Two Kyiv Appeals to Free World You may Have Overlooked

Amid global distractions from critical issues pertaining to Ukrainian survival, two Kyiv government departments issued stark reminders to the world that Ukraine continues to face every day deadly threats at the hands of Russia.

The Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada – its parliament that is dominated by President Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party – adopted on April 30 a resolution addressed to legislative bodies around the world jogging their memories about Russia’s six-year war against Ukraine – Europe’s first major war in decades. Three hundred and nine legislators voted for the statement which also asked the international community to condemn Russian aggression, according to parliamentary documents and media reports.

“The Verkhovna Rada calls on the parliaments of foreign states and parliamentary assemblies of international organizations to condemn the actions of the Russian Federation against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, as such that contradict the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, to increase political, diplomatic and sanction pressure on the state-occupant  until the complete cessation of armed aggression and the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized national borders,” reads the document.

In addition, the resolution formally called “On the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the parliaments of foreign states and parliamentary assemblies of international organizations to condemn the continued armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the illegal annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and the occupation of certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, political repressions of citizens of Ukraine and release of political prisoners – citizens of Ukraine” (No.3068), called on world parliaments to maintain non-recognition of Russia’s armed annexation of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and to condemn the Russian occupiers’ violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the temporarily occupied territories.

The Verkhovna Rada urged parliaments and parliamentary assemblies to use all possible international political-diplomatic and sanction mechanisms to force Russia to immediately release all persons captured during the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine, as well as all other Ukrainian citizens illegally detained by Moscow in the temporarily occupied territories of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Sevastopol, certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and in the Russia.

Addressing the Kremlin, Ukrainian parliamentarians demanded that Russia refrain from aggressive actions in the Black Sea region, blocking commercial navigation in some areas in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov under a pretext of military exercises, blocking Ukrainian ports using hybrid methods, and to follow all norms and provisions of international maritime law.

The lawmakers insisted that Russia lift the ban on the activities of the Mejlis (the executive-representative body) of the Crimean Tatar People, and provide access to education in Ukrainian, and condemned Russian persecution of individuals for expressing their views, opinions, conscience and religion, participate in peaceful meetings, associations, and demand the free development of traditions and cultural identity in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.

Furthermore they demanded that Russia stop the deportation of civilians in the temporarily occupied Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as movement of Russian citizens to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine, which leads to a change in the demographic composition of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.

The Verkhovna Rada also called on foreign legislatures to condemn the illegal construction by Russia of a bridge across the Kerch Strait and calls on it to provide full access for international human rights organizations to the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine to monitor human rights.

None of the issues raised in this resolution are new to Ukrainian watchers so their reiteration by lawmaking bodies such as the US Congress would not only be morally justified but also a resounding sign of solidarity with Ukraine in its time of need. It would also be a hot poker in Russia’s eye.

Odesa Battle

The second matter pertains to a Russian-instigated insurrection in the southern Ukrainian city of Odesa on May 2, 2014, in the first months of Moscow’s war against Ukraine, after Crimea was seized and battles began raging in Donbas. A Ukrainian loss in Odesa then could have constituted the opening of another deadly front for Russia’s invading armies.

Despite Russian propaganda that blamed the incident and bloodshed on Ukrainian activists and halfhearted official interest in the uprising, according to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1588256904), a Council of Europe’s International Advisory Panel confirmed that the riot arose after a group of pro-Russian anti-Maidan activists from the recently formed (and seemingly Russian-funded) Odesskaya Druzhyna attacked a peaceful march for Ukrainian unity. The violence escalated, with weapons and firearms used by both sides, and spun out of control particularly after news of the first death – that of Ihor Ivanov, a Maidan activist.  Six people were killed, four of them anti-Maidan activists.

Pro-unity activists then moved to Kulikovo Pole Square with the intention to destroy an anti-Maidan tent camp, where they were shot at by pro-Russian activists from inside and on the roof of the Trade Unions building.

