General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis and Ukraine

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory and his perplexing uncritical support for Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin, American voters will be closely watching his every foreign policy step especially the one that pertains to Russia, Ukraine, the former captive nations and NATO.

The other day, President-elect Trump revealed his choice for Secretary of Defense – former four-star General James “Mad Dog” Mattis of the US Marine Corps. The Secretary of Defense and the Department that he heads are vital not only to the country’s defense but also the free world’s security. Traditionally, it has kept vigil over destabilizing developments in the Kremlin and publically or quietly supported Ukraine and the other former captive nations.

Mattis has earned a laudatory reputation as a tough Marine Corps officer, a battlefield hero and a military scholar. Many have equated him to General George Patton, who liberated Europe from Nazi Germany.

So what are his views about Russia and Ukraine? I checked the record today and found the following positive quotes about him or by him:

From The New York Times

In some important policy areas, General Mattis differs from Mr. Trump, who has been filling the top ranks of his national security team with hard-liners. General Mattis believes, for instance, that Mr. Trump’s conciliatory statements toward Russia are ill informed. General Mattis views with alarm Moscow’s expansionist or bellicose policies in Syria, Ukraine and the Baltics. And he has told the president-elect that torture does not work.

From the Daily Wire.com

Regarding Russia, Mattis asserted that Russia’s taking of Crimea and backing separatists in Ukraine was “much more severe, more serious” than Washington and the European Union treated it.

From the Vox.com

Mattis sees Putin very differently than the new president does,

Mattis is also a Russia hawk of sorts — a position that would potentially leave him at odds with the president-elect.

During the campaign, Trump repeatedly praised Russian strongman Vladimir Putin as a strong leader and took positions — including endorsing Moscow’s support for Assad in Syria and refusing to commit to defending NATO allies against a possible future Russian invasion — that are closely in line with the Russian leader’s long-held strategic goals. Putin, Trump said last December, is “highly respected within his own country and beyond.”

Mattis, echoing the assessments of most of the Pentagon’s top brass, has a sharply different assessment of Putin, whom he sees as a clear threat to both the US and many of Washington’s closest European allies.

According to an article by the US Naval Institute, Mattis used a speech to a conservative think tank last May to warn that Russia’s annexation of Crimea and continued meddling in eastern Ukraine was a “severe” and “serious” threat that was being underestimated by the Obama administration.

From Hotair. com

Here’s Mattis on Russia and the wider Pax Americana in May of last year:

Speaking in Washington, D.C., retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis said, “the perception is we’re pulling back” on America’s commitment to its allies and partners, leaving them adrift in a changing world. “We have strategic atrophy.”

He said Russia’s military moves against its neighbors—taking Crimea and backing separatists in Ukraine is “much more severe, more serious” than Washington and the European Union are treating it…

He said since World War II the United States helped create a world order—diplomatically [United Nations] , economically [World Bank and International Monetary Fund], culturally and militarily.

By renewing that combination of inspiration and intimidation, “I have no doubt we can turn this around.”

The Hoover Institute

General Mattis reviewed the military situation on the ground in Crimea, east Ukraine, and the periphery of NATO states. He described Putin’s hybrid warfare, which is not new but has been perfected by Russian military planners. Mattis emphasized the importance of the propaganda component of Russia’s hybrid war, which Russia is clearly winning over the West. Mattis also focused on the costs of the Ukrainian war on Russian forces, which have had to be drawn from all corners of Russian, leaving potential trouble spots, such as on the southern border, uncovered.

Mattis noted that Russia at first hoped that it could occupy East Ukraine without loss of life as it did in Crimea but was surprised by the Ukrainian forces fighting back with vigor. The Russian military had to increase its logistic and military support for its rebel forces and then, in August, had to use regular troops to save the encircled Donetsk and Luhansk “people’s republics” from defeat.

With regular Russian forces involved, Ukrainian forces have been outmatched, notably by deadly artillery weapons (such as dual-purpose missiles, banned by the United States) that explode multiple warheads overhead. So far, Russia has been able to fight a tank war owing to the lack of antitank weaponry on the Ukrainian side. Mattis elaborated the military equipment Ukraine needs to defend itself, most of which is available from various NATO states and from other countries. The U.S. supplying lethal defensive weapons would represent a major breakthrough, although Europe is now less inclined to follow US leadership.

Mattis estimated Russia’s nonmilitary to military effort in fighting the Ukraine war at approximately four to one, highlighting the importance of nonmilitary instruments, such as propaganda, in support of the military effort. Ukraine is stretched to its limits with no operational reserves, and its front-line units are depleted.

Mattis noted a nuclear context to this war, which he emphasized is a war. He believes that Putin desires “anarchy protection” (which others have called frozen conflicts) on its borders. NATO expansion did not persuasively demonstrate to Russia the value of having democratic neighbors under the rule of law. In fact, Russia under Putin likely considers neighboring rule-of-law countries a threat to Russia’s nondemocratic, anti-rule-of-law governance.

Change of Heart?

Does this mean that the new President has changed his personal views about Russia, Putin and Ukraine? Trump began appointing or considering men and women for administration and cabinet posts that on the surface satisfy some people while upsetting others. National security adviser Michael T. Flynn seems to regard Putin in the same light as does Trump. Mitt Romney, a possible secretary of state choice, and Mike Pompeo, the next CIA director, believe Putin is a tyrant and global threat. And now there’s General Mattis.

The difference of views about Russia, Putin and Ukraine between Trump and Romney, Pompeo and Mattis are certainly wide, actually they’re diametrically opposed. It would seem that the divergence is insurmountable.

Imagine a Cabinet meeting in the foreseeable future about a significant escalation of Russia’s war with Ukraine that threatens Poland. Don’t discount such a possibility because no one also believed that Putin would invade Crimea and eastern Ukraine in the first half of 2014.

President Trump expresses a wait and see attitude because he trusts his buddy Putin while the three or more anti-Russian hawks want to send in US troops to halt Moscow’s assault.

Whose point of view prevails? Based on Trump’s intolerable stubbornness, the hawks sadly will toe the line with their boss or else he’ll fire them.

