Russia: From Aggressor to Mediator; From Foe to Friend

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s backtracking this week on Ukraine’s official recognition of Russia as the aggressor is a cataclysmic decision by the leadership of a country that has greatly suffered for more than six years under Moscow’s guns that will have precipitous consequences on Kyiv’s relations with the Kremlin and the free world.

First of all, smug-faced Putin and his junta will now feel their oats as they celebrate the fulfillment of their goal of returning Ukraine to Moscow’s diabolical prison of nations thus lowering the infamous iron curtain. After all, Ukraine had resisted the Kremlin’s efforts to have Kyiv tone down its global protests about Russia’s invasion of two oblasts in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula. And now Zelenskyy has removed the label of aggressor from Russia’s back.

The immoral agreement undermines Ukrainian statehood, independence and sovereignty.

According to published reports, Ukrainian officials have agreed to begin direct talks with representatives of Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine, marking a substantial policy departure after six years of refusing to enter into direct dialogue with the Kremlin-supported terrorists of the illegally seized Luhansk and Donetsk regions. In other words, Kyiv acknowledges that the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk republics are legitimate leaders of their lands. They are in reality merely disenchanted Ukrainians who wanted to secede from Kyiv rather than Russia’s mercenaries, armed and commanded by Russia and supported by tens of thousands of Russian troops, sent to subvert Ukrainians in those oblasts.

The agreement was signed in Minsk on March 11 by representatives of the so-called Trilateral Contact Group, which consists of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE. Preliminary plans foresee the formation of a new Advisory Council that will feature 10 Ukrainian officials and 10 representatives from the occupied oblasts. Russia, which has the most to gain from Ukraine’s surrender or even submission to its designs, will reportedly participate in the process as an international observer – a friendly participant – rather than as an aggressor and supplier of arms to its militant mercenaries, and will have the same supervisory status as France, Germany, and the OSCE.

Imagine giving the criminal or perpetrator the right to mediate a trial in which it is the defendant. Moscow, the invader, will be a referee in its war against Ukraine. Sounds strange but stranger still considering that Zelenskyy’s representatives agreed with this.

The specified aim of this new Advisory Council is to facilitate dialogue toward the political resolution of the war in eastern Ukraine, with an emphasis on preparing the ground for planned local elections. The bogus concept of a political conclusion of the war and holding of local elections will seal the Ukrainian border for scores of years in favor of Russia.

Throughout the past six years of war between the two countries, Russia constantly demanded that Ukraine to begin direct talks with its militants. However, prior to Zelenskyy’s latest strategic political meltdown, Ukraine had consistently refused to deal directly with separatist officials. For better or worse, Kyiv’s policy had been to engage exclusively with Russia, the aggressor, in order to avoid any contacts that might be seen as legitimizing Moscow’s mercenary terrorists in eastern Ukraine or lessening Russian responsibility for the conflict as the aggressor state.

This situation cannot serve as the foundation for any discussion about the future of the Russian occupied regions of Ukraine. At best, only Russian total and unconditional withdrawal of Ukraine can lead to regional peace, development and security.

News of the plans for a joint Advisory Council sparked widespread unrest in Ukraine. The national motto of “No to Capitulation” that sparked an ideology and movement has taken on greater meaning and urgency. Opponents of any submission to Russia, especially when its army is on Ukrainian land, believe that Zelenskyy is surrounded by ministers and advisors that are beholden to Putin.

According to published reports, on March 13, in a statement the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union warned that the March 11 decision carries the risk that inadmissible red lines that Zelenskyy had pledged never to cross will be crossed. The signatories emphasized that “the Russian Federation, which is the initiator and aggressor in this armed conflict, virtually always has the deciding voice in taking decisions on releasing people imprisoned on non-government-controlled territory. However, it must bear responsibility for the consequences of its aggression. Taking Russia away from the negotiating table as a party to the conflict and giving it status of observer, as seen in Item 2 of the document published, is a worrying trend toward trying to waive Russia’s liability for its aggression.”

Any legitimization of the illegal formations known as the so-called “DPR” and “LPR” or negotiations with such formations about waiving liability for grave crimes committed during the establishment of the so-called “republics” would cross a red line and be totally inadmissible.

Halya Coynash of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group wrote that civic activists, political analysts and even 50 members of the Ukrainian parliament from the party associated with Zelenskyy warned that the agreement signed by, among others, the head of the President’s Administration, Andriy Yermak, would cross that proverbial red line. Coynash further indicated that the document envisages the formation of an advisory council with representatives from Ukraine, from the Russian mercenary leadership. “Russia would have only ‘observer’ status, with this effectively likening the aggressor state to the OSCE, Germany and France.  Although the ‘council’ would draw up proposals on, for example, highly contentious constitutional amendments that Russia is seeking and local elections in occupied Donbas, any decisions would be of an advisory nature, and not binding,” she pointed out. 

Zelenskyy’s national popularity has been declining since his landslide victory last spring which also has contributed to his electorate’s questioning their decision to elect him at all.

Olena Zerkal, former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister in 2014-19, said “Ever since 2014, Russia has gradually sought to impose its own logic onto the conflict guided by two key principles: ‘we are not there’ and ‘catch us if you can.” These two narratives closely intertwine and cannot be addressed separately. Despite all their legal gymnastics and reliance on plausible deniability, we managed to prove that Russia is the aggressor. We demonstrated direct military engagement between the Russian armed forces and those of Ukraine, and confirmed the existence of an international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine from July 14, 2014, at the latest.”

Up until last week the Ukrainian government has been consistent in its condemnation of Russia as the aggressor and instigator of a war with Ukraine launched two weeks after the closing of the 2014 Winter Olympics. In January 2018, the Verkhovna Rada passed a law defining areas seized by pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country as temporarily occupied by Russia. A designation that has reverberated around the world by many countries and groups. At the time, the law on the reintegration of the region was backed by 280 MPs, calling Russia an aggressor state. “The Russian Federation is committing a crime of aggression against Ukraine and is temporarily occupying parts of its territory,” the document says. It accuses Moscow of sending its army into the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and not adhering to any ceasefire regimes. Numerous Ukrainian soldiers have been killed by Russian invaders during many proclaimed truces.