Evidence is still being collected that is building a strong case against perpetrators from the pro-Russian, anti-Maidan cabal. It is also not presenting local officials in a favorable pro-Ukrainian light.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday, May 3, expressed its warranted sympathy for the deceased while condemning Russia for provoking the bloody skirmish on Ukrainian territory. The Ministry said:

“On this sorrowful day, when we mark six years since the tragic events in Odesa, the MFA of Ukraine deplores the hypocrisy of the Russian propaganda that continues exploiting this tragedy to incite hostility and hatred.

“The events in Odesa on May 2, 2014, became another element in a chain of provocations that the Russian Federation resorted to in pursuit of its failed project of ‘Novorossiya,’ aimed at destabilizing Ukraine’s East and South as well as disintegrating Ukraine. 

“Extremist forces in Odesa followed the same scenario masterminded earlier by Russia in Donbas – they proclaimed a fake ‘people’s republic,’ initiated violent riots with the use of arms and support by militants from outside, intimidated local activists, tried to paralyze local authorities and security forces.       

“The 2nd of May had to become a decisive day for the implementation of these plans. The attack of armed extremists under Russian flags against a peaceful rally supporting the unity of Ukraine triggered further events and led to first casualties. It speaks volumes that in its statements on the matter, the Russian side has never mentioned bloody events in the city center, which preceded the fire in the Trade Unions House. Russia has also been silent about the established facts of ignitions inside the Trade Unions House, as well as about pro-unity activists rescuing people trapped in the burning Trade Unions House.  

“Ukrainian law enforcement agencies do their best to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. As a result of criminal investigations of the events in Odesa on May 2, 2014, 37 charging documents were filed with the court. Three individuals were convicted. The State Investigations Bureau carries out a separate pre-trial investigation under criminal proceedings on a suspected involvement of Russian secret services in the organization of violent riots in Odesa.   

“Russia seems to be the only party not interested in establishing the true picture of tragic events in Odesa or the causes of the tragedy. Not only did Moscow cover up Dmytro Fuchedzhy, former deputy chief of the Head Office of the Ministry of Interior in Odesa region and one of the main suspects of the investigation, but reportedly granted him Russian citizenship and refused Ukraine's bid for his extradition under this pretext.”

“Moreover, during the negotiations on the mutual release of detained persons in September-December 2019, Russia insisted that Ukraine hand over at least nine individuals, who were direct or indirect organizers and participants of the violent riots in Odesa under Russian flags.

“We call on the international community to intensify common efforts to counter Russian propaganda and disinformation, which are significant elements of the Russian aggression and destabilizing activities against Ukraine and other democratic states.”

While fortunately Odesa was rescued and pro-Russian extremists repelled, the war goes on. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Dmytro Kuleba has rejected the possibility of direct dialogue with pro-Russian militants in occupied Donbas promoted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Normandy format ministerial video conference. The Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine continues to uncover more and more evidence of the Russian military presence in Ukraine.

Ukrainian soldiers are singlehandedly fighting and shedding their blood in defense of Ukraine and the nation as well as in a larger picture Europe all the way to the Atlantic. The free world must take notice of this or be prepared to summon Ukrainian servicemen and women to save it from Russian aggression.

Rising Tide for x-Captive Nations Own Security Bloc

One of the most vital contemporary security issues is the ongoing hostile global threat posed by Russia and its six-year war against Ukraine.

While most of the free world displays varying degrees of interest and support for Ukraine, the countries of Eastern Europe, the former captive nations of the Russian prison nations, maintain a unified position about the individual and collective danger of living on the border with Russia. They understand that by reason of geography and Russia’s insatiable imperial appetite they are in daily jeopardy.

Furthermore, these countries’ leaders use every occasion to tell the world that the fate that has befallen Ukraine awaits other countries across Eastern Europe and beyond. The x-captive nations urge the West to stand up to Russia over its invasion of Ukraine or else Europe could descend into a major war for the first time since the end of World War II in May 1945.

There is no specific evidence that Russia is moving its armed divisions up to the borders with the captive nations even though the lack of movement is really no relief because, for example, its invasion and occupation of Crimea in 2014 was not surreptitious. Furthermore, bullets and bayonets are not the only weapons in Russia’s arsenal. Moscow also takes advantage of psychological warfare, propaganda and cyberattacks in spreading its tentacles around the world.