Revolution! – Maidan 2013 – 2016

The feelings of hope and anger, anticipation and desperation began to quake deep in the hearts, minds and spirits of Ukrainians. Twenty-two years after the latest declaration of independence of their Ukraine, the nation was not to be deprived of their dream of living in a country of their choice, free of Russian imperialism and subjugation and heading toward Europe, not back into the Russian prison of nations.

They were not to be stopped, not by their corrupt, treacherous President Viktor Yanukovych or by his mentor Russian fuhrer Vladimir Putin.

In the fall of 2013, when Yanukovych began to exhibit his true turncoat colors and reject the aspirations of the nation, Ukrainians from every corner of their country, from villages and towns to major metropolises, Ukrainian speakers and non-Ukrainian speakers, Christians, Jews, Muslims and others started their trek to the capital, determined to strike their chord for Ukraine’s freedom.

The chapters quickly unfolded: 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 reversal. 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.

The first Lenin statue that tumbled to cobblestones of a Kyiv street three years ago marked not only the inevitable end of Yanukovych’s reign as Putin’s governor but also the nation’s most recent reaffirmation of its predecessors’ independence struggles and proclamations.

It was nothing else than the Ukrainian nation’s latest revolution against foreign and domestic captivity and tyranny.

With the world watching events in Ukraine unravel, cheering as the beleaguered but undaunted nation fight for its existence, and fearing a Russian counterattack, more than a million men, women and youth came to Kyiv’s Maidan to defend their independence and sovereignty. Defying incredible logistical problems, the protesters – no, Ukrainian revolutionaries – were clothed, fed, housed, cared for and mourned by strangers who came together in a historical exhibition of national unity.

In a brief commentary in the December 2, 2013, edition of The Torn Curtain 1991, titled “Revolution,” I wrote:

“Yuriy Lutsenko declared it yesterday, demonstrators echoed it and by now many news outlets have picked it up as the identifying motto of today’s Ukraine.

“Rightly so. The nation is fed up with Yanukovych’s policies. He has disgraced and discredited himself and his regime and going forward will not be treated seriously by other governments or institutions. And he has bloodied the nation.

“Ukrainians from all corners of Ukraine have been staging demonstrations in their towns or descending on Kyiv to express their protest.

“As we said last week, the US and other countries should institute sanctions against Yanukovych and his cabal to force them from office. This would be a worthy sign of support for Euromaidan.”

The nation did not budge from their positions despite rumors of a Russian military infiltration. Winter was setting it and Russian storm troopers on rooftops began shooting peaceful protesters. Other Putin security officers forced captured protesters to strip naked in the frigid weather. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) arrived on the scene to offer his and America’s moral support to Ukraine’s fight for freedom.

The nation stubbornly persevered.

In another brief commentary on December 9, 2013, I opined:

“In memory of Nelson Mandela and in tribute to Euromaidan:

‘When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw.’ 
“Toppling the Lenin statue was not the goal but it was a major symbolic feat for Ukraine and the ex-captive nations. It was also a warning for Russia. As Georgia’s Saakashvili said at Euromaidan, Ukraine’s triumph will be Russia’s final chapter.

“Yanukovych is discredited and disgraced in Ukraine and around the world.

“So far the demonstrators are peaceful and have peacefully endured the brutal attacks by the police. At the same time Prime Minister Azarov is warning of a coup d’état and state of emergency.

“Before that happens, Yanukovych should heed the pleas of Euromaidan and leave office quietly.”

Putin’s gauleiter his henchmen finally fled to Russia and other hideouts.

Before the end of the year, the Maidan revolutionaries issued their own appeal to the world titled “Arise, Ukraine,” declaring their principals and goals. They affirmed:

“People of the World! The events of recent days have shown everyone that Ukrainian authorities have embarked on an unconstitutional course.

“Dispersal of peaceful demonstrations, beatings, courts manipulated by the ruling powers have undermined the Constitution of Ukraine, which declares that life, health, honor and dignity of citizens of Ukraine are the highest values of the state. Today, in the course of two hours, Ukrainian authorities, through the militia and the specialized police squad Berkut have been destroying democratic values and people’s right to peaceful assembly. It is symbolic that this took place immediately upon the completion of International Human Rights Day. They are detaining peaceful protesters, journalists are prevented from doing their jobs. Democracy in Ukraine is in danger! Free people of the country are in danger! Is this comprehended by politicians of the world, human rights activists, journalists, and people of good will?

“Ukraine! Arise, Euromaidan is summoning you!

“Everyone to the peaceful protests! Everyone who is at home telephone all churches and monasteries across the country and ask for the bells to toll. Kyiv large, Ukraine large and not all in Maidan can hear. But let the world hear: democracy in Ukraine at risk, but the Ukrainian people cannot be broken. Ring the church bells, let Europe hear and witness how they are destroying Kyivan Maidan.

“Together till the end!”

As has become Ukraine’s destiny, Maidan substantiated Thomas Jefferson’s adage about courage and liberty: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.”

The historic images of the Ukrainian nation arising against foreign and domestic tyrants three years ago this week and manifesting its invincible will to live free as well as the accompanying emotions were rekindled today with the jubilant commemorative demonstrations in Kyiv and other Ukrainian towns.

We recall the numerous parades, speeches, rallies, fires, dedication, police depravity and barbarism, beatings, bravery, heroism, patriotism, gunshots, and blood that contributed to the nation’s victory.

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 the legacy of Nazism. Likewise, future generations will have a glimpse of one episode – Maidan – from a millennium of examples of Ukrainians’ unconquerable, freedom-loving spirit to live in their own independent, sovereign, democratic and indivisible Ukraine.

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 swelled 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 revolution for freedom.

The nation once 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 demanded that Ukraine finds its rightful place among European countries and not in the Russian prison of nations.

The protesters 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 national beliefs and expanding numbers. They were determined to fight for Ukraine and that victory would be theirs.

Busloads of demonstrators from across Ukraine participated. Doctors from around the country came to Kyiv to treat the wounded and dying. 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 in t-shirts emblazoned with the Ukrainian national emblem – the Tryzub – and images of national heroes Bandera and Shukhevych, were actively involved in the movement.

Then there was also the upright blue-and-yellow piano and scores of pianists that kept everyone’s spirits high.

