75 Years ago Ukrainian Nation Re-established Statehood

Seventy-five years ago, on June 30, 1941, during World War II, when Ukraine was sandwiched between two likeminded, murderous invaders, Soviet Russia from the east and Nazi Germany from the west, the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), led by Stepan Bandera and Yaroslav Stetsko, gave the nation hope for a better, free, democratic future by bravely declaring independence and re-establishing a country called Ukraine.

“By the will of the Ukrainian people, the OUN (B) under the leadership of Stepan Bandera proclaims the formation of the Ukrainian State for which whole generations of the finest sons of Ukraine have laid down their lives…,” the declaration stated in part. The full text was read triumphantly that day in the town square in the western Ukrainian city of Lviv and broadcast to other towns and communities.

The declaration came just eight days after Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, allies until then, launched a war against each other. This heroic proclamation was immediately denounced by Moscow and Berlin and followed by bloody reprisals against the leadership of the OUN and the Ukrainian population.

The Nazis and Soviets were unwavering in their determination to annihilate everyone associated with the OUN. On July 12, 1941, the Nazis arrested Stetsko and demanded that Bandera immediately revoke the proclamation. When Bandera refused, he too was arrested and was sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Germany where he remained until 1944. By December 1942, Hitler personally recommended the “most brutal means” to eliminate all, even women and children, supporters of the OUN. Within two years of the declaration, the Nazis had imprisoned or killed 80% of OUN-B leadership.

Opponents and other naysayers have been claiming since then that the Declaration Re-establishing Ukrainian Statehood was a minor event, initiated by a small group of desperate rabble rousers. If it was an insignificant declaration by insignificant individuals, would Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have directed their massive killing machines to hunt and exterminate the OUN leadership, members, fighters and supporters? For Berlin and Moscow, defeating Ukrainian freedom fighters mobilized in the OUN’s Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) was a task equal to winning World War II.

“Clearly apparent is the German tendency to resolve all internal Ukrainian questions, including the Jewish question, by means of police methods, with violence and terror,” according to the monumental historical publication “Litopys UPA.” “The documents published here clearly show that for German police officials, enemy number one was the OUN (B), the members of which were subject to police surveillance, arrest and extermination, especially after the Act of June 30, 1941.”

Meanwhile, clandestine OUN members and UPA soldiers singlehandedly fought both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and managed to inflict heavy causalities on their armies.

Yaroslav Stetsko was selected to serve as the provisional prime minister of a temporary government that included 27 Ukrainian political leaders of many political affiliations from both western and eastern regions of Ukraine. I point out “provisional” and “temporary” because the founding fathers of Ukrainian independent statehood 75 years ago understood that their historic task was not destined to exist forever. Once the war ended, they planned to establish a democratic Ukrainian state with the seat of government in Kyiv – the historical capital of Ukraine.

The creators also acknowledged that they are not beginning history from themselves and consequently chose to call the declaration a re-establishment or renewal of independent Ukrainian statehood in recognition of previous similar acts. On January 22, 1918, during World War I, Ukrainian political leaders in Kyiv declared an independent Ukrainian National Republic, and on November 1, 1918, Ukrainian political leaders in Lviv declared an independent Western Ukrainian National Republic. Both parts merged into one sovereign, indivisible, independent Ukrainian National Republic on January 22, 1919.

Still another Ukrainian re-affirmation of independence came on March 15, 1939, some six months before Nazi Germany invaded Poland and ignited World War II, when Transcarpathian Ukrainian patriots declared their independence from Hungary. The war that ensued against Nazi Germany’s Hungarian allies pre-dated World War II and was the first military engagement against Berlin by a European nation.

The Declaration Re-establishing Ukrainian Statehood was supported by the leaders of Ukrainian Churches, including Archbishop-Metropolitan Andrei Shepytsky of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Metropolitan Bishop Polikarp Sikorsky of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and Bishop Hryhoriy Khomyshyn Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

The declaration is generally a little known fact about Ukraine’s struggle for liberation, even among its supporters around the world. The act and the subsequent war against Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, which some cynics have ridiculed as a suicidal fight, proved that the Ukrainian nation, even when facing overwhelming enemies, will not kowtow to their demands and negotiate independence by collaboration. The momentous declaration substantiated the Ukrainian nation’s undying will to fight all aggressors for a better tomorrow for the people.

For Ukrainians, the declaration 75 years ago and the other three acts have served as a source of national inspiration, encouragement, motivation and hope right up to the latest declaration of independence on August 24, 1991. These acts have also motivated the brave men and women of the Revolution of Dignity two years ago and all of the fighters for Ukrainian independence against today’s Russian invaders.

The Declaration Re-establishing Ukrainian Statehood and the other proclamations will go on inspiring Ukrainians for generations to come.

Glory to Ukraine!

Glory to the Heroes!

EU Extends Sanctions vs. Russia but There’s a Downside

The good news is that a week ago the European Union extended for a year sanctions against recidivist Russia for invading Ukraine and occupying Crimea, crimes that have been denounced by most democracies.

The bad news is that the world changed a week later, with Britain’s vote to abandon the European Union. And Italy, among other conciliatory countries, bollixed implementation with a demand to include in the EU conclusions a commitment to review Russian policies later this year, according to RFE/RL. Does Rome think Moscow will change its stripes in a few months, observe the Minsk accords and withdraw from Ukraine?

The EU Council had declared in a statement that it “does not recognize and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implement its non-recognition policy.” Therefore sanctions against Russia were to be prolonged.

Then, almost immediately after the announcement, old Europe – in contrast to new Europe or the x-captive nations – began to tremble in its boots and moan that life would actually be better if countries could resume normal multilateral relations with Russia. Apparently, they are choosing to disregard Moscow’s ongoing flagrant violations of UN resolutions and global law and order. Old Europe began to express optimistic anticipation of the day when sanctions would be lifted against Russia.