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine vividly imprinted in the minds of the former captive nations, they recognize that the main security challenges of the region are related to the increasing military capabilities of the Russia and various military provocations, as detailed in an annual report by Latvian Foreign Affairs Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs about accomplishments and planned activities in its foreign policy and European affairs in 2019.

Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Linas Antanas Linkevičius, an outspoken critic of Russia, observed “It’s not just that we hear about threats but we testify them because they are real, they are not a big secret. Let’s remember the case of annexing the territory of Georgia, and recently they did so with the Crimea. We are asking ourselves how we can really resist it.

“If you are asking whether or not Russia is threatening our region, this is a different case. Lithuania is a member of NATO and the European Union, so there is no direct threat. However, there are insecurities in the region, and militaristic arguments are used in political debates. This is worrying and we have to understand it as a challenge and react.”

Linkevičius has pointed out that Russia’s threat, or hybrid war as he and others call it, is not only felt in his country but also everywhere around the world.

“It is not only present in the Eastern parts of Europe but also in the West. Inevitable are strategies used in war such as apply energy as a weapon, strategic communication, propaganda, cyberattacks. I think we should really take care of the threats and know how to resist them through best practices. We need to work closely so we cannot underestimate this threat,” he said.

Following a meeting in Russia about the status of temporarily occupied Crimea, Linkevičius had pointed out the comprehensive regional danger of Russia’s activities: “We can call them (Russia’s actions) as certain hybrid threats directed against us in the areas of energy and propaganda.”

Linkevičius correctly noted that Russia’s goal is to create the impression that the current state of regional and global affairs that demonstrate its stranglehold is in fact the “new normal” – so Moscow insists that the world accept it and move on.

“The legitimization of this ‘new normal’ by committing illegal actions in international law is one of the goals. Of course, dialogue and the impression of cooperation consolidate the position that everything is happening the way it should be, and that things are going the same way. We need to be cautious about that,” he said.

Linkevičius has consistently advocated a strong, united free world stance against Russian belligerence. He believes that every Russian threat and criminal action must be met with an equally strong response. For example, he said, Russian continues to violate the Minsk Accords, which are considered by some to be the last great hope for peace in Ukraine. “They (Russians) are testing their force again and look what the reaction will be. It comes alongside criticism of Ukraine that it fails to adhere to the Minsk Agreements, but, obviously, they themselves fail to do so,” Linkevičius said.

The countries of Eastern Europe and NATO cannot acknowledge Moscow’s diabolical plan and behave as it nothing is happening.

As for actual Russian threats on its border, a recent Lithuanian report indicated that Russia has based more tanks and bombers in the Kaliningrad enclave, which borders Lithuania and Poland, and upgraded its bases there to be able to deploy missiles including the nuclear-capable Iskander. The report also said there was a growing risk of “unintentional incidents” from increased military maneuvers on the other side of the Russian-Lithuanian border.

The Baltics, for one region, is also experiencing an uptick in hostile Russian propaganda which denies and twists real regional history. This fabrication mimics Russian lies in connection with the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea in early 2014 and raises fears of an invasion of the Baltics.

There are Russian claims that Klaipėda, Lithuania’s third largest city, never belonged to Lithuania and that it was the gift of Stalin after World War II. This, Baltic officials say, parallels with Crimea’s seizure from Ukraine.

Minister of Defense of Lithuania Raimundas Karoblis and other military officials have told the British Guardian that they are taking very seriously the threat of disinformation campaigns orchestrated by Moscow that aim to destabilize the region.

“Russia is a threat,” Karoblis, said. “They are saying our capital Vilnius should not belong to Lithuania because between the first and second world wars it was occupied by Poland. It’s history of course, but Russia is using this pretext. Sometimes [the disinformation] is through [the government-run news agency] Sputnik, sometimes through their TV, but usually from politicians in the Duma.”

Karoblis declared this is a danger to the territorial integrity of Lithuania.

Lithuanians are officially warning their population of a genuine threat of invasion by Russia and were relieved when NATO dispatched 1,200 soldiers to the Baltic country.

Poland is also feeling this threat and is responding by creating a Territorial Defense Force to train thousands of volunteers for the kind of low-intensity hybrid warfare seen in eastern Ukraine, including cyber warfare. Also, some of the new volunteers will be assigned to protect Polish territory near Kaliningrad.