The revolutionaries 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 as they repeatedly charged into the nonviolent protesters wildly swinging their truncheons without regard for life or limb. 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, the revolutionaries persevered. None of the protesters broke rank and fled. They were committed to their mission, realistically noting that 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, protesters covered their heads with kitchen utensils, pots, pans and colanders.

The Revolution of Dignity as it is called today lasted 93 days during which 125 innocent, peaceful Ukrainians of all walks of life were murdered on the orders of officials in the Kremlin and Kyiv. They indisputably earned the moniker “Heavenly Hundred.”

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. 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 and the men and women in the Ukrainian armed forces, fighting and dying in the eastern oblasts, are not doing so for the government but for Maidan, the nation and Ukraine.

Maidan symbolizes the generation that stood on Maidan for three months and faced the enemy without weapons. It was the latest generation of Ukrainian patriots to refresh the tree of liberty with their blood.

Had the revolution never occurred, Maidan would have remained a simple municipal concrete, brick and marble plaza. However, with the revolution, Maidan and everything that the simple word evokes today and tomorrow will always signify glory for the Ukrainian nation and eternal shame for Russia.

Will Trump Preserve Ukraine’s Independence & Sovereignty?

Several weeks before the 2016 Presidential Elections that saw Donald Trump achieve an astounding, historic victory over Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, his stalwart advocate, assured Ukrainians and the world that President Trump would support selling lethal weapons to Ukraine.

A simple business decision for the billionaire businessman-turned politician?

Gingrich didn’t allude to that conclusion nor did he state that Trump is a genuine supporter of Ukraine’s independence. In a conversation with Yuriy Panchenko during the 13th annual meeting of Yalta European Strategy (YES) that appeared in the Ukrainian e-magazine European Pravda, the former Speaker of the House, said he and Trump have opposed the ban on selling Ukraine lethal weapons with which it could defend itself against Russian aggression.

“I am sure that the Ukrainian people have the right to defend themselves and their country. Conducting assistive policy towards Ukraine only ‘in words,’ without giving appropriate modern weapons for protection is a defeat for the United States. Trump will make it different.” Gingrich assured.

Trump’s advocate and adviser repeated this view, saying “we can say for sure that President Trump would ‘unlock’ the issue of weapons in favor of Ukraine. Trump can say nice things about Putin, but in the meantime, he will sell Ukraine arms.”

Gingrich concluded his remarks about Ukraine by emphasizing that “Yes, most likely, the weapons would be sold. I think that Ukraine will be asked to delay payments.”

Can Ukrainians, Ukrainian Americans, Russians and the global community really expect the Trump Administration to live up to this line of thinking? Sadly, there is nothing in Trump’s record that says the incoming President will support such a compulsory sale while at the same time his friend in Moscow will pursue global belligerence.

Unfortunately for the global community, American conservatives and neoconservatives, with a few exceptions, as well as Trump supporters, adhere to an “America First” mojo to the exclusion of all other countries. In the interview that I cited previously, Gingrich exactly pointed that “Mr. Trump intends to put the American interest in first place. US interests first, and then – negotiations with other countries. Today US interests are influenced by some confusing international programs.”

This rabid, blind form of isolationism is dangerous for everyone. Focusing on America to that degree will not only turn the US into an impenetrable fortress surrounded by two huge bodies of water, blind and deaf to others, but it can also give rise to global threats like Russia and ISIS. It will abandon Ukraine and the other x-captive nations to the aggressive whims of Russia, whose intentions cannot be overlooked – again.

In Trump’s record there is the Paul Manafort specter, which polluted the traditional pro-captive nations ideology of the Republican Party and indeed all of America. His pro-Russian meddling in the GOP platform during the convention reduced support for Ukraine to drivel.

Throughout the campaign, candidate Trump failed to address adequately his relationship with Russian fuhrer Vladimir Putin, denying in the face of his own contradictory statements that he knew the Russian leader.

Trump must also refute his callous disregard for Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and reassert support for sanctions against Moscow until it withdraws from invaded Ukrainian regions.

Then after winning the elections, Trump began appointing or considering men and women for administration and cabinet posts, satisfying some and upsetting others. National security adviser Michael T. Flynn seems to regard Putin in the same light as does his boss. Mitt Romney, a possible secretary of state choice, and Mike Pompeo, the next CIA director, believe Putin is a tyrant and global threat.

In reality, based on Trump’s intolerable character, all of them will toe the line with Trump or he’ll fire them.

Finally, Trump’s talking points about US-Russia relations point to his total misjudgment about the evil empire. In the aftermath of the let’s makeup telephone call between Putin and Trump last week, the coverage highlighted the unsatisfactory state of relations and their will to normalize them. The Kremlin cheered that the two leaders will strive “to normalize them and bring them to the framework of constructive cooperation. Stressed was, among other things, the importance of the creation of a stable foundation for bilateral relations by developing their trade and market component.”

Yes, US relations with Russia have been strained but not by anything that Washington initiated but because of Moscow’s rampant militarization and uncontrolled imperialism. By building bridges between Moscow and Washington for the sake of friendship and commerce, Trump must accept Russia’s crimes and shake Putin’s blood-stained hands.

Trump’s complete disregard for Russia’s ongoing belligerence demonstrates his naiveté or ambivalence about Russia’s crimes against humanity. As President of the United States – he has removed himself from the moniker of leader of the free world because of his isolationist bent – he cannot continuously deny in the face of irrefutable evidence that Russia violates human rights, murders its opponents, and invades its neighbors.

Ukraine’s fate inside The Beltway will depend on the strongly-worded, supportive congressional resolutions. Senators and congressman are already banding around pro-Ukrainian campaigns that must be conspicuously supported by freedom-loving Americans.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), among others, last week warned against any attempt to revise US-Russia relations under Trump’s presidency.

“With the US presidential transition underway, Vladimir Putin has said in recent days that he wants to improve relations with the United States. We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America's allies, and attempted to undermine America’s elections,” McCain said in a statement.

Senior Democratic and GOP lawmakers are insisting that Washington respond to Russia’s interference in the US election and actions in Ukraine and Syria, despite Trump’s hope to improve relations.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said last week he was working on what he described as “comprehensive” legislation to respond to Russian actions contrary to U.S. interests in Europe and Syria, as well as cyberattacks blamed on Moscow during the campaign.