The sanctions, now extended until June 23, 2017, prohibit imports of products from Crimea, any investment there, cooperation in tourism services as well as exports of some goods and services to the peninsula.

The renewed sanctions include prohibitions on:

• imports of products originating in Crimea or Sevastopol into the EU;

• investment in Crimea or Sevastopol, meaning that no Europeans nor EU-based companies can buy real estate or entities in Crimea, finance Crimean companies or supply related services; 

• in Crimea or Sevastopol, meaning that no Europeans nor EU-based companies can buy real estate or entities in Crimea, finance Crimean companies or supply related services;

• tourism services in Crimea or Sevastopol, in particular, European cruise ships cannot call at ports in the Crimean peninsula, except in case of emergency;     

• exports of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies or for use in Crimea in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors and related to the prospection, exploration and production of oil, gas and mineral resources. Technical assistance, brokering, construction or engineering services related to infrastructure in these sectors must not be provided either.

The EU, or what is left of it, is due this week to extend until the end of 2016 another set of broader economic sanctions on Russia over its war with Ukraine. European diplomatic sources revealed reluctantly that the economic sanctions will likely be extended for another six months from end-July on the grounds that Russia has failed to live up to its commitments to the truce accords.

The Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-16 has pushed relations between Moscow and the West to new lows, leading some naively optimistic European countries to look for ways to repeal them by reviewing the broader policy toward Moscow in the second half of the year.

Signs of an about face on the continent are mushrooming. A high-profile visit to Russia has been scheduled by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European leaders flocked to Putin’s St. Petersburg Economic Forum last weekend.

Italy is calling for “political reflection” on the impact of the Russian sanctions — code for doubting its wisdom. Others have signaled that for now, while the continent is dealing with its other crises such as refugees, ISIS and Brexit, Russian belligerence is not on top of its to-do list.

Italy has been making the case that Russia is a worthy neighbor and its help and cooperation are needed in tackling key shared problems, such as the Islamic State terror threat. Europe’s doves should note that Russia – tsarist, communist and federal – has also been known to invade its neighbors.

One senior European official was quoted as saying that Italy, Greece and Hungary favor more frequent discussions of the Russia sanctions, which should be reviewed every six months in hopes that Moscow would demonstrate incremental fulfillment of the accords which would then bolster their insistence of relieving Russia of that burden.

Both the United Kingdom and France agreed to the extension of sanctions, but only with a so-called parliamentary reserve. That means the ambassadors must first consult their national parliaments on the issue before signing off on the extension of sanctions. EU diplomats told RFE/RL they have no doubt about the eventual extension of the sanctions, which would target Russia’s banking and energy sectors as well as individuals in Russia.

But Italy’s latest demand means a final decision on extending the sanctions against Russia is likely to be postponed until after the current gathering of EU leaders.

German officials are also throwing a monkey wrench into the process. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has criticized sanctions against Russia, saying that the all-or-nothing approach has failed to yield results in Ukraine and that Europe should consider a gradual easing of sanctions if Russia makes progress on implementing the Minsk agreements. By criticizing the sanctions, Steinmeier is undermining the policy itself and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s position as a leading voice in handling the crisis.

"Sanctions are not an end in themselves. They should rather give incentives for a change in behavior," Steinmeier told the RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland, a network of local newspapers. So far Steinmeier and other likeminded leaders are expressing unsubstantiated hopes about Moscow’s transformation.

Indeed, Russia refuses to implement the Minsk truce but sanctions, as fruitless as they are in forcing Russia to withdraw from Ukraine must be maintained as a sign of global unity and strength in the face of Russia’s persistent lawlessness.

The suggestion of a gradual approach to sanctions will not change the situation for the better. Since it launched the war in February 2014, Moscow’s strategy in Ukraine has run opposite to its obligations in the accords as well as UN resolutions and global law and order. Russia continues to enflame the war in the eastern Ukraine in hopes of destabilizing Ukraine and forcing Kyiv to grant veto power to Russia’s proxies or, better yet, lead to a collapse of the Ukrainian government. As for Crimea, Russia is converting the Ukrainian peninsula into a military base with nuclear weapons. Russian recalcitrance and global anarchy, coupled with Europe’s weakness, and compounded by Brexit, will ultimately contribute to a historic political division of Europe that will have a ripple effect on NATO and the x-captive nations’ belief that EU and NATO can defend them against Russian imperialism.

Putin’s embrace of Juncker and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in St. Petersburg last weekend is part of this effort, as was his recent visit to Greece and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s visit to Hungary.

Earlier this month the French Senate passed a resolution urging the government to gradually reduce the economic sanctions against Russia. Ambassador of France to Ukraine Isabelle Dumont explained the meaning of this resolution and the current state of Ukraine-France relations: “If you actually look into the text carefully, the very beginning of the text recalls that France doesn’t recognize annexation of Crimea, recalls that Russia used force in the Donbas region and in Crimea, those are extremely important points. It also says that sanctions should be little by little lifted depending on the capacity of the parties to implement the Minsk agreement.”

“[The resolution] at the same time also says that the Russian countersanctions are harming EU economies [...]. And that is why there is really a need to go further on the implementation of the Minsk agreements. But again protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is extremely important for us.”

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t endorse sanctions and then soften its affect with hopeful expectations of a reformed Russia. Moscow is the perpetrator; Ukraine the victim. The EU can’t protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity while lifting sanctions against the perpetrator.

Not surprisingly, Austria is also leaning toward giving Russia a break. Austria’s foreign minister said last Sunday it was time for the European Union to make an effort to identify common ground with Russia.

“I believe that we should gradually come to a modus in which for every implementation of the Minsk Protocol, for every single step, sanctions will gradually be lifted in return,” Sebastian Kurz said in a discussion at ORF TV.