Even Zelenskyy himself called Russia the aggressor on May 23, 2019, when he commented on the e-government website that Ukraine is losing to “the aggressor.”

Will the real Zelenskyy and Ukraine please stand up? This radical change of heart will also affect Ukraine’s relations with the United States, the former captive nations and other free world countries, and regional and global institutions that have echoed the undeniable position that Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine the victim. It is unknown how, in the United States, congressmen and senators will react to this contrary affirmation by the victim.

You may recall, that the United Nations, an institution that does not readily censure a member-state as powerful as Moscow, also had officially denounced Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as an “occupier” of foreign lands just like Nazi Germany and other tyrannical empires were – my clarification. An occupier of foreign lands means it crossed a foreign border which means it’s an aggressor.

The 71st General Assembly adopted on Monday, December 19, 2016, a resolution on human rights in Crimea, titled “Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine),” which was initiated by Ukraine and supported by the UNGA Third Committee. Seventy-three UN member-states, including Ukraine, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and others backed the document, 76 abstained, and Russia plus 22 others voted against it.

The resolution cited four times the word “occupier” in relation to Russia’s enslavement of Crimea.

Most importantly, the resolution condemned “the temporary occupation of part of the territory of Ukraine —the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (hereinafter “Crimea”) — by the Russian Federation.” It also notably reaffirmed its “non-recognition” of Russia’s unlawful annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea after a fabricated and rigged referendum.

Will the United Nations concur with future Kyiv and free world efforts in the future?

With so much public, on the record recognition of Russia’s crimes against Ukraine and disruption of the world order, why did President Zelenskyy decide to listen to Putin and switch horses a year after being elected thereby ridiculing himself and the country? His move belittles the deaths of more than 14,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers killed by Russian invaders.

The world was on board with the policy of recognizing Russian aggression against Ukraine and acknowledged what Russia has been doing in recent years. It accepted Ukraine’s position that the green men in Crimea and foreign invaders in eastern Ukraine are Russian soldiers. Will it treat Ukraine seriously going forward?

It is axiomatic that you can’t win a war if you deny that it is being waged by an enemy or aggressor against your nation. Has Zelenskyy condemned Ukraine and the Ukrainian nation to another hundred years of Russian subjugation, persecution, russification and bloodshed by willfully denying Russian aggression? Do you recall the story about the boy who cried wolf?

Dyslexic Global Affairs Threaten x-Captive Nations

Contemporary global affairs is a web of tangled contradictions, illogical conclusions, unnatural relations and seemingly duplicitous actions that border on dyslexia. And most assuredly the result of this discombobulated global state of affairs is that one country suffers.

While many have said there are no permanent allies, just permanent issues, then it is also true that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys and their members appear and disappear depending on the issues.

Today there are criminal states as well as stateless criminal groups that endanger global peace, security and development or at least inhibit them. They are not opaque or cloaked from the international community but rather are well known and play greater or lesser roles in global events. Their leaders attend meetings and conferences with heads of lawful states, shake their hands and even raise toasts in their honor. But because of their intimidating military or economic power, they have paralyzed and blinded the other nation-states.

Russia’s Millennial Crimes

I specifically mean Russia, perhaps the only permanent criminal state that hasn’t altered its belligerent nature in the past 1,000 years. Regardless of the regime – tsarist, communist or federal – or who occupies the corner office in the Kremlin, its proclaimed sacred national policy is to rule with an iron fist, suppress human rights, persecute civil libertarians and non-Russians, and invade, subjugate and russify foreign lands. And it doesn’t keep this a secret. It’s spelled out in its national doctrine that glories the holy mother Russian empire and gives itself the authority to defend and perpetuate itself as it deems necessary.

For all intents and purposes, nation-states, collectively or individually, regionally or globally, actively or passively allow Moscow to fulfill its mission, arrest and kill dissenters, invade other countries and lie in the face of facts.

Probably the greatest perpetrator of tolerating Russia’s crimes is President Trump, who defies his party’s traditional role of admonishing Moscow for crimes against humanity and protecting the captive nations.

Recently, while walking to or from his helicopter, Trump was asked by a newsman from the throng of reporters, who quoted Vladimir Putin, to comment about some countries’ attempt to split apart Russia and Ukraine.

Trump, again displaying a farcical lack of knowledge about Ukraine and Russia or not wanting to offend Moscow, remarked “Well, I’d like to see them come together. I think if they came together, in the sense that they got along with each other, that’d be a great thing, it would be a great thing for the world if Ukraine and Russia could work out some agreement where they get along. To me that would be very good.”

‘We’re not friends’

Trump’s observation is as naïve as Putin’s original is cynical and ludicrous: “We're not friends with Ukraine, but there's always hope.” The Russian leader went on to accuse Ukraine that “Russia is sustaining losses from the lack of friendship with Ukraine…I have said time and again, I believe that we are the same people. I don’t know whether they [Ukrainians] like this or not, but if you look at the real situation, that is true … Many things do divide us, but we should not forget about the bonds that unite us. Also, we should avoid ruining what we have.”

Ukraine’s enemy, on the one hand, and its expected protector are on the same side of the fence. Both claim that there’s basically no problem that a handshake can’t fix.

In the United States, fortunately, not all elected or appointed officials toe the line of the current White House so there is hope for support for Ukraine in its war with Russia, which has lasted since 2014, when Moscow’s armies invaded and occupied Crimea and two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine. The war has claimed some 14,000 Ukrainian civilian and combatant lives. It has brought widespread destruction to the Donbas and Luhansk oblasts and relegated some three and a half million people to destitution.

Kay Bailey Hutchison, US permanent representative to NATO, who belongs on the side of backing Ukraine, has said: “We are calling on Russia to withdraw from the sovereign territory of Ukraine and to let the Ukrainian people come together and move forward as they have shown they want to do in freedom and democracy with the rule of law and human rights.”