“Russia presents a very serious challenge for America. They're not our partner. They're a bully,” Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said.

“I therefore ask Trump to take seriously the assessments from our intelligence community and security professionals regarding Russia’s actions. I implore the Trump administration to see Russia for what it is — a global bully and adversary. And I encourage the incoming national security leadership to understand who our real friends and true allies are, and that they count on us to provide leadership against Moscow’s aggression,” Cardin said.

Other lawmakers have also called for action against Russia. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S-SC), one of his party’s senior foreign policy voices, told reporters he wanted Senate hearings on whether Putin interfered in US election. “We can’t sit on the sidelines,” Graham said.

Trump’s unforeseen election to the presidency of the United States has panicked the x-captive nations.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he has “no doubt” that Trump will refuse to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and will cooperate with his country.

When asked about the possibility of “an agreement” with Trump and Putin about recognizing Crimea, Poroshenko responded: “I am absolutely sure that the new president-elect is completely strong enough in an effective cooperation with Ukraine … no doubt.”

Hopefulness without back up.

Former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has sought to assuage Ukrainian and Baltic fears about the incoming President’s risky policies, saying: “The Baltics and Ukraine are close friends of the US, and neglecting them will have far-reaching consequences and mark the beginning of the end of the US-led system.”

At the same time European leaders reaffirmed their strong support for continuing sanctions against Russia until it withdraws from occupied Ukrainian territories, sending a hopeful message to the new White House about its convictions.

Lithuania warned that Putin may test NATO in the weeks before Trump is inaugurated as President. Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said he was “very afraid” for the Baltics and other regions, as well as the Syrian city of Aleppo.

Back home, President Obama added his point of view about Trump’s policies toward Russia, stating he hoped his successor “is willing to stand up to Russia when they deviate from our values and international norms.”

The next four years do not look good for Ukraine and the other former captive nations. After decades, even centuries of captivity in Russia’s prison of nations and only a few years in freedom, losing them on Trump’s watch will be an astounding, catastrophic stain on the 45^th President’s legacy.

Freedom loving peoples in the United States and around the world will have to keep a close watch on Trump’s steps – or missteps – in handling Russia’s belligerence and then, if necessary, fight him tooth and nail for changes.

Russian Oppression in Occupied Crimea Takes Center Stage

As has been Russia’s style, its brand of liberation oppression swept across the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea in the wake of Moscow’s invading “green men” nearly three years ago. They seized government buildings, schools and civic organizations, banned the Crimean Tatar language and religion, arrested, imprisoned and killed Tatar leaders and activists as they raised the Russian tricolor over what has become occupied Crimea.

A climate of daily brutality that has been condemned by the free world enveloped the peninsula. Russia orchestrated a fabricated referendum that led to its illegal annexation by Moscow. In a blitzkrieg act of aggression, Ukraine and the free world lost administrative control over political, economic and social developments in Crimea. As a result, human rights abuses have become a consistent part of life in Crimea.

Crimean Tatar leaders have revealed that under Moscow’s laws and policies, any resident of Crimea who refuses to take Russian citizenship and a Russian passport, or who tries to retain Ukrainian citizenship, forfeits his or her right to live, to work in, or even to visit the peninsula.

The Atlantic Council, in the executive summary to its 2015 report titled “Human Rights Abuses in Russian-Occupied Crimea,” wrote: “This first land grab on European soil since World War II exposed the Kremlin’s imperialist ambitions and posed a serious threat to the post-Cold War international order. Since the onset of Russian occupation, Crimea’s residents have faced increasingly grave civic, political, and human rights violations. These include discriminatory policies against Crimea’s ethnic Tatar minority, infringement of property rights, and intimidation of independent voices through selective use of the law and physical force.”

The Council further noted that there is “an alarming deterioration of human rights” in Crimea. Russian authorities have resurrected its Soviet predecessor’s inhuman practice of punitive psychiatry against Tatar political prisoners.

“For their refusal to recognize the authority of the de facto government, Tatar leaders have been exiled or banned from public life, their public commemorations prohibited, and their media muzzled. Activists and journalists who simply speak up for human rights have been subjected to torture, intimidated into emigration, and have had their property illegally confiscated. Some have gone missing, with authorities offering little to no evidence that they are investigating the disappearances,” wrote Andrii Klymenko, chief editor of Black Sea News and chairman of the Supervisory Board of Maidan of Foreign Affairs, in the summary.

With willful disregard of international law and order unseen seen Nazi Germany’s invasion of Europe some eight decades ago, Russia has brought war to Europe, occupied Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and spreads repression and terror in with its armed forces and mercenary terrorists.

In a draconian declaration of its thorough authority over the imprisoned inhabitants of the peninsula, the so-called colonial Supreme Court of Crimea on April 26, 2016, and the Supreme Court of Russia on September 29, 2016, declared the Mejlis, the self-governing institution of the Crimean Tatars, to be an extremist organization and banned its activities.

The invasion and occupation of Crimea, just like the war in eastern Ukraine, have been in the forefront of news media since February 2014 and have been the focus of numerous global, United Nations and regional forums. The United Nations reaffirmed its support for Ukraine in a resolution in support of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

The UN General Assembly again will have the opportunity to address this issue on Monday, November 14. The Congressional Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe – the Helsinki Commission – will also review Russian abuses in Crimea at a briefing on Capitol Hill on Thursday, November 10.

Since the illegal annexation of Crimea, the European Parliament, among other institutions, condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. The members of the parliament “condemn the unprecedented levels of human rights abuses perpetrated against Crimean residents, most notably the Tatars, an indigenous people of Crimea, and the severe restrictions on the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.”

“The Russian Federation, as an occupying power, has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the whole population and should, together with the de facto local authorities, investigate effectively, impartially and transparently all cases of disappearances, torture and human rights abuses by the police and paramilitary forces active in the Crimean peninsula since February 2014,” the European Parliament said.