Putin has been weaseling his way into the midst of myopic European leaders with a stick and carrot behavior that can tear apart the European Union faster than Brexit. Speaking last week at the forum in St. Petersburg, Putin understandably criticized the sanctions for damaging Russian-European relations but noted that Moscow is forgivingly willing to improve business ties with Europe. He urged the EU to meet his government halfway.

Putin said Russia is ready for a fresh start — if the EU plays its part which means kowtowing to Moscow. The Russian leader also repeatedly reminds the free world that he will never give back Crimea. Will Europe be consequential with its policies?

“We hold no grudge and are willing to reach out to our European partners but obviously this can’t be a one-sided game,” Putin said, emphasizing that it was the EU’s introduction of sanctions which have led to the “collapse” in relations.

Putin’s softer, teasing language no doubt has struck a receptive chord with Europe’s doves. The free world could raise the stakes against Russia but if Europe is wishy-washy on fulfillment, Moscow won’t be swayed.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko meanwhile said he welcomed the EU’s decision to extend the sanctions. “We will continue fighting until Russia frees Ukraine’s Crimea and Ukraine’s Donbas,” Poroshenko said on Facebook.

The fate of the free world depends on the end of hostilities and freedom of Crimea and Donbas, where Ukrainians are singlehandedly fighting and shedding their blood for Europe in a war with Russia.

US Ambassador-Designate to Ukraine:  Strong Ally

Ukraine has been fortunate to have supportive US Ambassadors since it re-established independent statehood, beginning with Ukrainian American Roman Popadiuk. Ambassador-designate Marie L. Yovanovitch fits that mold rather well.

In her testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, June 21, Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer, demonstrated knowledge about US and Ukrainian issues as well as their interdependence. She was also quick to point out an affinity for ethnic American matters.

Yovanovitch serves as dean of the School of Language Studies at the Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute, a position she has held since 2014, according to her official biography. She has extensive leadership and management experience, having previously served twice as an ambassador. She also has broad and deep expertise, gained from numerous assignments working on the region, including as principal deputy assistant secretary and deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, and as deputy chief of mission in Ukraine. Yovanovitch served as US ambassador to Armenia (2008-11) and US Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan (2005-08) and Deputy Chief of Mission at US Embassy Kyiv (2001-04). She earned a BA from Princeton University and a MS in Strategic Studies from the National War College. She speaks Russian and some French.

From the outset of her statement, Yovanovitch emphasized that her mission will be to work with Congress and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee “to continue our strong support for the Ukrainian people, enhance our already deep bilateral relationship, support Ukraine’s reform agenda, and protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. These steps will be critical to advancing our shared goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.”

With these words, Yovanovitch demonstrated a commitment to the importance of US-Ukrainian bilateral relationships and the need to perpetuate them. She understands that Ukraine is moving forward with its important reform agenda regardless of the current dire circumstances in and around the country. Finally, above all is the need to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which were recently brutally violated by Russia. Consequently, she said, if these issues are nurtured, then Europe will enjoy the resulting benefits of being whole, free and at peace.

These are significant concepts for a US official to enunciate and for the world to take to heart.

With her 88-year-old mother in attendance, in a touching tribute to her parents, Yovanovitch said their experiences under Communist and Nazi regimes changed their lives forever just as they did the lives of Ukrainian Americans. She recalled that her parents immigrated to the United States in search of freedom, opportunity, dignity and accountability “the very values that Ukrainians demanded in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity,” recognizing the sacrifice of more than one hundred Ukrainians in ousting Viktor Yanukovych, Putin’s minion, and pulling the Ukrainian nation away from Russian subjugation.

Yovanovitch paid tribute to Ukraine’s important progress on reforms in the two years since the Revolution of Dignity. “And I am especially optimistic about Ukraine’s reform trajectory this year, given several key achievements since the reformation of the coalition and government in April,” she said, singling out the overwhelming approval of constitutional amendments to strengthen judicial independence.

“These reform achievements are all the more impressive given that they have come in the face of Russian aggression,” Yovanovitch said, nudging US officials and world leaders to appreciate that all of Ukraine’s accomplishments are reached at a time of an undeclared war with its historic enemy. Therefore, if Ukraine’s reforms are too slow or incomplete, don’t take its leaders to the woodshed just yet.

Her simple declaration that “The best defense against Russian aggression is a successful Ukraine” should be etched in concrete in Kyiv, Washington and even Moscow. A modern, democratic, market oriented, successful Ukraine, with a well-educated population that shines with national pride, and builds confidence in global partners near and far would be a sought after ally and trading partner.

Composing a to-do list, Yovanovitch reminded US and Ukrainian officials that “Ukraine still has to implement difficult changes such as: taking further steps to root out corruption; advancing energy sector reform; recapitalizing and reforming the banking system; working to improve the business climate by levelling the playing field; improving accountability and civilian control in the defense sector; reforming the PGO and justice sector; and breaking the hold of oligarchs over Ukrainian politics and business. Ukraine must also continue to adhere to IMF conditions and ensure that the $17.5 billion program continues.”

Fair enough.

Returning to the Revolution of Dignity, the ambassador-designate thanked Congress for its commitment and support by providing assistance to Ukraine, which has been critical to “making real changes in the lives of Ukrainians and delivering on the promise of the Maidan.” Indeed, a subtle reminder for national leaders in Kyiv to exorcise corruption, arrest former government crooks like Yanukovych, and fulfill accession to the European Union.

Yovanovitch reiterated that the US has provided Ukraine with $1.3 billion in assistance since 2014 as it continues to support Ukrainian civil society and independent media, “which help Ukrainian citizens hold their government accountable to its reform pledges.” Ukrainian civil society has been traditionally vibrant and in the forefront of serving as the nation’s watch dog against government abuses.

