid with their lives to ensure the success of the Revolution of Dignity, Ukraine is seeking its rightful place among EU countries, Petro Poroshenko is President, and Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago.

The explanation also highlighted Washington’s support for Ukraine during the past two years by pointing out that “the United States has worked closely with our European and international partners to help Ukraine defend its democracy and territorial integrity.”

The State Department then assured the reporter that Washington “remains firmly committed to helping the Ukrainian people build a country that is peaceful, prosperous, and free to chart its own destiny.”

That same day, January 13, Obama called Vladimir Putin in an effort to find a solution to what Washington stubbornly calls a “crisis.” This crisis has claimed the lives of more than 9,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers.

The official readout of the call stated: “President Obama spoke today by phone with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. President Obama emphasized the importance of working towards a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine through full implementation of the Minsk agreements by all parties.”

I have addressed the hopelessness of a diplomatic solution as well as the pointlessness of the Minsk agreements in previous blogs.

The readout further states: “The President underscored that the key next step is for the sides to reach agreement on the modalities of local elections in the Donbas region of Ukraine, which must meet Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe standards.”

President Obama’s support for dubious local elections in eastern Ukraine undercuts anything that Kyiv and supportive global leaders might initiate for first expelling Russia from Ukraine and then returning the oblasts and Ukraine to normalcy.

Speaking with reporters, press secretary Josh Earnest revealed without explanation that what was missing from the readout was that Putin and Obama “spent a significant portion” of the time discussing the need for Russians to live up to the Minsk commitments. A waste of time because Russia is not known for living up to its commitments, especially if they don’t ultimately favor its goals.

President Obama plainly shouldn’t talk about Ukraine without a great deal of coaching. The State of the Union 2016 demonstrated that Ukraine is not top of mind in the White House, where the feeling is throw Ukraine, Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans a bone by merely uttering the word “Ukraine” without consideration for facts or consequences.

President Obama must weigh each word he says about Ukraine and other vital issues because he doesn’t have the luxury of explanations, excuses, exonerations, clarifications or corrections. Allies, foes and voters are listening. After all, he is the President of the United States, not Freedonia.

Truce, Blue Helmets, Sanctions and Peace

Last year ended with the free world expressing a collective, audible sigh of relief that the hopeless Minsk truce agreement has been extended thus providing acceptable but faux assurances that peace in Ukraine – and the world – has been preserved for our time to paraphrase Great Britain’s naive Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Realistically, all installments of the Minsk Accords concluded by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France are doomed to failure because Russia, the aggressor, invader and perpetrator of this latest crime against Ukraine, is a proven untrustworthy partner to any global compact. Moscow’s mission isn’t to preserve regional peace and stability but rather to incite global insecurity and calamity in order to emerge as the dominant player.

Some intellectuals and academics have attempted to explain Russia’s ongoing criminal belligerence as a means to protect itself against external threats, but their folly only dangerously reinforces the Kremlin’s self-prescribed license for aggression everywhere in the world including, now, Syria.

The Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-16 has been raging for almost two years and has killed more than 9,000 people, injured more than 20,000 and displaced some 2 million, while the road to peace and Russia’s withdrawal from Ukraine is still far from clear. Indeed, the fulfillment of both prerequisites is required for permanent regional peace, stability and confidence among neighboring countries. Some 3 million people live in the Russian-occupied oblasts, where movement is severely restricted and residents face daily threats of violence.

The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany agreed two weeks ago to extend conditions for ending the war in Ukraine, acknowledging that the terms of a complex ceasefire agreement will be difficult to carry out.

In a conference call, Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, François Hollande of France, and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany reportedly called for the Minsk peace agreement, which was originally signed in February of last year, to be carried out in full this year. They agreed to focus on holding dubious local elections in the occupied regions of eastern Ukraine as a step toward the elusive goal of peace, according to a statement on the Kremlin’s website, the principal source of information for western reporters.

Extension of the agreement was widely expected despite ongoing Russian violations and military incursions and combat with Ukrainian defenders that only resulted in increasing the Ukrainian body count. Media reports cite Russian sources that write about sporadic clashes though Ukrainian military officials on the ground paint a different picture. Truce or not, Russia has been moving troops and hardware into Ukraine, leaving all of the agreement’s terms far from being implemented.

The original hopeful terms of the Minsk deal were meant to restore Kyiv’s full control over its border with Russia. However, the border is still porous and Russians still occupy Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. Russia’s war with Ukraine is still raging despite the so-called ceasefire and Moscow’s diversionary incursions into Syria.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, among others, noted Russia’s unending invasion of Ukraine and demanded: “Ukraine still does not have full control over its borders. Russia has still not withdrawn its troops or equipment; illegal groups have not been disarmed. So, it is really vital to make sure all the sides keep their commitments.”