In response to calls for guidance from citizens fearing war, Lithuania’s Defense Ministry issued a civilian manual that includes information on survival skills and recognizing Russian weapons.

The best way to prevent war is to “demonstrate to the aggressor that we are ready to fight for our freedom, for every centimeter of our land,” former Defense Minister Juozas Olekas opined. “The capabilities, the readiness, this is the only way to stop Russian aggression in the region.”

The Baltic States have become concerned over the lack of defense from medium-range missiles, and Lithuania has taken the lead in attempting to address the gap. Vilnius has confirmed it is in talks to purchase new missile systems worth up to $110 million, amid concerns over potential aggression from Russia.

Comparing coronavirus threats with Russia, current Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks said Russia is a greater danger. He said during the pandemic Russia has concentrated disinformation and propaganda attacks on Latvia and NATO. “They have become more concentrated, because Russia sees that the pandemic can be used in different ways,” the minister added.

Pabriks cautioned that the world’s biggest blunder will be underestimating Russia.

Nordic countries too share a border with Russia and according to the Baltic News Network that region admits that Russia has become the largest threat to Europe’s security. In a joint declaration, defense ministers of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland stated that Northern Europe must expect potential crises or incidents because of Russia.

“Russia’s leaders have shown that they are prepared to make practical and effective use of military means in order to reach their political goals, even when this involves violating principles of international law,” stated an announcement in Norwegian Aftenposten newspaper. “There is increasing military and intelligence activity in the Baltics and in our northern areas. The Russian military is challenging us along our borders and there have been several border infringements in the Baltics. Russia’s actions are the biggest challenge to the European security.”

This sentiment is echoed by Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics and the current Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, who said Russia remains the key long-term threat to NATO, and the West’s passiveness on Russia’s military actions only encourages this country’s aggression. He paid attention to the fact that NATO’s presence in the Eastern flank is very modest compared with Russia’s aggressive military posture, especially taking into account the Kaliningrad region.

When – not if – Russia’s invasion of the Baltic States or Eastern Europe comes, it shouldn’t be a surprise. Moscow will be fulfilling its messianic vision of restoring its warped historical vision of being a great empire. It will rumble through the former captive nations like Hitler’s blitzkrieg did across Europe. Brazilian-born Latvian economist and CEO of the Latvian National Academy’s Security and Strategic Research Centre Jānis Bērziņš described this is a possible scenario, “Russia will not ask our Russians if they need protecting. It will simply come and will start protecting. But Russian military leaders do not think it is necessary to attack Latvia in a military fashion. Russia requires a buffer zone against NATO.”

Apparently Ukraine is the theater of operations for such a regional if not global war. Will Ukraine survive Russia’s invasion? Will the free world decide to defend Ukraine? Where will Europeans build the latter-day Maginot Line?

Polish professor, Przemyslaw Zhuravsky, and advisor to the Foreign Minister of Poland, believes the battle for freedom will go on as long as Russia poses a threat. “Until Russia abandons its imperial ambitions, we will have to fight it. This applies not only to Ukraine and Poland, but also to other countries bordering Russia. Russian imperialism has touched everyone – from Central Europe to the Caucasus and the Far East,” Zhuravsky said in a recent interview.

“We have new graves in Ukraine every day, we have them in Georgia and we can have them in any other place where Russia can destabilize. Since its inception, Russia - from the Moscow Principality - has been exporting destabilization to its neighbors. As long as this happens, joint action will be the best option. The peoples of our region are interested in the collapse of the Russian Empire. Others may negotiate with Russia, but we have nothing to talk about. Such a discussion would only boil down to the question of whether or not we exist.”

Fortunately, on the one hand, Zhuravsky had said earlier, the Ukrainian armed forces constitute a regional army to be reckoned with because of its battlefield experience. “The main priority of Polish foreign policy is to strengthen military security in the region in terms of Russian aggression, which continues to threaten Ukraine and other countries, and in a high state of combat readiness of Russian troops as a result of military exercises near the borders of NATO. In this situation, signing an agreement on cooperation in defense - a good step and complements the decisions taken at the Warsaw Summit concerning the strengthening of security in our region.