With Congress’ support, the US has been able to provide Ukraine with $600 million in security assistance, she said. “Just as we stand firmly behind the Ukrainian people in their efforts to transform their nation, we stand with Ukraine as it seeks to reform its military, stop further Russian aggression, bring the conflict in the Donbas to a peaceful conclusion via the Minsk agreements, and end the occupation of Crimea,” Yovanovitch pointed out.

Again, she broached the key points of stopping Russian aggression, ending the conflict – I prefer to call it a war – in Donbas and end the occupation of Crimea. Yovanovitch repeated a few times that the US will never recognize Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea and the sanctions will continue. She said Washington’s goal is restoring peace to eastern Ukraine by implementing the Minsk agreements.

Realistically, that alone will not result in the hoped for conclusion. Russia must be subdued and forced to withdraw its armed forces from Ukraine. Otherwise, Russian terrorism will spread west to Eastern Europe.

“Ukraine has lived up to many Minsk commitments already. But Russia and the separatists have not,” she said correctly. In that case, stronger measures must be applied to Russia to force it to stand down in the face of violence that has spiked in the past two months, reaching levels not seen since August 2015.

“Russia and the separatists must end their attacks – they continue to commit the majority of ceasefire violations – and withdraw banned heavy weapons, while providing the OSCE full, unfettered access throughout the conflict zone and guaranteeing monitors’ safety,” she demanded.

“Finally, as President Obama has stated clearly, we do not and will not recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea. We are working with the Government of Ukraine as well as our partners and allies to highlight Russian abuses targeting Crimean Tatars and others opposed to Russia’s illegal occupation as well as ensure that the costs to Russia continue, including through sanctions, until Crimea is returned to Ukraine,” Yovanovitch said, echoing comments made by Ambassador Samantha Power, US Permanent Representative to the UN, another strong campaigner for Ukraine.

Based on this statement, Yovanovitch will be a strong asset for US relations with Ukraine and a strong advocate of Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

US Suggests Military & Political Steps to Counter Russian Aggression

As European allies begin to quaver under Russian pressure, the United States continues to be the standard bearer of support for Ukraine and the other x-captive nations against genuine Russian aggression.

Washington remains in the forefront of efforts to rollover sanctions against Russia and even intensify them while fair-weather allies Germany and France have made a damaging about face.

Now, in order to bolster its commitment to Ukraine, the US has outlined clear military and political steps for countering Russian aggression.

In an address before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 7, Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, conceded that despite Washington’s efforts to build good relations with Moscow and help it transition from communism to democracy, the US has finally realized its miscalculation.

“By 2014, however, we had no choice but to reevaluate our assumptions following Russia’s invasion of sovereign Ukrainian territory – first in Crimea, then in eastern Ukraine – which shattered any remaining illusions about this Kremlin’s willingness to abide by international law or live by the rules of the institutions that Russia joined at the end of the Cold War,” Nuland admitted.

A vocal advocate of Ukraine, she listed the following steps vis-à-vis Russia:

Deter further aggression through the projection of strength and unity with US allies;

Build resilience and reduce vulnerability among friends and allies facing Russian pressure and coercion;

Cooperate on core national security priorities when our interests and Russia’s do align;

Sustain ties to the Russian people and business community to preserve the potential for a more constructive relationship in the future,

The first and third steps are good, the second requires more work, and the last has questionable value and should be revised.

On the military side, Nuland pointed out that in the past two years, the US and its NATO allies have maintained a persistent, rotational military presence on land, sea, and air all along NATO’s eastern edge—in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the three Baltic States. This has indisputably reinforced the x-captive nations’ impression that US and NATO support is real. It also sends a message to Moscow that the US will not abandon the x-captive nations.

“All 28 allies have participated, and the US has used the $985 million in FY 2015 European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) funding that Congress generously appropriated to increase the number of exercises, training sessions, and patrols that we are supporting throughout Europe. This month, over 30,000 US, NATO and partner nation troops will exercise together as a part of a series of military training events, including the Polish-led Anakonda exercise,” she said.

Nuland believes that after the July NATO Summit in Warsaw, the allies will institutionalize a more sustained approach to deterrence, including by enhancing forward presence in the East to reduce response times to any aggression. This forward presence will serve as a barrier to Russian westward adventurism. To support this commitment, the President Obama has requested $3.4 billion to fund the European Reassurance Initiative, she noted.

With the Senate’s support, she continued, “these funds will be used to deploy an additional rotational Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) to Central and Eastern Europe; the prepositioning of combat equipment; as well as additional trainings and exercises in Europe.”

Nuland recommended that the US should align its defense commitments with future threats, such as Russia’s own investments in hybrid tactics, electronic and cyber capabilities, disinformation, and violations of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty.

As for Russia’s war with Ukraine, Nuland said the US has worked with the EU, the G7 and other like-minded nations to impose successive rounds of tough, economic sanctions on Russia over the past two years.

“These sanctions, combined with low oil prices and Russia’s continued structural weaknesses, have imposed significant costs,” she said, adding that the US is ready to toughen sanctions even further. She believes this approach has deterred additional Russian efforts to grab Ukrainian territory.

Actually, real sanctions and threats of increased sanctions haven’t curbed Russia’s war with Ukraine. Russia hasn’t pressed westward with its invasion but it also hasn’t withdrawn from eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Nonetheless, global sanctions are needed until Russia withdraws from Ukraine.

Nuland listed specific US materiel help for Ukraine to help it better monitor and secure its borders, deploy its forces more safely and effectively, and defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The US commitment has been more than $600 million in security assistance.

“We have trained over 1,700 Ukrainian conventional forces and National Guard personnel and 120 Special Operations Forces (SOF). We have provided counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, over 3000 secure radios, 130 Humvees, over 100 armored civilian SUVs, and thousands of medical kits to help Ukrainian troops successfully resist advances and save lives,” she said.