Can Ukraine and the other former captive nations believe in the commitment of an American official when the commander in chief does not express the same degree of support for Ukraine, but rather gets the country and its elected officials embroiled in an election scandal and then rants about rampant corruption and graft?

No Willingness to Fulfill Commitments

US Acting Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Cherith Norman Chalet, like her predecessors, also chastises Russia’s refusal to cease the war and evacuate from Ukraine. Chalet accused Russia of continuing to arm, train, lead and fight alongside its proxy forces in Donbas, eastern Ukraine. “Unfortunately, Russia has not shown a […] willingness to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements. It continues to arm, train, lead, and fight alongside its proxy forces in eastern Ukraine. This stands in direct contravention of Russia's commitments under the Minsk agreements, including to establish an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire,” she said at a UN Security Council meeting in New York City on February 18.

Contrary to her boss in the White House, Chalet recognizes that Moscow has invaded Ukraine and calls on Russia “to immediately implement its security commitments under the Minsk agreements, as the parties can only move forward with the Minsk political measures when there is security on the ground. We also call on Russia to follow-through with the measures outlined at the recent Normandy Leaders’ Summit in Paris to immediately stabilize the situation in the conflict area, which includes the opening of new civilian crossing points, disengaging military forces in areas with the greatest humanitarian significance, and implementing ceasefire support measures,” she said.

Nonetheless, the gnawing question remains. Can Ukraine and the former captive nations, a fraternity that has had the dubious honor of knowing firsthand the extent of Russia’s deceit, strength and subjugation, believe that Washington will at least maintain today’s tepid level of support against Russian armed and political aggression?

Chalet and other government officials are still putting stock in the so-called Minsk accords, which truthfully have not contributed to an end of the war or at least a reduction in battlefield casualties. Ironically, it has given Russia a platform for blaming Ukraine and others for violating its tenets and prolonging the war. It has been notorious for presenting the victim of its aggression as a perpetrator.

And then along comes another set of suggestions thrust upon Ukraine. At this year’s Munich Security Conference, the participants composed 12 steps that they believe will lead to peace in Ukraine. Much like Trump and Putin, the document implies that Ukraine and Russia are caught up in a difference of opinions about their past, present and future. By creatively applying their collective minds, they believe that the two sides can reach a consensus about coexistence.

12 Points

“The conflict in and around Ukraine is a tragedy for all affected by the violence. It is a flashpoint for catastrophic miscalculation and is a continuing threat to security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. A political resolution is fundamental to ending the armed conflict in the Donbas region, to improving prospects for constructive Ukraine-Russia dialogue more broadly including on Crimea, and to improving Euro-Atlantic security. Action to help those in harm’s way and to establish a foundation that resolves the conflict must be taken now to address urgent security, humanitarian, economic, and political concerns. Such action also will help reduce tensions between Russia and the West and help build a sustainable architecture of mutual security in the Euro-Atlantic region, including enhanced cooperation on nuclear threat reduction,” the conference participants stated.

The international community’s fatal mistake about Ukraine is classifying an actual six-year hot war as a “conflict in and around Ukraine.” This tragically faulty characterization absolves Russia of shedding Ukrainian blood and other crimes against the Ukrainian nation. By lessening the image of the crime, no country is hastening to indict the criminal and compel a righteous ending. It’s like treating vehicular manslaughter like a parking violation.

Their other mistake lies in looking merely at the present war without acknowledging that it is a continuation of Moscow’s millennial-long insistence that Ukraine is a colony or oblast of Russia, it doesn’t deserve separate, independent existence and, if it breaks away, the Kremlin will strive to return it to its prison of nations.

As for “improving prospects for constructive Ukraine-Russia dialogue,” Moscow will have to undergo an in-depth examination of its conscience of the past 1,000 years and unreservedly admit its crimes and misdemeanors. Otherwise the West will be playing into the hands of the Kremlin, which claims until today that Ukraine is at fault and Russia’s armies aren’t on the Ukrainian side of the border.

Foreign Minister of Ukraine Vadym Prystaiko observed thusly about the 12 steps: “This is not the first plan that is being proposed to Ukraine to somehow address something that many suggest the Ukrainian government cannot, is incapable of, or doesn't see how... There are people who sincerely want to help and offer their plan, but there are those who fulfill a certain political order. If you choose between these two extremes, in my opinion, the proposed plan is somewhere in the middle, but closer to those who carry out a certain political order,” Prystaiko told a Svoboda Slova panel show on Ukraine’s ICTV channel on February 17.

He added: “Well, and finally, what grinds our gears is the last point suggesting that Ukraine launch a ‘new national dialogue’ about identity. Well, thank you very much, we will figure out ourselves whether we need to do this.”

Sanctions not enough

While world leaders hover over Ukraine, dropping suggestions on what it should or shouldn’t do to achieve regional peace, and institute sanctions against Russia that Moscow nonchalantly brushes off, they simultaneously engage in a wide range of discussions, meetings and conferences with Russia reinforcing the belief that basically it’s innocent. At the same time, Russia continues to bombard innocents in Syria and plots to subvert elections in the United States and other democracies, kill its citizens who have escaped its claws while the world silently tolerates this lawlessness.

At last week’s UN Security Council discussion on Ukraine, it was heartening to hear Ambassador Karen Pierce, permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the UN, reassert its support for Ukraine.

Pierce said: “The United Kingdom reiterates our firm support for those agreements and for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.” She also criticized the Russian ambassador saying his disapproval of others’ failures was “largely a falsehood, wrapped in a fiction inside a fairy tale,” alluding to Prime Minister Churchill’s well-known remark about a Russian riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. The British official said “rather than reigning in its proxies in the non-government controlled areas of eastern Ukraine, Russia has furnished them with arms and personnel. Russia claims to act only in the interests of those Ukrainians living in those areas, but does nothing to ensure the safe delivery of international humanitarian aid so desperately needed by many of the communities there. Madam President, Russia’s only objective in Ukraine is to undermine that country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. They want Moscow, rather than Ukrainians themselves, to define Ukraine’s future.”