“Remember that the Ukrainian army – the only one in our region, which has a real combat experience in contact with the Russian army, familiar with the Russian way of doing hybrid war. It also has the technological experience gained on the battlefield that cannot be played back on the training ground, but only in a real war.”

However, unfortunately, he continued, “Ukrainians must remember that they are bordering on a bloodthirsty empire and cannot afford the mistakes that cost independence.”

Thus, regional unity and preparedness in the face of Russian aggression are the key to preserving the former captive nations’ individual independence and sovereignty and collective freedom.

Estonian Minister of Defense Juri Luik said NATO is an answer. “Russia has become a threat again, and the need for NATO is stronger than ever. This is the framework holding the European defense together – an agreement between states that allows us to continue pursuing our strategic goal despite the internal political flutters,” Luik said. 

Short of NATO’s visible muscle and the West’s tepid attitude, the former captive nations’ only salvation, as I have proposed on numerous occasions, is for them to form a regional mini-NATO, an updated Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN), that would noticeably promote and safeguard collective security against Russia.

Holocaust & Holodomor – Similar Conclusions

I came across an interesting article about the Holocaust in the April 20^th edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In it the reporter makes salient points that duplicate statements that Ukrainians make about the Holodomor – the murder by famine of at least 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children by the Russians in 1932-33.

For example:

“After reading hundreds of books and articles about the Holocaust, and even perusing many documents that have never been published as part of his work as the director of the Elie Wiesel Archive at Boston University, Rappel (Jewish archivist – ID) realized that despite the research controversy regarding the precise number of victims, ‘in our consciousness the number remains 6 million.’ …

“About 15 years later, during Eichmann’s trial, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner said that ‘In the consciousness of the nation the number 6 million has become sanctified.’ But he added: ‘It’s not so simple to prove that. We did not use this number in any official document, but it became sanctified.’ Now, thanks to Rappel, historical research had added another layer for understanding the context for the number.”

Indeed the number of Holocaust victims became “sanctified” in Jewish and everyone’s minds. Regardless of what was, is or will be said, that’s the number of killed Jews. Question it and you become an evil denier. So why are we, Ukrainians, allowing a discussion about the number of Holodomor victims? Why are some Ukrainian and non-Ukrainians discounting the number of dead to a mere 4 million? My generation of baby boomers grew up with the figure of 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children starved to death by Russia in 1932-33 just because they were Ukrainian. That figure must be sanctified against all others in our and everyone’s minds.

Another dramatic point made in the story concerns the word “nation.” Many scholars, pundits, writers and readers identify nation as a country and vice versa, rarely stating or implying that a nation does not necessarily exist only within the boundaries of a country or state. Oftentimes a nation exists or has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years without the formal boundaries of a country.

The Haaretz story points out:  “‘Polish Jewry is extinct and no longer exists. Polish soil is a sacred grave of Polish and European Jewry. I could have brought you a sacred gift: a clod of earth from Polish soil suffused with the blood of a nation, which has died a martyr’s death,’ was how Unger began.”

The blood of a Jewish nation, which had lived in Europe not merely beyond the borders of a Jewish state, Israel, which didn’t yet exist during World War II.

The Haaretz reporter correctly used the word nation, meaning a group of people with a shared language, history, culture, religion, tradition and experience of persecution – just like the Ukrainian nation which lost 7 million people to forced famine created by Russia.

Former Captive Nations Constitute Strong Bloc

A recent draft report by the European Parliament is finally admitting the importance of laying the foundation of an alliance or bloc made up exclusively of the former captive nations – the now-independent nations of Eastern Europe that have experienced Russian invasions and enslavement.

I have been promoting such a concept in my The Torn Curtain 1991 blog for years.

This is an historic first step in the evolution of post-Soviet imperial political relations even though it doesn’t touch on the creation of an official, comprehensive coalition of these countries. It also doesn’t matter that the draft report focuses on a partnership of limited scope.

RFE/RL reported on April 15 that it has seen the draft report that says the European Parliament will call for the creation of a “common economic space” between the European Union and the six nations of its Eastern Partnership program as part of a process of “gradual integration” into the bloc.