The US has also been interested in democracy building in Ukraine beyond criticizing government officials for persistent corruption. Nuland specifically pointed out that US efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, reform economies, fight corruption, and build the resilience of partners.

“We have requested $787 million in FY2017 funding for Europe and Eurasia, including to those countries most vulnerable to Russian pressure, especially Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and the Western Balkans. Our programs and advisors focus on improving governance, squeezing out graft and fraud, strengthening justice systems, improving election standards, hardening border security and homeland defense, and building energy independence,” she said. Indeed, these efforts have been very helpful.

Nuland indicated the US is placing a great deal of hope on the Minsk process and its participants to settle the war. However, the truce agreement has been a weak link in the chain because in the past two years, since Russia’s invasion began in Crimea and then spread to the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, Moscow’s war hasn’t abated. Attacks, battles, skirmishes and bombardments of military targets and residential neighborhoods by Russian regular troops and its mercenaries haven’t slowed down as the numbers of killed and displaced keep rising.

Furthermore, while the G7 members emerged from their summit a couple of weeks ago apparently in agreement to continue the sanctions, since then France and Germany have voiced opposite points of view. Washington will have to increase pressure on Paris and Berlin if they are to hold fast to their original pledges of supporting sanctions and avoid talking about relief before Moscow begins to live up to its international obligations.

Nuland elaborated on the troublesome fourth point: sustaining ties with Russian people and business community. This point clearly sends the wrong message to the Kremlin. On the one hand, the US pushes back against Russian aggression or threatened aggression then, on the other, hand the US demonstrates that it’s ready and willing to improve relations and the lives of the Russian people and business community.

“Even as we push back against Russian aggression and support neighbors under pressure, the United States will continue to look for areas where our interests and Moscow’s align, and we can work together to tackle global challenges, including nonproliferation, nuclear and other WMD security, preventing atrocities and humanitarian crises, and combating violent extremism and terrorism,” she said.

So does Russia deserve punishment or favors? Moscow will surely disregard the impact of the punishment and accept the favors.

“We must continue to foster direct engagement with those Russian businesses, organizations, and individuals who want to work with us, who share our interests and values and are working for a better future for their country. Despite Moscow’s crackdown on civil society, a free press, exchanges with the West, and political pluralism, our people-to-people exchanges; health, environment and cultural programs; and educational opportunities for Russians remain hugely popular, and continue to promote constructive ties between our countries. And we will continue to speak out against laws and policies that impede the work of Russian civil society and contravene the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, assembly, and association in Russia and elsewhere in the region,” she said.

Nuland’s good cop-bad cop scenario has dubious value for ending Russian aggression against Ukraine, halting Russian expansion of its nuclear stockpile and rampant re-militarization, and curbing Moscow’s reign of terror against human rights activists, LGBT, and non-Russian groups. It won’t help the director of the Ukrainian library in Moscow who was recently denounced as a terrorist.

The US has to maintain one firm policy against Russia in order to force it to change its domestic and foreign policies and, as Nuland said, genuinely align itself with global rule of law and the rules of the institutions that Moscow joined at the end of World War Two. The US must retain military, political and economic sanctions against Russia until its people realize that its country and heritage have been tarnished beyond repair by its leadership much like Hitler did to Germany in the 1940s. Then, if the Kremlin doesn’t change voluntarily, the people should arise and do so.

Not Much Hope for Real G7 Support

With the deadline approaching on extending sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea, the former captive nations and the free world had hoped that the G7 leaders would resoundingly and unanimously endorse their extension because of Moscow’s obstinate belligerence against its neighbor.

President Poroshenko had personally provided the G7 leaders with evidence of a surge in Russia’s war in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine and urged them to extend their sanctions against Russia following its repeated violations of the Minsk agreement. At a meeting with G7 ambassadors, Poroshenko showed that Russia increased the number of attacks against Ukrainian army positions.

“The G7 ambassadors were provided with comprehensive evidence of violations by Russia, the presence of Russian troops in the occupied areas of Donbas and continued dispatch of fighters and ammunition from Russia to the occupied territories,” his press service reported.

Leading up to the G7 Summit and during the deliberations, Polish and other x-captive nations’ leaders echoed Poroshenko’s appeals and expressed their expectations that the sanctions will certainly be prolonged because, after all, Russia has not lived up to its obligations: it had not withdrawn its armies and weapons from Ukraine, and it had not returned Crimea to Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel assumed a hard line against Russia, declaring the sanctions will definitely be extended and, furthermore, Russia will not be re-invited to join the super club of independent states until it changes its behavior.

“For me it’s too early to give the all clear,” Merkel told reporters in response to questions, adding that an earlier pro-sanction policy would remain in place. “There is no change of position to be expected from the G7,” she added.

The UK’s David Cameron opined “The G7 has agreed on the vital importance of sanctions rollover in June. Ukraine is the victim of Russian-backed aggression. We must never forget that fact.”

Ultimately, news media trumpeted that the G7 has indeed extended sanctions against criminal Russia. It was an understandable decision against an outlaw state and government.

Then, suddenly, even before the ink had dried on the summit’s final document, some of the members began to change their position. Prevarication set it. They were willing to provide Russia with wiggle room, an opportunity to delay or avoid reforming altogether.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier first publically advocated lifting economic sanctions on Russia, under certain conditions. Western countries needed to keep up the pressure on Moscow by enforcing what he called “intelligent” bans.

“Sanctions are not an end in themselves: that has always been my attitude,” Steinmeier told German weekly Der Spiegel in an interview after the summit concluded, adding that if Russia contributes to peace in eastern Ukraine, it should also see a positive effect. “If there is progress in implementing the Minsk agreement, we can also speak about relaxing the sanctions.”

His spokesman Martin Schäfer said it was “correct and important to keep up the pressure on Moscow but also to use the instrument of sanctions against Russia in an intelligent manner.”