These remarks are spot on but will London translate them into policies and then actions? Will the free world? Or will the global community behave like Matt Hooper observed in the 1975 movie Jaws: “I'm familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass!”

The West may not have to wait long for that bite. Since invading, occupying and annexing Crimea, Russia has turned the Ukrainian peninsula into a well-armed fortress and naval base, equipped with nuclear tipped missiles. The entire installation is a serious threat to the US Sixth Fleet, Europe and the United States. Don’t forget the tens of thousands of Russian troops and armor in eastern Ukraine.

The only hope for Ukraine and the other former captive nations is their own military and political strength and unity. This brotherhood of former Russian subjugated countries regularly raise the issue of the ongoing threat of Russian aggression by pointing to its war against Ukraine. They repeat the warning issued by post-World War II freedom leaders, who said that the free world shouldn’t trust Moscow.

The Lithuanian foreign minister said last week that Russia continues to violate the Minsk agreements and the recent intensification of violence in eastern Ukraine shows Moscow isn’t willing to implement a ceasefire.

X-Captive Nations Alliance

“They are testing their force again to look at what the reaction will be,” Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Linkevičius. “And although [Russia] says it’s not them, but the separatists [and] everyone [else] is perfectly aware that these are the forces that [Russia] trains, funds and supports.”

The Permanent Representative of Estonia, Ambassador Sven Jürgenson, was quoted as saying:

“After six years of the beginning of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, we regret that Russia has not acknowledged and reversed her actions. Estonia reconfirms its strong support to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including territorial waters. We condemn the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol.

“Therefore we call on Russia, as a party to the conflict, to fully implement the commitments of the Minsk Agreements, including those undertaken at the Normandy Four Summit in Paris on the 9th of December. We also call on Russia to immediately withdraw its armed forces from Ukraine and stop its political, financial and military support to the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk that is, Russia’s proxies in Donbas.”

Ambassador Andrejs Pildegovičs, permanent representative of Latvia to the UN, noted “Similarly, Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian Crimea, and its covert and overt actions in Eastern Ukraine violate the UN Charter`s fundamental principle of territorial integrity. Latvia welcomes the commitment reached in Normandy Summit to stabilize the situation in Russia-Ukraine conflict area as well as recent exchange of detainees. In this regard, we call on Russia to implement in full Minsk agreement and to restore Ukraine`s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Ambassador Audra Plepytė, permanent representative of Lithuania to the UN, observed: “Violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia has entered into its 12th year. For almost six years now we witness ongoing occupation and annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and its military actions in eastern Ukraine. These blatant and systemic breaches of the Charter of the United Nations constitute a threat to international peace, security and stability. A strong supporter of the principles enshrined in the Charter, Lithuania will continue to advocate for the accountability for violation of the international law, including the illegal use of force in international relations.”

In a separate statement on the occupation of Crimea, the Lithuanian Foreign Ministry noted: “On the sixth anniversary of the illegal occupation of Crimea, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Lithuania condemns the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which has begun in Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea and spread to eastern Ukraine. Russia’s illegal actions violate the international law, the Charter of the United Nations, the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act and the Budapest Memorandum, as well as bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Russia.”

X-Captive Nations’ mini NATO

Consequently, due to inconsistent support from the free world, its twisted policies and paranoid behavior, this quartet of former captive nations is left to its own devices to preserve their freedom. As the CIA accused Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists leader Stepan Bandera of doing, they are justified to go rogue. With Russia continuing to rattle its sabers, a purely ideological bloc among Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and hopefully others will not be enough to contain Russian belligerence and expansion. That has been the playbook until now.

These four countries must form a regional military-political bloc along the lines of a mini-NATO and modernize their armed forces to ensure their independence, sovereignty and security in the face of the great void that exists today. It will certainly irk Moscow and it may displease Washington, but for the sake of their future, they have no other choice.

In memory of the Heavenly Hundred on the occasion of the 6^th anniversary of their murder on Maidan by Russian agents during the Revolution of Dignity, I invite you to read my review of 02/27/16 about 2015 documentary Winter on Fire: https://thetorncurtain1991.blogspot.com/2016_02_21_archive.html

Moscow’s Anti-Ukrainian Hatred Targets Kids’ TV Program

It’s hard to imagine for us in the free world that the cancelation of a children’s television program could signal a deep, sinister, pathological hatred of a people. But when you consider Russian policies regarding Ukraine for more than a millennia, then you comprehend it quite clearly.

We of my generation – baby boomers – in the American diaspora did not grow up with the affable television personality Did Panas (Grandfather Panas). His career was yet another striking example of Russia’s wide-ranging, never ending efforts to destroy everything Ukrainian. And if Moscow couldn’t do it with a bullet, it would devise other methods of burying Ukrainians.

This example also shows the age-old degree of Ukrainian national awareness that is most threatening to Russia because it reemerges like the proverbial phoenix. The annals of Ukrainian independence are not only filled with battlefield freedom fighters and human rights dissidents, but also Captain Kangaroo type characters who entertain and enlighten children.

Did Panas, dressed in a Ukrainian embroidered shirt, narrated a 15-minute Ukrainian-language goodnight children’s program at a time when it was frowned upon to speak Ukrainian in public. For 24 seasons, from 1964-1988, he told Ukrainian folk stories to kids who were glued to their TV sets, listening, learning and laughing at his tales. To borrow from Mykola Mikhnovsky, the late 19^th century Ukrainian national ideologue, his program was highly popular from the Karpaty to the Kavkaz. Consequently, Did Panas and his program were targeted for cancelation by the Kremlin junta. Speaking Ukrainian to children who would then speak Ukrainian to their classmates and so on and so forth was deemed a surreptitious way of fostering Ukrainian nationalism.

A Jew by heritage who was born Pinchus Chayimovych Veskler, Did Panas stubbornly refused to learn to speak Russian, feigning intellectual inability to master the language.