In a significant move, one that should be duplicated by the entire free world, the parliamentary draft report also denounces Russia’s “illegal” actions in Eastern Partnership countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – including what it calls destabilization, invasion and annexation.

The document is to be debated by the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee in the coming weeks and could potentially be endorsed by the full chamber in May, wrote RFE/RL’s Rikard Jozwiak.

A Brussels summit that was to bring together the leaders of the 27 EU member states with those of the six Eastern Partnership members was scheduled for June 18 but now might be postponed to the second half of the year due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Nonetheless, this development is significant in light of Russia’s ongoing verbal and military aggression not only in the region of the former captive nations but also in other regions as well as cyberspace. The parliamentary report publically admits that Russia continues to be a global threat and smaller or larger coalitions are wholly appropriate and even encouraged responses to its belligerence.

The RFE/RL story wrote that in a veiled reference to Russia, which has strongly opposed efforts by former captive nations to get closer to the EU and NATO, the European Parliament will “confirm the sovereign right of the Eastern partner countries to freely choose their individual level of cooperation or integration with the EU,” according to the draft report.

The document also “strongly condemns the continued violations of fundamental principles and norms of international law in the Eastern Partnership region,” citing “illegal use of force, invasion, destabilization, annexation, borderization, and occupation of territories of several Eastern Partnership countries by the Russian Federation.”

Proof of such a bloc’s necessity is Russia’s unbridled and unconcealed invasion of Ukraine six years ago and its subsequent occupation of Crimea and Donbas. Both Ukrainian regions have experienced typical Russian violations of human rights, arrests and killings. The war has resulted in death more than 13,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers and in excess of a million displaced Ukrainians.

The Eastern Partnership program was launched in 2009 and is meant to bring the six countries closer to the EU without clearly offering future membership. Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine have since signed association agreements with the EU, including free-trade deals, but several member states have been reluctant to discuss the issue of these countries’ eventual membership.

The European Parliament, which has in the past called for further enlargement to the east, noted in the draft report that “while accession is not foreseen under the framework of the Eastern Partnership, the Eastern Partnership policy can facilitate a process of gradual integration to the EU.”

Within this framework, there is a joint commitment to deliver tangible results for citizens across the region. In support of a more results-oriented approach towards the Eastern Partnership, the European Commission and European External Action Service identified 20 key deliverables for 2020. This ambitious work plan was endorsed at the Eastern Partnership Summit which took place in Brussels in November 2017. These commitments by the EU, its member-states and the six partner countries cover the four main priority areas of the Eastern Partnership:

·                     Stronger Economy (economic development and market opportunities);

·                     Stronger Governance (strengthening institutions and good governance);

·                     Stronger Connectivity (connectivity, energy efficiency, environment and climate change);

·                     Stronger Society (mobility and people-to-people contacts).

A structured engagement with a wider range of civil society organizations, advances gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as clearer and tailor-made strategic communications are also being pursued as across all areas.

Indeed this is a great beginning. For it to be better, the six partner countries must be expanded with the participation of at least Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. Their cumulative gross domestic product is $936 billion, with Poland and Ukraine leading the list. A respectable sum. Aleksander Lukashenko, because of his subservience to the Kremlin, has seen to it that his Belarus cannot be considered a serious, fully-fledged participant at this time.

Furthermore, the four priority points must include defense, military and political elements that will add much needed teeth to the Eastern Partnership as well as a vital mission along the lines of the historical Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations.

Due to inconsistent support from the free world, its unstable policies and paranoid behavior, the former captive nations since the early 1990s have been left to their own devices to preserve their independence and freedom. This draft report of the European Parliament gives them justification to align their interests and strengths in defense of their nations. With Russia continuing to rattle its sabers, an economic, commercial, military, defense, political and ideological bloc among the 10 countries that I listed and hopefully others will be enough to send a thunderous signal to Moscow to contain its belligerence and expansion.

These countries could then move to modernize their armed forces and form a single front 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.

This must be the new Eastern Partnership playbook going forward.

Russia Mocks International Accords,

Violates Ceasefire, Kills 41 in 2020

How long will the Zelenskyy Administration and the free world recklessly believe Russian lies, naïvely hoping that the Kremlin can ever change its deceitful, murderous colors?