Despite global denunciation of Russia’s invasion of Ukrainian Crimea, Moscow has not withdrawn from its occupied territories even in the face of economic sanctions that are not expected to be lifted. Nonetheless, the free world must continue to keep a spotlight on Russia oppression of Crimea and eastern Ukraine and keep the Kremlin’s feet to the hot coals until it unconditionally withdraws from all occupied regions of Ukraine.

Human Rights Watch, a respected global observer, also noted “Since Russian forces began occupying Crimea in early 2014, the space for free speech, freedom of association, and media in Crimea has shrunk dramatically. In two years, authorities have failed to conduct meaningful investigations into actions of armed paramilitary groups, implicated in torture, extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearances, attacks and beatings of Crimean Tatar and pro-Ukraine activists and journalists.”

“Under international law, the Russian Federation is an occupying power in Crimea as it exercises effective control in Crimea without the consent of the government of Ukraine, and there has been no legally recognized transfer of sovereignty to Russia. The referendum, held without the authorization of the Ukrainian government or any broad-based endorsement by the international community, and Russia’s unilateral actions afterward cannot be considered to meet the criteria under international law for a transfer of sovereignty that would end the state of belligerent occupation,” the human rights monitor stated.

The resolution that will be discussed in the UN General Assembly has been endorsed by the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States.

The resolution, when adopted, is expected to:

Condemn the temporary occupation of the part of the territory of Ukraine;

Condemn the imposition of the legal system of the Russian Federation and the negative impact on the human rights situation in Crimea; and

Condemn the reported serious violations and abuses against residents of Crimea, in particular: extrajudicial killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, politically motivated prosecutions, discrimination, harassment, intimidation, violence, arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment of detainees, their transfer from Crimea to Russia, as well as reported abuses of other fundamental freedoms, including freedoms of expression, religion or belief, and association and the right of peaceful assembly.

The resolution urges Russia to uphold its international obligations, overturn its abusive policies in Crimea and release all imprisoned Ukrainian citizens. It urges Russia to address the issue of impunity and ensure that those found to be responsible for abuses are held accountable before an independent judiciary. The resolution calls on Moscow to revoke immediately the decision on declaring the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars as an extremist organization and banning its activities and repeal the decision banning leaders of the Mejlis from entering Crimea.

Among other passages in the resolution there is one that recalls UN Resolution 68/262 of March 27, 2014, on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, that affirms the General Assembly’s commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders; and relevant decisions of international organizations, specialized agencies and bodies within the UN system.

There are other worthwhile references but, sadly, there isn’t one that demands the withdrawal of Russian soldiers and officials from Crimea and return of the peninsula to Ukraine’s sovereign rule.

While these and other efforts such as the Minsk process to bring peace and stability to Ukraine and Crimea have been successful and Ukrainian civilians and soldiers are being killed defending their homeland, global efforts such as those that I mentioned here must continue so that no one forgets Russia’s crimes against humanity and, hopefully, it will be brought to justice.

Congressman Pascrell recognized with Shevchenko Freedom Award

Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), a staunch champion of independent Ukraine and critic of Russia for its crimes against humanity, was rewarded for his efforts with the Shevchenko Freedom Award. On Wednesday, November 3, leaders of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America visited the congressman in his Paterson, NJ, office to present him with the award. Pascrell has been the sponsor and co-sponsor of numerous resolutions in support of Ukraine and visited many local Ukrainian events. He is also a member of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, a group of lawmakers committed to advocating pro-Ukrainian issues.

Considering Russia for any Human Rights Post is Absurd

Without delving into its historic crimes of the previous century, Russia’s crimes against humanity in the past 16 years should be enough to ban it from being included on a human rights body.

In the 21st century alone, Russia has waged wars in the Caucasus, and at home violated the human rights of fledgling democracy groups, persecuted members of the LGBT community, denied religious rights of non-Orthodox believers, victimized and arrested Ukrainian community activists, and killed opposition leaders.

Mocking humanity by legalizing oppression, the Russian parliament rubber stamped Putin’s demand that it adopt a law that would eliminate troublesome NGOs by declaring them to be foreign agents, which in Russian means traitor. So far Russia’s Justice Ministry has designated 145 such groups as “foreign agents,” and more than 20 chose to shut down rather than accept this label. In November 2015, it branded Memorial’s sister organization, Memorial Human Rights Center, a “foreign agent,” accusing it of using overseas funding to harm Russia. Also in 2015, the authorities filed suit to have Memorial dissolved over a bureaucratic technicality, and only after high-level intervention, including by the Council of Europe, did they back off.

In February 2014, Russia invaded three regions of Ukraine turning them into Russian fiefdoms and launching a 28-month-long war that has claimed the lives of some 10,000 Ukrainians, shot down a Malaysian passenger jetliner, and began horrific bombardments of the Syrian city of Aleppo that will surely bomb the town into the Stone Age.

Russia’s brutal assault on Aleppo has earned the Kremlin the outrage of many free world leaders. Many governments, including the UK, France and the US, have accused Russia of war crimes for targeting built-up areas and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, a water-treatment plant, bakeries and emergency response centers, as well as for bombing a UN aid convoy outside Aleppo during a ceasefire on September 19.

Residents and international monitors report that Russian-manufactured cluster munitions – banned under international law because of the indiscriminate damage they cause – as well as napalm, white phosphorous and ground-penetrating “bunker-buster” bombs have been dropped on besieged east Aleppo’s 250,000 residents in the past four weeks. 

Pundits have written that there is no reason to believe that Russia’s UNHCR interest will slow the assault. After ignoring the US, Europe and Syria’s neighbors in his single-minded support for Assad, they said, there is no reason to expect that Russian President Vladimir Putin would pause for the council. If the recent past teaches us anything, it is that Putin can remain secure that his aggressive activities will draw many complaints, but little action.

As for the latest wave of crimes in Ukraine, Iryna Gerashchenko, first deputy chairperson of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada and Ukrainian envoy for humanitarian issues at Minsk peace talks, speaking at a UN Security Council on October 25, offered shocking testimony that 495 Ukrainian women and 68 children have been among the killed since Russia invaded Ukraine.

“Women and children are the most vulnerable groups in war. According to the latest data, there are 1,700,000 internally displaced persons in Ukraine, of which approximately 900,000 are women and 236,000 are children,” Gerashchenko said in her impassioned address.