Even Putin finally admitted that his armed forces are in Ukraine in clear violation of the UN Charter and international treaties. Though he is not inclined to withdraw them back to Russia.

For Ukraine to submit to any of the tenets of the truce would be tantamount to a victim giving up its possessions while the mugger is still pressing a cold steel blade against its throat.

While fighting has waned and waxed in recent months as it does at times of war, Poroshenko pointed out in a statement on his website that Russia and pro-Russia militants had not fulfilled the terms of the Minsk agreement, which includes a complete ceasefire. The Ukrainian president added that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has been monitoring the conflict and should have full access to the entire region and that the separatists should not hold “fake elections.”

Unfortunately, Poroshenko’s assessment was ignored by the signatories to the accords and the free world in their wild-goose chase for peace. For Ukrainian president, the situation is difficult – peace or war. Granting amnesty to the Russians and giving them special status, as envisioned by Minsk, could be politically ruinous, turning him into a political weakling, and angering patriots across Ukraine who fought in the Revolution of Dignity and reject any concessions to the invaders.

President Reagan astutely cautioned that choosing unwisely between peace and war may be painful. “There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender,” said the last true American anti-communist.

Meanwhile, Putin has deployed an extra 20,000 soldiers to the frontline of Ukraine, as winter’s brutal cold adds to the region’s suffering. The fresh deployment raises the number of Russian troops in the region to 70,000, a move Poroshenko decried as blatant aggression aimed at causing further unrest.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s security service, SBU, said it had arrested an extremist cell involving three Russian nationals that had stockpiled bombs and planned to carry out “terrorist attacks.” A spokeswoman for security service said: “The insurgents planned to stage terrorist acts in Kyiv and Kharkiv to destabilize the situation in the country.”

Implementation of a truce agreement will not bring peace to Ukraine and the region. This unfulfillable truce will merely freeze the frontline between Russian invaders and Ukrainian defenders and preserve it as the status quo for the indeterminate future. Russians soldiers and terrorists will remain in Ukraine, giving rise to more extremist cells, that will threaten central and western Ukraine with war and bloodshed until Russia restores its prison of nations.

As political pundit Roman Tsymbaliuk observed on the Charter 97 website: “Moscow is not planning to give up on Donbas because it needs to keep focus on the whole of Ukraine.”

Another maladroit peace plan proposed by Kyiv via the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations is the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Ukraine.

Ambassador Volodymyr Yelchenko, who presented his diplomatic credentials as Ukraine’s latest permanent representative to the United Nations on January 4, told UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the global organization must take a more active role in stopping the war.

Yelchenko said one of the possible ways the UN could engage in de-escalating the war in Ukraine would be the deployment of UN peacekeepers. “We are ready to discuss the mandate and other aspects of such an operation. In order to analyze the situation on the ground we invite the assessment mission of the UN Secretariat to visit Ukraine,” he said.

Yelchenko also noted that the establishment of a UN mission in support of the implementation of the Minsk agreements in Ukraine could be another possible area for cooperation. He opined that this mission could be engaged in coordinating demining operation in eastern Ukraine due to the huge experience of the UN in this area.

While the UN’s active role in seeking an end to Russia’s war with Ukraine would be welcome, the stationing of the vaunted blue helmets would not contribute to the restoration of peace and stability – and the withdrawal of the invading Russian armies.

UN peacekeeping operation in the war zone would also freeze the frontlines to the detriment of Ukraine, allowing Russian terrorists to circumvent Ukrainian soldiers and UN peacekeepers and launch attacks against other Ukrainian oblasts. The war, invasion, occupation and killings would persist.

Furthermore, the peacekeepers’ legacy is somewhat sullied by accusations of criminal misbehavior and sexual abuse. A day after Yelchenko met with the UN secretary-general, the UN News Center reported that the UN is investigating new allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse and other misconduct by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic, this time by forces under the world body’s flag.

Is there a solution? Yes, perhaps not the best, but still a solution that may force Russia to withdraw its soldiers and mercenary terrorists from Ukraine – sanctions and more sanctions. The European Union again moved on December 18 to extend economic sanctions against Russia for six more months.

The EU, which sadly today is not as united in this effort as it was in the beginning, linked any lifting of sanctions to the successful implementation of the Minsk accords. The restrictions are now to last until the end of July 2016.