For six years Russia has waged a war against Ukraine while Kyiv and its free world partners, the United States and others, have sat across a negotiating table from their age-old enemy and accepted its fabrications and promises to abide by a ceasefire while it plans the next bloody attack against Ukrainian defensive positions.

In February 2014, the world cheered and glad handed Russian officials at the closing ceremony of Russian Olympics while Moscow was on the threshold of launching the first phase of its invasion of Ukraine. First Crimea and then Donbas. The international community was immobilized by disbelief.

After numerous failed attempts since then to negotiate an impossible diplomatic end to the war, Russia continues to haughtily brush aside agreements while pressing forward with its mission to re-subjugate Ukraine.

Since the beginning of the year, the Armed Forces of Ukraine suffered 41 killed and 182 wounded. Meanwhile, Putin gloats, Zelenskyy succumbs to Moscow’s demands to accept its mercenary terrorists as legitimate negotiating partners, and the West repeats unpersuasive empty threats as Ukrainian mothers, wives and children cry over the fresh graves of the nation’s heroes.

A month ago Russian forces conducted a major offensive against Ukrainian positions on the night of February 18 that took Ukraine and its allies by surprise and raised questions about whether Moscow really wants peace in Donbas as much as it claims in front of the gullible international arena.

Russian troops fired banned 120mm mortars as well as grenade launchers of various types, and heavy machine guns, as reported by the press center of Ukraine’s Joint Forces Operation on Facebook. Supported by massive fire, Russian invaders launched an offensive operation, attempting to advance across the contact line.

Russia’s military forces later mounted nine attacks on Ukrainian positions in Donbas on March 20, with four Ukrainian soldiers wounded in action, the press center of the Joint Forces Operation (JFO) reported.

The enemy opened fire with prohibited 120mm and 82mm mortars, grenade launchers of various types, heavy machine guns, and small arms. Ukrainian positions near the towns of Maryinka and Krasnohorivka, and the villages of Shyrokyne, Novotroyitske, Krymske, Luhanske, Khutir Vilny, Novhorodske, and Novotoshkivske came under attack.

Interfax Ukraine also reported that Russian invaders violated the ceasefire three times in Donbas on Saturday, March 21, the Defense Ministry of Ukraine said. “Since the beginning of the day, as of 12:00, Russia-led armed formations have violated the ceasefire regime three times. At 3:00 am, Russia-occupation forces attacked the positions of the Joint Forces Operation (JFO) near Novhorodske using a 120mm mortar to launch 15 shells,” the spokesperson for the ministry, Oleksandr Motuzianyk, said at a press briefing in Kyiv on Saturday.

The enemy also mounted an attack near Krasnohorivka using a tripod-mounted anti-tank grenade launcher. Ukrainian defenders returned fire. Another attack was recorded near Novotroyitske, with the enemy using a hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher.
Ukrainian soldiers haven’t been the only casualties of the war. UA Wire reported last week that Aleksander Khodakovsky, a former commander of the Vostok battalion and former Security Minister of Russia’s so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), described how DPR terrorists killed Ukrainian civilians. Journalist Denis Kazansky posted a fragment of Khodakovsky’s interview on his video blog.

According to Khodakovsky, the Russian mercenaries stopped a car with three civilians at a checkpoint in the Donbas. They confiscated the car and shot people in the back of the heads in a nearby forest. Khodakovsky also admitted that the terrorists robbed a man and shot him in his cottage.

It is obvious that Moscow has never subscribed to a diplomatic conclusion to the war. It has never veered from its historic goal of restoring the Russian empire and recapturing Ukraine and the other now independent countries.

Kyiv, Washington and the free world should stop fooling itself that Russia seeks a negotiated settlement to the war. The only way that peace and security will come to the region is if Ukraine prevails in the war, the free world actively supports it in this mission and helps it expel Russian invaders back to their country. Furthermore, Kyiv must not lose sight of the fact that the enemy and transgressor is Russia, which violated international law, and it cannot enter into negotiations with it under any circumstance unless Moscow is ready to unconditionally surrender and evacuate.

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