But most unforgivable of other violence, Gerashchenko related this Russian war crime: “This is the symbol of the war in Donbas – Russian men fight against Ukrainian women and children, kill and mutilate them, take them captives.”

This should be highlighted for the world to read ahead of the UN vote on Russia’s bid to join the vaunted Human Rights Council.

Gerashchenko noted that “violence against women and girls has always been the part of conflicts and sexual violence is used as war weapon. The information is available about human trafficking in the occupied territories, sexual violence and exploitation, cases of involvement of young people in military actions that are incompatible with human rights standards and unacceptable in the modern world.”

“Every fourth person who has been in captivity of the pro-Russian militants became a victim or a witness of gender-based violence. Human rights advocates underline that sexual violence is used as a part of tortures to spread panic and fear,” she said.

In Crimea, Russian occupiers have outlawed the Tatar language and religion, and arrested, imprisoned and killed Crimean Tatar leaders.

Does Russia with its blood-soaked hands deserve global consideration for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council? Surely not.

The UN General Assembly will select new members of the Human Rights Council on Friday, October 28, and Russia, which is ranked “not free” by the democracy watchdog Freedom House, will be competing with two “free” countries – Hungary and Croatia – for the two Eastern European seats on the 47-member body.

While Russia in principle could be outvoted, sadly, given the history and pattern of voting at the UN the chances of that happening are very slim.

Voting for a place on the Geneva-based Human Rights Council takes place in the full UN General Assembly, in a secret ballot vote, which protects countries from being challenged about – or embarrassed by – their vote choices. Membership is granted by a simple majority vote, 97 of the General Assembly’s 193 members, so it is possible for a candidate, even in a closed slate, to fail to pass that threshold, although it has hardly ever happened.

Human Rights Watch said Russia’s membership bid risks undermining the credibility of the UN and its Human Rights Council and its ability to hold rights abusers accountable for their crimes. How can a perpetrator hold court against other perpetrators?

“The UN Human Rights Council’s ability to successfully expose and hold violators to account is under threat because a number of countries use it to thwart attempts to expose their own crimes and abuses,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch.

A number of human rights and aid organizations have urged the United Nations this week to deprive Russia of a seat on the council. More than 80 global organizations have signed the appeal, with such groups as Human Rights Watch, CARE International and Refugees International among them.

The signatories asked the UN member-states to “question seriously whether Russia’s role in Syria which includes supporting and undertaking military actions which have routinely targeted civilians and civilian objects renders it fit to serve on the UN’s premier inter-governmental human rights institution.”

The appeal has been submitted ahead of elections to the UN’s human rights.

Why should the man and woman on the street care about human rights and Russia’s criminal track record?

Firstly, allowing Russia a seat at the council would desecrate human rights principles, the Human Rights Council, the UN and all crimes committed in local neighborhoods. It would be akin to reserving a place at the table for Adolf Hitler. It would contribute to civilization’s submersion into a vile existence on our watch.

Codifying respect for human rights, the UN has noted that human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. In other words, we are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible and they are also incorporated into the principles of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals – Agenda 2030.

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of states – national governments – to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems. The government of Russia has chosen to perennially violate human rights on all levels.

The UN also noted that human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to respect means that states must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires states to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that states must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level, while we are entitled our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of others.

The following are some of the most important characteristics of human rights: Human rights are founded on respect for the dignity and worth of each person; Human rights are universal, meaning that they are applied equally and without discrimination to all people; Human rights are inalienable, in that no one can have his or her human rights taken away; and others.

Finally, by guaranteeing life, liberty, equality, and security, human rights protect people against abuse by those who are more powerful. According to the United Nations, human rights “ensure that a human being will be able to fully develop and use human qualities such as intelligence, talent, and conscience and satisfy his or her spiritual needs.” More categories of violations by Russia.

Michelle Maiese, addressing human rights violations and wars or conflicts, noted on the website BeyondIntractability.org: “Many conflicts are sparked by a failure to protect human rights, and the trauma that results from severe human rights violations often leads to new human rights violations. As conflict intensifies, hatred accumulates and makes restoration of peace more difficult. In order to stop this cycle of violence, states must institute policies aimed at human rights protection. Many believe that the protection of human rights ‘is essential to the sustainable achievement of the three agreed global priorities of peace, development and democracy.’

“Respect for human rights has therefore become an integral part of international law and foreign policy. The specific goal of expanding such rights is to "increase safeguards for the dignity of the person. To protect human rights is to ensure that people receive some degree of decent, humane treatment. Because political systems that protect human rights are thought to reduce the threat of world conflict, all nations have a stake in promoting worldwide respect for human rights.”

The UN operates on a different level than national governments but humanity’s indignation with the possible election of a criminal state, Russia, to the respected UN Human Rights Council must be vocally expressed. Contact your elected officials and say this possibility is a great moral blasphemy that must be quashed by the free world. Ban Russia from the UN Human Rights Council and other global events.

Is Free World Finally Seeing Russia as Evil Empire?

It’s been 33 years since President Ronald Reagan branded the Soviet Union – a euphemism for Russia – as the evil empire. His historic observation about Russian imperialism can be compared with Winston Churchill’s speech on March 5, 1946, in which he stated that an iron curtain has descended over Europe as a result of Moscow’s plans for global domination.

President Reagan, in his address on March 8, 1983, to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL, presented his succinct portrayal of the Soviet Russia, stating: “Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”

Reagan, a highly regarded champion of independence for Ukraine and the other captive nations and an anti-communist, also said: “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

For decades since the end of World War Two the freedom fighters of the captive nations had sought to convince the free world that the end of war will not quell Russia’s passion for aggression. Hitler’s quest to dominate the world was quashed by a united effort but, sadly, Russia continued and continues to pursue its relentless imperial pursuit of global subjugation with impunity.

Russia meticulously absorbed Eastern European nations into its empire while the free world watched with disbelief and merely restrained criticism. There were few noteworthy attempts to raise awareness about Russia’s global threat along the lines of the Captive Nations Week Resolution or Public Law 86-90 of 1959. However, nothing seemed to be able to halt Russian expansion. The US Congress countered Russia’s human rights violations with proclamations and denunciations but Moscow’s arrests and imprisonments of activists persisted.