Despite pulling the plug on the show several times, nationwide clamor by Ukrainian viewers forced the programmers to bring it back. But Moscow can’t be beaten when it sets its mind to a mission regardless of how diabolical.

Its technicians in the audio editing room inserted a vulgarity into his parting lines and it went on the air. Did Panas was accused of corrupting the morals of minors and his Ukrainian-language program immediately cut to black.

Moscow won that round, but, fortunately, it ultimately lost the match.

Sentsov in NYC: Opposition to Russia

Continues due to Putin’s Aggression

Former Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov addresses Ukrainian Americans in New York City.

Despite torrential rain last Saturday, several hundred Ukrainian Americans filled the hall in the Ukrainian National Home in New York City to hear a former Ukrainian political prisoner divert the free world’s attention from fake Ukrainian-leading topics to real issues pertaining to Ukraine — how to persevere and survive in the face of Russia’s unrelenting war.

Oleg Sentsov, a 43-year-old cinematographer from today’s Russian-occupied Crimea, was released on September 7, 2019, after spending some five years in the still active polar network of infamous Russian concentration camps for opposing Vladimir Putin’s aggression against his homeland.

The soft-spoken but still fiercely dogged Ukrainian patriot, Sentsov told the supportive audience at the assembly that was organized by the contemporary Ukrainian NGO Razom that Putin’s imperial policies compel Ukrainians to continue their opposition.

With Ukraine continuously dragged into hopeless Minsk negotiations about returning peace to Ukraine and the region, Sentsov pointed out their broad unreliability, emphasizing that nothing positive for Ukraine will be forthcoming. The reason is Putin’s dishonesty and belligerent intentions, he said.

Ukraine and its allies cannot negotiate in good faith with Putin’s Russia because the achievement of peace is impossible, Sentsov elaborated in halting Ukrainian. He clearly accentuated that peace is not Putin’s goal but rather he intends to destroy Ukrainian independence and return Ukraine to its previous colonial existence in Russia’s prison of nations.

Ukraine cannot give in to Russia so our opposition continues, he emphasized.

Sentsov was sentenced on August 25, 2015, to 20 years imprisonment on trumped up charges of setting up a branch of a “terrorist group” and organizing “terrorist acts” in April 2014. In reality, his crime in the eyes of Moscow was to fervently oppose Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and its persecution of Crimean Tatars and others. His conviction in a military court in Russia followed a grossly unfair trial, on politically-motivated charges, and was based on “confessions” obtained through torture. During his arrest by the Russian State Security (FSB), he was tortured by FSB by putting a plastic bag over his head until he passed out. They also threatened him with rape and murder, which forced Sentsov to “confess” to organizing explosions, acts of terrorism, and illegal possession of firearms.

He became the subject of a global defense campaign and earned the support of Amnesty International and PEN. On May 14, 2018, Sentsov declared an indefinite hunger strike until all Ukrainian political prisoners were released in Russia. Sentsov ended his hunger strike after 145 days, citing the “critical state of his health” and the impending threat of hospitalization and force-feeding. He lost more than 30 kg. Two weeks later, on October 25, 2018, Sentsov was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought from the European Parliament.

Sentsov was ultimately freed last year and flown along with 34 other freed prisoners to Kyiv on Sept. 7. Some 300 remain in Russian prisons, he reminded the crowd.

In his first appearance in Lviv, Sentsov was quoted by The New York Times as calling Putin’s mission to make Russia great again by embracing the corpse of Soviet power “political necrophilia.” He also said at the time “By blood and language, I am totally Russian. By birth, I am Crimean. But by spirit, I am Ukrainian. That is the most important.”

At yesterday’s rally, Sentsov said the Revolution of Dignity on Maidan was an epiphany for many Ukrainians who took to heart massive national insurrection’s historical importance. Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine showed Russia’s true face, he said. Consequently, he and millions of others in Ukraine understood that they were Ukrainians.

He recalled that on Maidan the fighters comprehended that they were fighting for Ukraine under the Ukrainian flag for the future of their country.

The emotions and passions that gelled as a result of Maidan led Sentsov to believe that Russia will never defeat Ukraine. This is our country and we have to fight for it, he said.

Despite current critical opinions about President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sentsov noted that he doesn’t enjoy the favor of the Russian president. Putin, he said, would rather see as president of Ukraine someone like Viktor Medvechuk, a known supporter of the Russian leader’s policies.

The Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-2020 is taking its toll on the nation, as Sentsov pointed out that the costly battle is getting deadlier. The price for safeguarding Ukrainian independence and freedom is steep. He said some 14,000 Ukrainians have paid the price with their lives for defending their country.

However, returning to his earlier affirmation, Sentsov pointed out that the free world, NATO, the European Union and the United States will never really get involved in this battle. They don’t want to help. So, Ukrainians are left to help themselves, echoing the mantra of Irish revolutionaries and freedom fighters “sinn fein.”

As for the mission beyond the borders of Ukraine, he urged Ukrainians to continue what they’re doing for their families and Ukraine to prevail against Russian aggression, he urged.

Останній антикомуніст

Беручи до уваги поведінку сьогоднішнього Президента США Дональда Трампа відносно диктатора Росії Путіна, дозвольте мені запросити Вас прочитати мою статтю про останнього дійсного антикомуністичного американського президента Республіканської Партії Рональда Рейгена, який віддійшов у вічність у 2004 р. Ця стаття появилася в тому році у діяспорій газеті «Національній Трибуні».

5-го червня 2004 р., на 93-му році життя після десятилітньої хвороби, відійшов у вічність останній правдивий, щирий антикомуніст. Покійний Рональд Рейген, 40-ий Президент Сполучених Штатів Америки, який ніколи не пережив на власному досвіді лихоліття комуністичного тоталітаризму, цілим серцем і цілою душею вірив, що не було і не може бути нічого гіршого в історії людства, ніж комунізм і все, що він спотворив, а саме - Комуністична партія, Союз Радянських Соціалістичних Республік (читай - московська імперія) – та всі його провідники, прихильники та вислужники.