Why clarify an already weak, perfunctory conclusion of the G7 leaders to extend sanctions with a wink?

The Kremlin, expectedly, warned against extending the sanctions, saying they will not have a positive impact on the global economy and on global affairs. “The Kremlin's position has not changed: we still believe that this is not an issue on our agenda,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

Actually, the G7’s position on Ukraine and Russia is akin to a toothless paper tiger. Its views on Ukraine appeared on page 22 of a 32-page final document. This is what it said:

“We stand united in our conviction that the conflict in Ukraine can only be solved by diplomatic means and in full respect for international law, especially the legal obligation to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.

“We reiterate our condemnation of the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia and reaffirm our policy of its non-recognition and sanctions against those involved.

“We are concerned by continued violence along the line of contact in violation of the ceasefire; we urge all sides to take concrete steps that will lead to the complete ceasefire required under the Minsk agreements.

“We also urge all sides to fulfill their commitments without delay with a view to holding local elections in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions as soon as possible in accordance with the Minsk agreements.

“We emphasize our strongest support for full implementation of the Minsk agreements and the work of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group.

“We expect Russia to live up to its commitments and use its influence over the separatists to meet their commitments in full.

“We stress the OSCE's key role in helping to deescalate the crisis, and we call upon all sides, particularly the separatists, to provide the organization’s monitors full and unfettered access throughout the conflict zone.

“We recall that the duration of sanctions is clearly linked to Russia’s complete implementation of the Minsk agreements and respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Sanctions can be rolled back when Russia meets these commitments.

“However, we also stand ready to take further restrictive measures in order to increase cost on Russia should its actions so require.

“We recognize the importance of maintaining dialogue with Russia in order to ensure it abides by the commitments it has made as well as international law and to reach a comprehensive, sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis.

“We commend and support the steps Ukraine is taking to implement comprehensive structural, governance and economic reforms and encourage Ukraine to continue and accelerate the process.

We urge Ukraine to maintain and enhance the momentum in its fight against corruption and its judicial reform, including the Prosecutor General’s office.

“We are fully committed to providing long-term support to this end.

“We also commend the work of the Ukraine support group of G7 Ambassadors in Kyiv.

“We reaffirm our commitment to undertake joint efforts with Ukraine to convert the Chornobyl site into a stable and environmentally safe condition, 30 years after the catastrophe.”

This final statement shows that major world leaders persist in calling the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-16 a conflict, which means that its solution could be negotiated as if between squabbling partners. They placed the onus of a solution of both the aggressor and victim. They insisted on maintaining a dialogue with Russia. They accentuated their commitment to rolling back sanctions against Russia if it meets its global commitments and obligations without any visible indication that Moscow is leaning in that direction.

The free world should not follow Russia’s script on how to deal with its criminality. Weighing Russian global or domestic crimes should not be undertaken through the prism of Russia’s nuclear weapons.

Russia refuses to recognize its commitments and withdraw from Ukraine. The longer Russian armies and terrorists remain in Ukraine, the greater the threat against the other former captive nations and the greater likelihood that murderous acts of Russian-inspired terrorism will spread across and beyond Ukraine.

While providing Ukraine with lethal weapons remains an impossible dream, the G7 could escalate the requirements for rolling back sanctions by instituting a firm deadline, increasing military and political pressure against Russia not merely focusing attention on economic ones, and begin referring to Russia as the Russian Nazi Republic.

Nothing else has worked so perhaps public shame will have an impact on the Kremlin.

Only Recourse for Russia: Sanctions & Isolation

Russia continues to intensify its undeclared war against Ukraine and trample its ceasefire commitments under the Minks Treaty without any sizable global condemnation. In everyday terms, Moscow is being treated as if it is committing misdemeanors rather than capital crimes. Despite spikes and lulls in the fighting, Russia continues to wage war against Ukraine and push its invasion, which military leaders fear will lead to an assault against other former captive nations.

Putin and his Kremlin junta, regardless of their excuses, are perpetrating war crimes against a neighboring state, crimes against their own people and civil society, and lies in athletics. Hardly the profile of a welcome global partner.

Several days ago, on the eve of the G7 Summit in Japan, Russian troops and mercenaries, in spite of their leader’s commitment to adhering to the Minsk Accords signed in February 2015, launched a widespread firefight against Ukrainian positions, in which seven Ukrainian soldiers were killed and nine others were wounded.

In a 24-hour period, Russian mercenaries attacked Ukrainian positions 31 times, reported Ukraine’s military press center. Officials said on Tuesday, May 24, that the killings were a result of a spike in attacks by pro-Russian rebels. Ukrainian commanders said the daily causalities were the highest since last August.

IHS Jane’s Country Risk Daily Report, among other sources, quoted Ukrainian military officials as saying that its positions in Donetsk and Luhansk regions had been shelled by Russian militants 30 times in the previous 24 hours.

The most intense fighting, as in previous weeks, was north of Donetsk, in the vicinity of Avdiyivka, an industrial center of 35,000 residents, which is located just 6 km north of Donetsk. According to the Ukrainian army, mercenaries regularly use machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade-launchers, and 82-mm and 120-mm mortars. While fighting is not limited to this area and also occurs west of Horlivka and east of Mariupol (both in the Donetsk region) and near Shchastya and Stanytsia Luhanska (in the Luhansk region), Avdiyivka has emerged as ground zero in recent weeks.

Oleksander Turchynov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, was quoted as saying that mercenaries backed by Russia had intensified attacks on Ukrainian troops using heavy weapons that were to have been withdrawn from the frontline under the Minsk treaty.

“I want to draw the attention of our strategic partners to the blatant and cynical discrediting by Russia of all the joint peace efforts,” Turchynov said in a statement.

According to the presidential administration spokesman for the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) Oleksandr Motuzianyk, the casualties were reported in the town of Avdiyivka that suffered heavy shelling. The outskirts of Avdiyivka remain the hottest points of fighting along the front.