During the 2012 Presidential Election Campaign GOP candidate Mitt Romney reminded us that “Russia is our number one geopolitical foe” but that admonition did not elicit the type of reaction from free world leaders that would force reforms in the Kremlin.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2014, two weeks after the conclusion of the Winter Olympics, caught world capitals by surprise and wondering how to bring about an end to the latest European war. Should they force Ukraine to submit to Russia’s demands? The United States and free world allies instituted punitive sanctions against Moscow but stopped short of sending lethal weapons to Ukraine that would help it subdue and expel Russian soldiers and terrorists back to Russia.

Russia continued its war against Ukraine while the free world failed to make a solid united stand against Moscow’s persistent attempts to resurrect the imperial glory of Russia. Russia’s political and business leaders were still being welcomed by their counterparts around the world.

And then the world was shocked to its core by Russia’s brutal bombardment of Aleppo that according to TV accounts will wipe the city and its residents off the face of the earth.

World leaders, having endured enough the gruesome photographs of children decimated by Russia’s bombardment, have finally condemned Russia with words that haven’t been used against Moscow in decades. Secretary of State John Kerry and others, expressing their exasperation with Russia’s continuous lies and violence, have called Russia’s heartless shelling of Syrian towns a war crime and called for an investigation in Russia’s latest aggression. Their aggravation was compounded by intelligence reports that Moscow ordered damaging hacking attacks of the United States.

The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Theresa May, assessing the shelling of Aleppo, posed a solution to Russian aggression that shouldn’t be belittled by her colleagues. May castigated Russia for its merciless shelling, saying EU countries must work together and put pressure on Russia to stop its “appalling atrocities, its sickening atrocities” in Syria, which, according to the Financial Times, raise the prospect of further sanctions against Moscow. 

Condemning Russia for destroying Aleppo and killing its residents, May said on the eve of an EU summit Russia’s aggression showed the need for the UK and the EU to show a “robust and united European stance.”

May’s remarks came as a Russian naval taskforce, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, was being shadowed by the Royal Navy as it headed toward the eastern Mediterranean and on to Syria presumably to bolster Moscow’s aerial bombing of Aleppo.

The significant point is that a major European political leader understands the global threat posed by Russia and has wisely called for a needed united European stance to halt its devastating bombardment. Russia’s violence in Syria is not different than its belligerence against Ukraine and European leaders would do well to consider including Russia’s war versus Ukraine in their condemnation. A united European stand against Russia on both counts would be a positive, fresh step to overcome Moscow and return peace and stability to the region.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin alluded to such a unified tendency in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Ahead of talks on Ukraine and a summit of European leaders, he and other Ukrainian officials said last week they believe there is increasing support in Europe for a harder line approach to Russia. Klimkin said frustration with Russian actions in Syria has helped convince European leaders that Moscow has been following similar approaches in Ukraine and Syria.

“Syria and Ukraine are two separate tracks, they don’t directly overlap,” Klimkin said. “But in the sense of understanding the whole picture of course there is a kind of cross influence.”

“Let’s stop shelling, let's pull back heavy weaponry, let’s give the OSCE missions the possibility for the access the whole territory of Donbas,” he continued. “The Russian regular troops should be out and the OSCE should be in.”

In the wake of Russia’s bombardment of Aleppo, I have discovered similar epiphanies among pundits and politicians.

Among them, Eli Lake wrote in Bloomberg News that the world would not be better if Russia and the US were friends. Calling Russia a pariah, Lake accused it of regularly poisoning global relations.

“But as Secretary of State John Kerry has learned in his fruitless engagements, Russian promises are worthless. Everyone in U.S. politics, with the exception of Donald Trump and a few other extremists on the left and right, understands this. Russia is a pariah.

“Pariahs are not asked to cooperate on challenges to the global commons. They shouldn’t get to host events like the World Cup, as Russia is scheduled to do in 2018. They should not be diplomatic partners in U.S. policy to disarm other pariahs like Iran. No, pariahs should be quarantined. With Russia, it’s the very least the U.S. and its allies can do to save the international system from a country that seeks to destroy it,” Lake wrote.

An anonymous US official was quoted by Reuters as admitting that Russia’s Putin is intent on restoring the torn iron curtain and the ill begotten Russian prison of nations.

“The Russians have been engaged in a sustained campaign to recapture what Putin considers their rightful buffer in Eastern Europe, and to undermine not just NATO and the EU, but the entire democratic foundation of both institutions,” said the official who claimed he has studied Russian behavior since before the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991.

The reason the official requested anonymity is shocking: The White House has ordered officials not to publicly discuss hostile Russian activities.

President Poroshenko also joined the chorus of officials urging the global community not to be naïve about Russia’s intentions. Just as Britain’s May, Poroshenko earnestly presented a case for a united effort to stop Russia. In an op-ed appropriately titled “The End of the Masquerade” in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Poroshenko wrote: “We should finally stop being so naïve with respect to Russia’s true intentions, as we were in 2008 or in 2014-15. It has no desire to end its aggression if we do not stop them together. Fraud and manipulation are only effective if solidarity and foresight are lacking.”

Apparently, Aleppo has become the final straw for the world as it condemns Russia for its wanton belligerence. While Russian aggression and killings in Ukraine and elsewhere predate its Syrian attacks, it is nonetheless vital now for a united front to declare Russia to be a pariah and war criminal, and banish it from the international community until its people emerge from their darkness and force reforms and democratization in the Kremlin.

Assurances Lead to Expectations

On the one hand, statements and declarations in support of besieged Ukraine are welcome and bolster the global sense of goodwill and approval Ukraine is enjoying today.

On the other hand, words of support, especially expressed by government leaders, carry an obligation and a commitment to do something to justify the words. By articulating support for Ukraine at a time of war, Ukrainian officials and citizens are naturally filled with an expectation that something beneficial will soon take place. Ukrainian Americans voters also share this same expectation.

Otherwise, these assurances are merely for the news media, hollow, and any forthcoming expectations are unwarranted.

US Secretary of State John Kerry voiced strong support for Ukraine at an event hosted by The German Marshall Fund and the US Mission to the European Union in Brussels on Tuesday, October 4. His words were truly inspiring and should have resounded frighteningly throughout the halls of the Kremlin.