Це переконання, яке мало свою міцну підставу в його родинному, морально-релігійному вихованні, перепліталося з його цілим життєвим шляхом. Проте, здобувши посаду Президента США, Рональд Рейген точно зрозумів, що він може видвигати свою антикомуністичну політику кожного дня, добре знаючи, що аудиторія, ні прихильна, ні ворожа, не зможе вирвати від нього його визвольну платформу.

Будучи завжди людиною лагідного та жартівливого настрою, Рональд Рейген часто пояснював своїм політичним співпрацівникам, прихильникам та друзям, що не існує легкої відповіді на будь-яке запитання, є лише проста відповідь, яку необхідно знайти для успішнього вирішення будь-якого питання. Ось приклад. Члени його президентської адміністрації та політичні дорадники знали про його ненависть до комунізму і до всього, що зв”язане з ним. Вони навіть підтримували його в цьому. Але вони намагалися йому пояснити, що його Адміністрація потребує суттєву стратегію, за допомогою якої він зможе здобути прихильників і здійснити свій намір знищити комунізм.

Не схвильовано, а точніше - в притаманному йому лагідному способі, Рональд Рейген заспокоював своїх друзів, запевняючи їх, що в нього є стратегія, і вона проста: „Ми виграємо, вони програють, і то все”!

Рональд Рейген, американський патріот ірландського походження,  в молодості займався легкою атлетикою та плаванням, потім був радіо-журналістом, а згодом - кіноактором, що принесло йому найбільшу славу, перш, ніж він вирушив на політичний шлях. Покинувши Демократичну партію і ставши членом Республіканської партії, Рональд Рейген успішно кандидував на посаду губернатора штату Каліфорнії. Він двічі зазнав поразки в спробі стати Президентом США, але в 1980 р. світ побачив Рональда Рейгена господарем Білого Дому у Вашінгтоні.

Залізний ідеаліст, Рональд Рейген вміло поєднував свій ідеалізм зі своїм простим, не науково-філософським підходом до життя. Під кінець свого терміну в Білому Домі, в 1987 р., на запитання, як можна розпізнати комуніста, він слушно пояснив: „Комуніст, це той, хто читає Маркса і Леніна. Але, антикомуніст, це той, хто розуміє Маркса і Леніна”.

Після його повернення до приватного життя, а особливо - після його смерті, політологи та навіть звичайні люди, аналізуючи його політику, застановлятимуться, чи Рональд Рейген дійсно сам, як легендарний каменяр, розвалив Радянську імперію і визволив поневолені Москвою народи СРСР та Східної Європи, включно з українським. Неважливо, чи історія присудить Рональду Рейгену цю золоту сану чи ні. Важливіше, що знайшлася відповідна постать, на відповідній посаді, в відповідному часі, яка своїми настирливими, проникливо гострими антикомуністичними заявами, висловленими з амбони Білого Дому, почала розхитувати цю неморальну імперію та ідеологію, на якій вона була побудована.

Одночасно, треба зрозуміти, що його антикомуністичні почуття не були базовані лише на негативних пристрастях проти однієї ідеології. Рональд Рейген вірив у верховенство людини, в свободу людини, суспільства і народу, в якому вона живе. Виступаючи перед студентами американського університету Нотр-Дам в 1981 р., Рональд Рейген сказав, що наступні роки будуть славними і важливми для Америки, з огляду питання свободи та поширення цивілізації.  „Захід не обмежить комунізм, він його перевершить. Ми не старатимемося засудити його, а точніше - ми відкинено його, як сумний, звивехнений розділ людської історії, останні сторінки якої пишуться саме зараз”.

А студентам Московського Державного Університету в 1981 р. він так пояснив своє бачення свободи: „Свобода – це право пояснювати і змінювати прийнятий спосіб поведінки. Це – тривала революція ринку. Це – розуміння як впізнавати недоліки і шукати розв”язку”.

Виступаючи в Бритійському Парляменті, Рональд Рейген не знімив свою просту думку про свободу людини та народу: „Саме Радянський Союз – це течія, яка пливе проти історії. Марш свободи і демократії залишить марксизм і ленінізм на смітнику історії так, як вона залишила інших тиранів, які приголмшували свободу і накладали намордники на самовиявлення народу.”

І так 40-ий Президент США виповів війну комунізмові та Радянському Союзу. Але це не була кривава війна на жорстокому полі бою, вкритому трупами молодих вояків, а морально-духовна війна ідей, ідеологій, добра проти зла. Рональд Рейген навіки охрестив колишній СРСР імперією зла. Промовляючи на зібранні Національної Асоціації Євангелистів в Америці в березні 1983 р., Президент Рейген сказав: „Будьмо обережні, коли ми чуємо, що радянські керівники проповідують верховенство держави, заявляють про її перевагу над людиною і передбачують її панування над всіма народами світу. Насправді вони – приціл зла в модерному світі. Я звертаюся до вас з проханням: будьте обережні, не спокусіться! Ігнорувати історичні факти та агресивні наміри імперії зла, просто називаючи збройні перегони великим непорозумінням, виключає вас із боротьби добра проти зла”.

Навіть коли він намагався домовитися з Президентом СРСР Міхаїлом Горбачовим про скорочення ядерної зброї, Рональд Рейген бачив, що сама відсутність такої зброї масового винищування не принесе довгоочікувану свободу, незалежність та демократію поневоленим народам та мир людству. Під час нарад в Женеві Рональд Рейген мужньо заявив М. Горбачову: „Дозвольте мені сказати вам, чому ми вам не довіряємо”. Стоячи біля Берлінської Стіни, в 1987 р. він проголосив виклик намісникові Леніна і Сталіна: „Якщо ви шукаєте мир і добробут для Радянського Союзу і Східної Європи, підійдіть до цієї брами. Пане Горбачов, відкрийте цю браму. Пане Горбачов, розваліть цю стіну!”