The European Union has strongly condemned Russia’s invasion, occupation and annexation of Crimea and does not recognize it. In the absence of de-escalation by the Russia, the EU imposed on March 17 last year the first travel bans and froze asset against persons involved in actions against Ukraine’s territorial integrity. 

The EU imposed economic sanctions in July 2014 and reinforced them in September 2014. In March 2015, the European Council linked the duration of those economic restrictions to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements. Sanctions against Russia were first implemented in July 2014, as a reaction to Moscow’s occupation and seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea.

The sanctions mean that EU nationals are not able to buy or sell long-term bonds and equities in a list of banks, defense companies and energy firms. Asset freezes and visa bans have also been applied to 149 people and so-called 37 “entities.” Restrictions also entail a ban on the provision of military technology and energy-related equipment and technology. There are prohibitions on investment and provision of tourism services in Crimea to the extent that no EU cruise liners may dock there unless in an emergency.

But Russia does have a major weak spot that must be targeted and exploited. The country is in a deep recession and teetering, with the country’s central bank warning that Russia could continue to see negative growth this year. While the country has been damaged by the sanctions it has been particularly hurt by the plummeting price of oil, which was priced at $32.88 on January 8, a drop of some 70% since the start of the war with Ukraine. Russia is a major exporter of oil and has built its budget based on $100 a barrel.

The free world wrongly fears to engage Russia militarily and politically, thus allowing Moscow to ride herd on near and distant countries. But it shouldn’t overlook the potential success of deep sanctions, which should be intensified to the point of hurting the entire country and nation, not just the leaders and oligarchs. The sanctions should not be applied with one hand and canceled with the other. Moscow shouldn’t be castigated by one group of world leaders and admired by another. Business, as usual, should not be applied to Russia while its invading armies are in Ukraine and air force bombs Syria. Russia should be isolated and banned from the global table for its unrestrained belligerence and human rights violations.

Freedom of Ukraine and the other former captive nations is at stake and the free world – the United States, Canada, the European Union and any other country with moral fortitude – must stand their ground in Ukraine. Using economic pain and national shame, the free world must push the Russian people to stop supporting Putin and arise to oust him to assure themselves of a dignified legacy.

As President Reagan also said: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

X-Captive Nations Recognize Russian Treachery

Pain and suffering create long-term memory, knowledge and expectations. Reading about someone’s pain and suffering is indirect, mediated and inferential, and, consequently, when it is politically expedient, those who experience knowledge by description are likely to disregard first-person experiences.

That is the situation that all of the x-captive nations are facing today. They had been enslaved by Moscow for centuries but today they are free, independent and sovereign countries with varying degrees of democratic development. But each one harbors fresh memories of Russian repression, oppression, occupation and bondage.

The free world did not recognize the plight of all of the captive nations during World War II and since then it has demonstrated mild interest in their historical pain and suffering. It never truly comprehended their captivity as well as their desire to distance themselves as far as possible from Moscow. Free countries refused to hear the former captive nations. Then add to this mixture Russia’s vast nuclear stockpile and active militarization and the free world became paralyzed, long on superficial political platitudes but short on comprehension and action.

Consequently, the x-captive nations have been left to their own designs. They have been warning the free world about potential Russian revanchism that could lead to their re-subjugation. Their fears came true when Russia invaded Georgia and then Ukraine in February 2014. Their panic and their insistence on visible NATO presence in their countries spiked.

Individually and collectively, the x-captive nations have been striving to improve their armed forces’ capabilities to defend themselves against Russian invasion, which they believe has moved to the front burner. Last week Latvia said it is building a fence along its border with Russia while all captive nations are pointing to Ukraine as proof that their countries – and indeed and entire free world – are in danger of being overrun by Russian armies.

Linas Linkevičius, Lithuanian minister of foreign affairs, has been one of the outspoken critics of the free world’s political myopia. He shares this level of understanding with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė. In a recent article in EurActiv he chastised the free world for paying too much attention to not provoking Russia and warned about the dangers of misguidedly acting in a “pragmatic and responsible manner” with Russia.

The Lithuanian official recalled that at the 2008 NATO-Russia Summit in Bucharest, Russian President Putin urged the West not to cooperate with Ukraine, claiming that the country is an artificial creation, rather than a state. “That seemed to have set off an alarm clock. However, it was not heard, or the West comfortably chose not to hear it. Ukraine experienced the impact six years later, while Georgia witnessed warfare on its territory soon after, in August,” he wrote.

Many countries feign deafness with regards to Russian explicit and implicit threats.