Kerry’s latest warning to Russia, unwavering support for Ukraine and reaffirmation of American principled advocacy of the downtrodden could be deemed historic as they touched all of the correct buzzwords. However, Russia has turned a deaf ear to Washington’s repeated rebukes.

Warning Russia in the person of its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Kerry emphatically declared the US will stand its ground on behalf of freedom. He said:

“But the willingness of NATO and EU countries to search for common ground with Russia doesn’t relieve us of the obligation to stand our ground on behalf of freedom and international law, which is why we remain steadfast in our support for a stable, united, and democratic Ukraine.”

The Secretary of State created the foundation for a global duality in US foreign policy. There is Russia, with which the US and others desire to work; there is Russia, which the US and others condemn, and there is Ukraine, which the US and others will steadfastly support.

“And Moscow should have no doubt on this point: we will stand our ground. Blatant aggression is not something that any of us are prepared to accept, and no place in the world should understand it better than Europe.”

Kerry warned Moscow not to underestimate the US determination. While the US wants to search for common ground with the Kremlin, Washington will stand its ground in supporting Ukraine. Note, he didn’t say defending Ukraine. One American hand will deal with a criminal and the other with the victim.

“So we have imposed sanctions and we are insisting on a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Donbas and the illegal annexation of Crimea – even as we encourage the government in Ukraine to stay the course and accelerate the pace of reform.”

He underlined economic sanctions as the height of America’s arsenal against Russian transgressions and set the bar on diplomacy to resolve the conflict – avoiding the word war – in Ukraine. Then to show that the US will not play favorites, he intimated that Kyiv still needs to do more to hasten reforms and eliminate corruption.

“Our priority should be an open and competitive market that doesn’t play favorites and that contributes to the prosperity of all countries and doesn’t use this in some antiquated 18th or 19th century power game between states. We’ve made real strides, I think, in the last four years in creating energy options for Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltic states, southern Europe; and now we have to continue our work to bring energy independence to the countries in Central Europe that have too few choices in their supply.”

In other words, according to Kerry, Washington will remain wary of Russian intentions, critical of the Kremlin’s behavior, supportive of Ukraine, while striving to build open and competitive markets that don’t play favorites. Can the White House simultaneously cheer the lions and Christians?

Faced with these options, Russia would be remiss if it didn’t instinctively continue its war against Ukraine, accept American admonitions with a grain of salt and build competitive markets.

And Lavrov voiced the same opinion during an earlier press encounter with Kerry at the President Wilson Hotel in Geneva on August 26. The Russian said the two countries should sweep the Ukrainian issue under the carpet because there are many similar troubling concerns.

“As you can understand, there is quite a plenty of them in the current circumstances, but I believe that the genuine interests of Russia and United States boil down to the fact that we have normal relations between the two states and the two peoples. I do hope that our today’s meeting was another step in that direction,” Lavrov said.

The Voice of America picked up on this disturbing concept of let’s play nice with the enemy in its story about Kerry’s speech in Brussels. Its lead paragraph read: “US Secretary of State John Kerry says Western alliances are willing to work with Russia to seek solutions to end the unrest in Ukraine, but will stand firm on principles based on freedom and international law.”

Sincere words of support for Ukraine traditionally reach a crescendo during the anniversary of Ukrainian Independence Day on August 24. These words also generate expectations in the minds of victims.

For example, President Obama observed: “Today, we reaffirm that the United States will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people as they protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity, embrace the vision of a strong and united Europe, and deepen their commitment to democracy, anti-corruption, and respect for human rights. I offer my best wishes to all the people of Ukraine.  On this occasion, we are reminded that even in the most difficult moments, the glory and freedom of Ukraine—and the indomitable spirit of the Ukrainian people—lives on.”

Rep. Evan McMullin (R-UT), among other lawmakers, said during this year’s independence observance that the US “will revive and expand America’s strategic partnership with Ukraine, enhancing bilateral military, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation, and will fight for the right of the Ukrainian people—not Moscow—to decide whether they will seek membership in NATO, the European Union, and other regional organizations.”

The US “will support the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and will work to ensure all territories of Ukraine illegally annexed or occupied by Russia must be returned to the rightful government,” McMullin said.

Candidate Hillary Clinton noted through a spokesperson: “Through her multiple visits to Ukraine, Secretary Clinton has seen firsthand the passion with which Ukrainians fight for these ideals in the face of persistent adversity. She remains a staunch ally and advocate as they continue to defend their sovereignty.”

Secretary Kerry marked the date by saying: “Today we mark not just a quarter-century of your independence, but also of the fruitful partnership between our nations based on our shared commitment to freedom and the rule of law. The United States will stand by you as you continue to strengthen your democracy. With our European partners, we will also press for full implementation of the Minsk agreements to end Russian aggression in Donbas and return the international border to Ukrainian control. We remain steadfast in our refusal to recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea.”

Words of support such as these are coupled with daily reports about Russia’s continuing military onslaught against Ukraine, and Ukrainian military and civilian deaths signal that something isn’t right. The assurances don’t match reality. Why are the White House’s views belittled by the enemy?

High-ranking US officials have been emphasizing that Ukraine has a true friend and staunch ally in the United States, that the US will stand by Ukraine as Ukrainians defend their independence, that the US will press for Minsk implementation to end Russian aggression, that the US will be steadfast in its refusal to recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea, and that the US will provide defensive – and perhaps lethal – weapons to Ukraine.

Assurances have special meanings not least of all in the minds of the victims. Ukrainian American voters also read these pledges and wonder why is Russia continuing its war against Ukraine? Why are there Russian tanks, missiles and soldiers in Ukraine and occupied Crimea? Why are Ukrainian civilians and soldiers still being killed? Why is Russia allowed to invade a neighbor, violate human rights, commit a host of other crimes with impunity? Why are sanctions levied against Russians without consequences? Why is the free world willing to condemn Russia, support Ukraine and then make commercial and political deals with the criminal?

It’s time that the friendly assurances truly help Ukraine and Ukrainians, and subdue and expel Russia from Ukraine.