В очах української діаспори в Америці, Рональд Рейген, як найважливіша політична фігура не тільки в США, а в цілому світі, начебто рівнявся з св. Юрієм - Переможцем, який боровся проти хижого змія. До нього були декілька президентів, які, залежно від часу та політичних пристрастей, по-різному відносилися до СРСР і поневолення України та інших народів Східної Європи. Тоді, коли відносини між Вашінгтоном і Москвою були кращі, вони відкрито не таврували московську імперію, хоча вони були зобов”язані підтримувати прагнення до незалежності тих народів у щорічній президентській проклямації відзначення Тижня Поневолених Народів, яке припадало в липні. Рональд Рейген постійно однаково відносився до комунізму та СРСР.

Відзначення Тижня Поневолених Народів було постійною гострою голкою в середині імперіалістичного ока Москви, і її генсеки часто домагалися від американських державних провідників усунення цього, на їхню думку, непотрібного закону. На щастя, ніхто з Президентів не відважився цього зробити.

Правдоподібно, проклямації підписані Президентом Рейгеном та його вступні заяви, були найзмістовніші з всіх подібних заяв від 1960 р., коли цей обряд був закарбований в законі. І чому ж би ні? Він краще всіх чітко розумів комунізм, московську імперію та історичне прагнення до незалежности українського та інших поневолених народу.

На відзначені Тижня Поневолених Народів, яке відбулося в Білому Домі, 19-го липня 1983 р., у присутності Достойного Ярослава Стецька, голови Українського Державного Правління і голови Проводу Організації Українських Націоналістів, Президент Рейген висловив свою найяскравішу особисту і державну підтримку поневоленим народам, сказвши: „Сьогодні ми розмовляємо з усіма народами Східної Європи, які є відокремлені від своїх рідних і близьких огидною залізною завісою. І кожній людині, яка є скута тиранією, чи то в Україні, Угорщині, Чехословачинні, Кубі чи В”єтнамі, ми надсилаємо вам нашу любов, нашу підтримку і запевняємо вас, що ви – не самі. Наше сповіщання вам є, що ваша боротьба є нашою боротьбою, ваші мрії є нашими мріями, колись ви також будете вільними! Так, як Папа Павло Іван сказав своїм улюбленим полякам, ми – благословенні божественною спадщиною. Ми – Божі діти, і ми не можемо бути рабами”!

Вісім років минуло, поки слова Рональда Рейгена стали дійсністю. Радянський Союз розвалився, і український народ став вільним, незалежним.

Президент Рейген також виявляв свою дотепність, навіть відносно таких серйозних питань, як його віра в перемогу над комунізмом і розвал Радянського Союзу. Одного дня в 1984 р. Президент Рейген мав необережність перевірити мікрофони перед його радіовиступом такою заявою: „Мої співвітчизники, американці. Я радий повідомити вас, що я підписав закон, який унезаконив Росію навіки. Бомбардування розпочнеться протягом п”яти хвилин”.

Дав би Бог, щоб в пам”ять останнього антикомуніста, імперія зла навіки була унезаконнена, і людству не буде потрібен черговий антикомуніст.

Celebrating Ukrainian Soldiers’ Skills & Spirit

Today’s Ukrainian solider is accumulating unique battlefield experience that should make him and her the envy of any country’s armed forces. It should also make their skills a desirable commodity for American and NATO armies.

Ukrainian soldiers are the only ones in history to have learned on the battlefield not classroom how to engage invading Russian troops in battle and succeed.

For five years, Ukrainian soldiers have been fighting against the biggest war machine in history. Russia invaded eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in the spring of 2014 and in the first days of the war a ragtag Ukrainian army confronted a well-financed, trained and equipped Russian military corps of murderers.

In time and patiently, former President Petro Poroshenko, Minister of Defense Gen. Stepan Poltorak and the field commanders built a mighty, well-trained, well-armed and dedicated army of fighting men and women. Yes, they suffered combat losses but they also managed to stop the Russian invaders and their secessionist lackeys from advancing beyond the eastern oblasts. Today, they deserve complete victory against Russia; they should be given the opportunity to expel Russian invaders back to Russia – not an endless, deadly truce.

It has been observed that Ukrainians are very good soldiers and even those who served in the Soviet Army were very good soldiers. I heard this observation enough times not to overlook it. Why were they thought of as very good soldiers even in the Soviet Army?

I turned to a friend in Ukraine for an explanation. He hails from a typical Ukrainian village in the Ternopil region, a veteran, an airborne officer of the rank of colonel who completed the USSR’s top airborne school in Ryazan – Ryazan Guards Higher Airborne Command School.

“As for the Soviet Army, I will say the following: from my own experience, almost half of the students of the military schools were from Ukraine (then still part of the USSR). They studied well, and then served appropriately well. And not only the junior officers but also those in the highest ranks. Personally, I reached the rank of commander of battalion headquarters – 420 personnel, plus 66 officers, NCOs with more than 30 amphibious infantry fighting vehicles. The reason why it was like that was quite simple. A Ukrainian, by nature, and according to a warrior's genes, fought his whole life and history. He wasn’t a stupid soldier. We did not crawl out of Muscovite swamps. This is to say that a real Muscovite is a moron and a predator. Yes, throughout their lives, from the Middle Ages and perhaps earlier, they liquidated the intelligent and smart, because it is easier to control halfwits. They managed to destroy the officer elite after the October revolution, civil war and red terror. Those who managed, escaped to diaspora, that the educated ones, officers, were quietly destroyed the Cheka, as our Petliura, Konovalets, Bandera, Rebet, and many others.”

Hopefully, the President Zelensky, Defense Minister Poltorak and Chief of Staff Gen. Ruslan Khomchak – as well as US and NATO allies – will give Ukrainian soldiers the moral and materiel support to expel Russian invaders from Donbas and Crimea.

With ‘Glory to Ukraine,’ President Zelensky Alludes to 2 US Presidents

The sixth President of independent Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, with the bulava – Ukraine’s symbol of presidential authority securely in his fist – didn’t shun the heroic “Glory to Ukraine” as he summoned the nation to do its utmost so that the words of the message are heard around the world and not just in Ukraine.