“After shelling our positions, the militants turned their weapons and fired in the direction of Donetsk,” the military press center said, adding the provocation was conducted to blame Ukraine’s army.

The invaders used heavy-caliber machine guns, grenade launchers and 82mm-calibre mortars. They used the same types of weapons to shell Ukrainian army positions near the town of Krasnohorivka. The terrorists also attacked Ukrainian positions near the villages of Shchastya and Sokolnyky using small arms and grenade launchers.

Some of more than 70 shells fired overnight to the positions of Ukrainian military, hit residential areas of the town and set some houses on fire. One local woman suffered shrapnel wounds.

Ukrainian military also reported spotting five Russian drones, two of them coming from the Russian territory.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has also been tabulating Russian violations of the Minsk Accords and attacks against Ukrainian troops:

In DPR (acronym for the renegade Donetsk Peoples Republic)-controlled Yasynuvata (16 km northeast of Donetsk), between 08:57 and 13:10 on May 23, the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) reported hearing 19 undetermined explosions and four single shots of small-arms fire 0.5-3 km west-southwest and northeast of its position. Between 13:21 and 16:22, the SMM heard 18 undetermined explosions, five bursts and 12 single shots of heavy machine gun and small-arms fire 2-5km west and west-north-west of its position. Positioned 2km south of government-controlled Avdiyivka (17km north of Donetsk), the SMM between 13:04 and 13:24 heard 11 explosions assessed as impacts of 82mm mortar 4km east of its position. Between 16:05 and 16:58, the SMM heard four explosions assessed as impacts of recoilless gun (SPG-9, 73mm), 11 undetermined explosions, seven explosions assessed as impacts of 82mm mortar, 22 bursts of heavy machine gun fire and three shots and six bursts of small-arms fire. Between 17:14 and 17:15, the SMM heard one explosion assessed as an outgoing 120mm mortar round and five bursts of heavy machine gun fire 3km southeast of its position.

As it maintains its bloody deceit, Russia is denying that it is providing its terrorists in Luhansk and Donetsk with arms and regular soldiers to escalate its war that has claimed some 10,000 lives. It denies in the face of proof to the contrary its involvement in the war against Ukraine. Moscow is also forcing its demand for local elections in the war zone, which is being treated seriously by France and Germany. Elections in eastern Ukraine should not take place until Russia withdraws from Ukraine and its surrogates are arrested and tried.

According to credible officials, such as Deputy Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, Alexander Hug, evidence collected by the organization indicates that Russian troops have been directly involved in the war in Ukraine since it first erupted in the spring of 2014.

Speaking at a press conference in Odessa, Hug said: “From the beginning, we wrote in our reports about different types of weapons. It includes, among other things, electronic equipment, which interfered with the work of our drones. We wrote in our reports that observers recorded the presence of armed men with visible insignias of Russian troops on their uniforms. We also talked to prisoners who said that they were the soldiers of the Russian army. Also, we saw traces – not the vehicles themselves, but the traces of their movement across the border (from Russia to Ukraine).”

At the G7 Summit, President Obama, perhaps frustrated by the duration of Russian war in Ukraine, made a strange remark about it. He openly complained to reporters that there was too much violence in Ukraine and urged his colleagues to resolve the situation in Ukraine.

Obama said: “We started to see some progress in negotiations, but we’re still seeing too much violence, and we need to get that resolved.”

It is difficult to respond to the American commander in chief who makes such a frivolous observation. Wars, undeclared wars, proxy wars, hybrid wars and other kinds of wars are wrought with violence, death and destruction in this case brought upon Ukraine by Russia. War is hell, Mr. President. The G7 cannot resolve the situation in Ukraine without Obama’s direction that the resolution must begin with Putin and his armies and mercenaries.

As these past seven days have shown, Russia still refuses to abide by entreaties and demands that it cease its war with Ukraine. The war continues to claim Ukrainian lives as world leaders exhibit greater signs of boredom and weariness, while turning their attention more and more to Kyiv’s domestic plague of corruption.

Moscow commits crimes on many levels with impunity, disparaging sanctions, treaty commitments and international law. In previous generations world leaders successfully turned to morality in determining their relations with countries near and far. They formed coalitions to defeat or at least subdue international lawbreakers. There is no justifiable, long-term reason to cower behind fear of Russian nuclear arsenal or its energy reserves.

The world is confronted with Shakespearean to be or not to be.

If the free world’s resolve and will to defeat Russia or at least to expel Russian armies and terrorists from Ukraine dissipates, then there will be no hope for regional and global peace, security and stability. Business as usual with Russia sends the wrong message to Moscow and prolongs the trauma faced by the former captive nations.

2 Congressional Resolutions Seek to Help War-torn Ukraine

Two resolutions are making their rounds on Capitol Hill that are earmarked to help Ukraine in its war with Russia.

These aren’t the first resolutions on behalf of Ukraine to be discussed in the halls of Congress, but today, after 27 months of war, they are critical in helping Ukraine repel Russia and restore peace and stability to the region. The resolutions emphasize the defensive and security interconnectivity among the US, Ukraine and Europe as well as the necessity of rebuilding free world and transatlantic unity that has been destroyed by Russia.

The resolutions are also important reminders for the free world because it’s beginning to show signs of boredom with this war and is realigning its focus to Ukraine’s equally fatal domestic corruption. These congressional campaigns should point out that helping Ukraine expel Russia from its sovereign land should be the prime goal now, ahead of cleaning house.

One resolution is HR 5094: Stability and Democracy (STAND) for Ukraine. Introduced by Reps. Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), the legislation aims to tighten sanctions against Russia and codifies US non-recognition of Russia’s occupation of Crimea.