“With Russian actions in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, areas of the sovereign country were occupied. The protests of the international community, NATO and the EU were forgotten within several months and the ‘pragmatic and responsible’ position had the upper hand, i.e. cooperation with Russia was going on as usual. Russia did not ask for anything; it was the West that took the role as usual because ‘isolation is harmful, not profitable,’ etc.,” Linkevičius wrote.

Today, too, with Russia invading Ukraine and occupying Crimea and the eastern oblasts, the free world is choosing perilous pragmatic and responsible actions such as limited sanctions while other activities that will isolate Russia or ban it from the global table have not been enacted. In reality, business with Russia goes on as usual.

Linkevičius noted in his commentary that Russia responds forcefully to signs of US and free world weakness. Sadly, Moscow has always been offered a range of weak reactions by its paper tiger opponents.

“We should have learned from our mistakes, shouldn’t we? As soon as we loosen the reins, the Kremlin sees it as a sign of our weakness, as another opportunity, or even an encouragement to act with more energy, to demand or negotiate on the new ground ‘gained,’” he opined.

Linkevičius pointed out that the key to ending the war with Ukraine is in the Kremlin but with new conflicts emerging, notably in the Middle East, some leaders are suggesting that Russia should be forgiven its sins. The military conflict in Syria, for example, could be meant to deflect attention away from Russia’s war with Ukraine.

“Suggestions are now being made that Russia could be readmitted to the G8 club, even though Russia does not ask for it. Investment is being made in projects such as Nord Stream, which can undermine Europe’s unity,” he wrote. “Nord Stream II has nothing to do with Europe’s energy security, and makes no economic sense, except the geopolitical ‘benefit’ of eliminating Ukraine and still heavier dependence of Europe on Russian suppliers.”

Linkevičius concluded that Russia has not changed its behavior and neither has the free world, which comes to play a pragmatic and responsible football (soccer) match with Moscow only to find the latter adding elements of wrestling and rugby to the contest. Game over for the West.

Poland, Ukraine’s neighbor, situated in harm’s way of a Russian invasion of western Europe, is another country that appreciates Moscow’s threat and has been calling for active global support of Ukraine. During a recent visit to Kyiv by Polish President Andrzej Duda, the first since his election last August, the Polish leader declared that Ukraine is his country’s strategic partner.

That was a significant admission in these difficult times and harkens back to an old observation that if Ukraine falls so too will Poland.

Also fearing Russian belligerence, Poland is seeking to reaffirm its role as Ukraine’s biggest EU ally with pledges of more financial and diplomatic support in an effort to reassure Kyiv that the West – or at least those x-captive nations that have been accepted into western structures – have not forgotten about its nearly two-year war with Russia.

“Ukraine is a great strategic partner of Poland,” said Duda at a joint press conference in the Ukrainian capital. “Ukraine’s sovereignty is one of the major issues for our country.”

 Declarations such as this should send a strong message to Washington and other free world capitals as well as to Moscow that x-captive nations will band together.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his Polish counterpart said Warsaw had agreed to open up a 1 billion euro ($1.09 billion) currency swap to promote bilateral trade and ease some pressure on cash-strapped Kyiv. Officials said Poland is also increasing diplomatic support for Ukraine’s intentions to achieve visa-free travel to the EU (which was granted last Friday), and providing advice on continued economic reform. Compared with Vice President Joe Biden who visited Kyiv earlier, Warsaw did not dwell relentlessly about the importance of squashing rampant corruption.

“Poland should be an example to other EU countries,” Poroshenko remarked, adding that Warsaw had agreed to help Ukrainian businesses and exporters preparing to enter the EU market.

Krzysztof Szczerski, Duda’s foreign policy adviser, was quoted as saying that the visit was primarily to reassure Poroshenko that Poland was still committed to its strategic relationship with Ukraine.

“We all know that in these big geopolitical games Ukraine has been somehow sidelined by the situation in Syria,” Szczerski said. “We also see that in the internal discussions within the EU in terms of extending the sanctions against Russia there is a shifting of the mood. You can expect big steps in terms of Polish aid to support the macroeconomic stability of Ukraine in the coming future.”

The difference in attitudes is striking, emphasizing have and have not experiences with bondage. The United States and old Europe do not understand this. If the x-captive nations are doomed to expect only tepid support from the free world, then they will have to seize the opportunity and create a sovereign alternative that will ensure them of their all-inclusive independence – political, economic, commercial and military.

Obviously, this regional, silo approach does not conform to a global environment that calls for partnerships. But new Europe may be left out in the cold with no alternatives if it doesn’t act on behalf of its own security.

After all, the x-captive nations are quite aware that Russia has not ceased dreaming of the day when it will restore its prison of nations.