Calling on Ukrainians from east to west to join him in making it a better Ukraine, Zelensky in his inaugural today cited two American presidents without referring to them by name: John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

“Now, imagine the headlines: ‘The President Does Not Pay Taxes,’ ‘The Intoxicated President Ran the Red Light’ or ‘The President Is Quietly Stealing Because Everyone Does.’ Would you agree that it’s shameful? This is what I mean when I say that each of us is the President. From now on, each of us is responsible for the country that we leave to our children. Each of us, in his place, can do everything for the prosperity of Ukraine,” Zelensky said in a speech that began in Ukrainian and concluded in Russian.

Pointing out the commonality of today’s Ukrainian national mission, Zelensky harkened back to Kennedy’s famous inaugural remark that still rings true today: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Toward the end of his speech, Zelensky also said “Allow me to quote one American actor who has become a great American president: ‘The government does not solve our problems. The government is our problem.’” Though slightly different from Ronald Reagan’s inaugural observation that “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” the message is well taken.

Zelensky’s version of national cohesion also applies to the defenders of the nation. He observed: “I know that from the soldiers who are now defending Ukraine, our heroes, some of whom are Ukrainian-speakers, while others — Russian-speakers. There, in the frontline, there is no strife and discord, there is only courage and honor.” Indeed, Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, Christians and non-Christians, adults and students, and men and women defended Ukraine in the Revolution of Dignity.

In a quirky appeal to the nation, Zelensky told all Ukrainians that each one of them is president and shares the responsibility for the future of the country and nation. “Because each of us is the President. Not just the 73% who voted for me, but all 100% of Ukrainians. This is not just mine, this is our common victory. And this is our common chance that we are responsible for together. It hasn’t been only me who has just taken the oath. Each of us has just put his hand on the Constitution and swore allegiance to Ukraine.”

That statement alone should remind Ukrainians today and tomorrow to stop squawking when things go wrong but get up and do something about it. The buck doesn’t stop in the President’s Office.

He emphasized inclusivity of the country and equality of all regions that will help the nation overcome current and future adversity. “Because each of us is a Ukrainian. We are all Ukrainians: there are no bigger or lesser, or correct or incorrect Ukrainians. From Uzhhorod to Luhansk, from Chernihiv to Simferopol, in Lviv, Kharkiv, Donetsk, Dnipro and Odesa — we are Ukrainians. And we have to be one.  After all, only then we are strong.”

Turning to Ukrainians scattered to the four corners of the world, he beseeched them to return to their homeland and work for its betterment, while offering all of them Ukrainian citizenship. “Today I appeal to all Ukrainians in the world. There are 65 millions of us. Yes, don’t be surprised: there are 65 million of us — those born on the Ukrainian soil. Ukrainians in Europe and Asia, in North and South America, Australia and Africa — I appeal to all Ukrainians on the planet.

“We really need you. To all who are ready to build a new, strong and successful Ukraine, I will gladly grant Ukrainian citizenship. You must come to Ukraine not to visit, but to return home. We are waiting for you. There is no need to bring souvenirs from abroad, but please, bring your knowledge, experience and values.”

Quite dramatically, he said that being a Ukrainian is not a line in a passport but it’s a feeling and belief in the heart. This concept has served as the foundation of all Ukrainians, those in the diaspora and in the native land since, since the earliest days of Ukraine’s subjugation.

Zelensky expressed hope about ending the war with Russia but, obviously he didn’t say how he would accomplish that goal that has eluded not only his predecessor but also other world leaders for five years due to Moscow’s ongoing belligerence.

“But we also share a common pain. Each of us has died in the Donbas,” he said.

Zelensky praised the heroic soldiers defending the country against foreign aggressors, noting that he is ready to do everything in his power to bring a ceasefire to Donbas.

“History is unfair. We are not the ones who have started this war. But we are the ones who have to finish it. And we are ready for dialogue. I believe that the perfect first step in this dialogue will be the return of all Ukrainian prisoners,” Zelensky said. The new President of Ukraine must be made to understand that any form of dialogue cannot mean surrendering one hectare of land or one POW to Russia.

However, he said he is aware that the end of the war cannot happen without returning occupied regions of Ukraine.

“Our next challenge is returning the lost territories. In all honesty, this wording does not seem entirely correct to me because it is impossible to return what has always been ours. Both Crimea and Donbas have been our Ukrainian land, but the land where we have lost the most important thing — the people,” he said.

Zelensky committed himself to improving the livelihood of Ukrainian soldiers which includes decent, and most importantly, secure salaries, living conditions, vacation leaves after the combat missions and family holidays. “We must not just talk about NATO standards — we must create those standards,” he declared, implying that he hasn’t rejected the Atlantic alliance.

Turning to Ukraine’s internal problems, Zelensky listed dealing with shocking utility tariffs, humiliating wages and pensions, painful prices and non-existent jobs. “There is also the health care that is seen as improving mostly by those who have never been to a regular hospital with their child. And then, there are also the mythical Ukrainian roads that are being built and repaired only in someone’s prolific imagination,” he said.

Shunning an actor’s fondness for publicity, in his inaugural address he demonstrated modesty by imploring the people not to display the president’s photograph. “This is why I really do not want my pictures in your offices, for the President is not an icon, an idol or a portrait. Hang your kids’ photos instead, and look at them each time you are making a decision,” he said.

Zelensky stated he is disbanding the Verkhovna Rada, but gave the parliamentarians a two-month reprieve to approve the following:

1. The law on removing parliamentary immunity.

2. The law establishing criminal liability for illegal enrichment.

3. The long-awaited Electoral Code and open-lists.

Also, please dismiss:

1. Head of the Security Service of Ukraine.

2. Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

3. Minister of Defense of Ukraine.

I wasn’t a fan of Zelensky during the presidential campaign but his inaugural address is better than expected. He still has a lot to learn but actors, after all, are trained to read a script.