In a statement late in late April, Engel said Russia’s aggression, driven by President Putin, has undermined Ukrainian sovereignty. Engle made a beneficial association between Moscow’s threat against Ukraine and simultaneously Europe by saying that Russia’s invasion has “threatened our own long-term investment in a Europe that is whole, free and at peace.”

Reiterating the free world’s widely-accepted position on occupied Crimea, Engle emphasized that it is illegal and the United States needs “to be clear about that in our policy, just as we were during the Soviets’ decades-long occupation of the Baltic states.” The allusion to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia’s unlawful captivity by Moscow, which the US refused to recognize, was justified in this reference but it should be pointed out that Ukraine was also subjugated for centuries until a quarter of a century ago.

“We need to build on our sanctions regime against troublemakers in the Kremlin, while working to preserve transatlantic unity. And we need to find ways of shoring up Ukraine and deterring Putin that go beyond just throwing more money at the problem,” said Engel. “The STAND for Ukraine Act brings a new approach to all these issues and makes clear that the United States will not just stand by as Putin bullies his neighbors, tests the resolve of NATO, and works to fracture Western unity.”

The congressmen’s quaint usage of “troublemakers,” “problem” and “bullies” attempts to make a point colloquially but Capitol Hill should understand that there’s nothing charming about the Kremlin. Russian leaders aren’t troublemakers – they’re global terrorists, it’s not a problem but a shooting war, and the Kremlin isn’t bullying its neighbors but threatening them with invasion, death and re-subjugation behind a new iron curtain.

Co-sponsor Kinzinger observed that the world is again witnessing Putin’s continuous “disrespect for global order, especially in regards to Ukraine.” He emphasized that the US must “stand up and reiterate that it will not tolerate Russia’s aggression.” But how will the US demonstrate its lack of tolerance?

He said “By reaffirming US support for Ukraine’s self-defense, emphasizing that we never have nor will recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and by holding Russia accountable for its continued violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, we will ‘Stand with Ukraine’ legislatively and most effectively.”

The congressmen’s comments appropriately point out that important Ukrainian national life-or-death issues are at stake in the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-16.

STAND for Ukraine was also co-sponsored by the following lawmakers including the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus: Sander Levin (D-MI), Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Ralph Abraham (R-LA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Randy Weber (R-TX), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Mike Pompeo (R-KS), David Cicilline (D-RI), John Shimkus (R-IL), Bill Keating (D-MA), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Reid Ribble (R-WI).

The key points of STAND for Ukraine Act are:

*       Clarifies existing US policy toward Ukraine and explicitly acknowledges Ukraine’s right to self-defense while linking any sanctions relief for Russia to timely, complete and verifiable implementation of the Minsk framework.

*       Explicitly roots US Crimea policy in the non-recognition doctrine followed by the United States during the Soviet Union’s 50-year occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

*       Codifies existing Executive Order sanctions imposed on Russia for the forcible and illegal occupation of Crimea.

*       Tightens existing US sanctions on Russia for its violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity by authorizing a strict sanctions-evasion framework and requiring a regular report on foreign financial institutions that are illicitly controlling Ukraine state-owned assets-namely Russian banks in Crimea.

*       Imposes an Arms Export Control Act “presumption of denial” standard on any NATO member that transfers certain defense articles or services containing US technology or components to Russia while Russia is forcibly occupying the territory of Ukraine or any NATO member.

*       Extends the Magnitsky Act to territories occupied or otherwise controlled by Russia such as Crimea, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

*       Directs the Administration to consult with the Government of Ukraine and seek to establish an international consortium to drive private investment in Ukraine by minimizing and pooling political risk to would-be private investors.

*       Directs the Secretary of State to develop and implement a strategy to respond to Russian disinformation and propaganda efforts toward Russian-speaking areas in countries bordering Russia.

The second resolution is S.2692, the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. Sponsors Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote a “Dear Colleague” that seeks the Senate’s support for the legislation.

S.2692 would establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response for the purpose of coordinating a US response to propaganda from foreign sources such as Russia, China and other countries. It is regarded as an essential piece of legislation that would strengthen US security interests by disseminating truthful information about worldwide issues, in particular, Russia’s disinformation and propaganda about Ukraine and the war in eastern Ukraine.

Indeed, Russian trolls are seen across the Internet defaming Ukraine, the US and NATO by painting them as the aggressors against Russia as well as chasing pro-Ukrainian bloggers and tweeters.

The three principle points of the act are:

Better coordinate US government efforts by establish the US Center for Information Analysis and Response;

Empower local communities to expose and counter foreign propaganda and manipulation through a local grant program;

Encourage the State Department to give special consideration in exchange programs to residents of countries vulnerable to foreign disinformation.

“The Counter Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act would ensure America’s national security infrastructure is structured to best counter the false narratives that harm our security—delivering truthful information and empowering credible voices outside government to directly counter false narratives and make the world a safer place for the United States and our allies,” wrote Portman and Murphy in their letter.

The adoption of these resolutions is important because they will bolster previously adopted acts and a relatively favorable US policy vis-à-vis Ukraine ahead of a change in the White House next January. They could have been stronger; they could have called for arming Ukraine; and they could have denounced Russia as an enemy of peace and the free world. However, realistically, the sense of HR 5094 and S.2692 is the best that could be expected from supportive legislators that fear aggravating an already unstable Russian leader.

The Ukrainian National Information Service in Washington, DC, is urging Ukrainian Americans, and by association Americans who trace their heritages to Eastern Europe and the x-captive nations, to ask their elected officials to support these resolutions. Additionally, the spirit of these resolutions should be included as planks in the platforms of the Republic and Democratic parties.

Since the US and free world are reluctant to offer Kyiv needed military aid to stop Russia’s onslaught against Ukraine like General Patton saved Europe by stopping Hitler’s Nazi war machine, then perhaps legislations such as these can bolster this goal in another way.