US Sends Strong Signal of Ongoing Military Support to Ukraine

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), co-founder and co-chair of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, joined  Senators Jim Risch (R-ID) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chris Murphy (D-CT), John Barrasso (R-WY), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) to introduce the bipartisan Ukraine Security Partnership Act to provide ongoing security assistance and strategic support to Ukraine.

The bipartisan legislation also sends a strong needed signal to Kyiv and Moscow that the United States is converting its long-term moral commitment into dollars and cents military support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and its fight to reassert its legal control over its indivisible territory. In recent years of the six-year Russian war against Ukraine, the defender’s military forces in Donbas have held their own in defending and recapturing territory from the Russian invaders.

Thanks to this bill, the US Congress will continue to make sure the Ukrainian military has the capabilities it needs to defend its sovereign territory—on the land, sea, and air. It should put to rest naysayers’ negative comments about America’s continuous advocacy of Ukraine’s freedom against Russian aggression.

The legislation sends a clear message to Kyiv and Moscow that the United States stands with it, said Portman. “Our relationship with Ukraine is strategic and this bill makes clear statements regarding a whole of government strategy focused on enhancing all elements of Ukrainian security,” he added.

Touching on Russia’s illegal invasion and occupation of Crimea, Risch said Russia’s “disregard for international laws and commitments is no better demonstrated than by its illegal seizure of Crimea in 2014 and the six years of covert military support for eastern Ukrainian separatists. Despite these challenges, Ukraine has stood as a bulwark against the Russian Federation’s malign influence in Europe and a steadfast partner of the United States.”

Menendez said that for the past six years Ukraine has been subjected to daily assault from Russia on land, air and cyberspace while Ukrainian soldiers have selflessly and courageously fought Russian forces that seek to violate its sovereignty and disrupt the international order. “The US is Ukraine’s strongest supporter, but its security needs continue to grow under relentless pressure from Moscow. The bipartisan Ukraine Security Partnership Act will address these challenges by substantially increasing long-term security assistance for our partners in Ukraine while ensuring accountability from their democratic institutions.”

“Strong, bipartisan support remains for our relationship with Ukraine and it’s clear Congress recognizes the strategic value of the partnership,” said Murphy.

Barrasso added that “Our bipartisan legislation provides Ukraine with key military and diplomatic resources to help secure a peaceful, democratic future for their country. The United States is committed to fully supporting our strong partner, Ukraine.” 

“Supporting Ukraine against the Kremlin’s aggression is a critical US national security priority and important for global stability,” said Shaheen.

Key provisions of the senators’ legislation:

• Requires a report on U.S. diplomatic support for Ukraine over the next five years.

• Encourages the Department of State to establish a working group on Ukraine with relevant European allies.

• Requires the administration to appoint a special envoy for Ukraine to serve as the US liaison for the Normandy Format peace negotiations and to facilitate dialogue between Black Sea countries.

• Authorizes up to $300 million per year of foreign military financing to Ukraine, subject to certifications, including the authority to provide Ukraine with lethal military assistance.

• Requires a Department of Defense and State Department report on the capability and capacity requirements of Ukraine’s armed forces, a plan to supply US security assistance to Ukraine, and any recommendations.

• Expedites the transfer of excess defense articles to Ukraine, and calls for a strategy to encourage partner nations to do the same.

• Authorizes $4 million per year to train Ukrainian military officers through the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology.

Why exactly don’t Ukrainians Trust Moscow? Conclusion

As I wrote in a previous post, it’s historical.

Any illusion of commonality between Ukrainians and Russians that is habitually spewed by the Kremlin simply means favoring Russian national achievements and the harvest of ill-gotten gains of Russia’s bloody aggression and imperialism.

One hundred years ago, during the euphoric days leading up to Ukraine’s first declaration of independence, all segments of the nation and its leadership emphatically avowed that everything from Moscow regardless of royalty, political color, slant or “ism” will never be beneficial for Ukraine. Ukraine rejected all efforts at reconciliation, coexistence and cohabitation with Moscow.

The Ukrainian nation professed its aspiration for independence from foreign subjugation and statehood in numerous literary accounts that buoyed the people’s supreme hopes for centuries. There were also historic attempts throughout the centuries to promote this idea on battlefields. But then in the span of 12 months centuries of hopes and wars coalesced into a resounding assertion that the Ukrainian nation will finally become ruler of its land and destiny. It will bow to no one. Taking advantage of the bloody chaos of the anti-Tsarist revolution in Russia and disavowing all Russian assurances, promises and subversions, the leadership of the Ukrainian national revolution backed by the peasants, workers and soldiers arose in unison in support of independence and statehood.

A Russian-language newspaper in Kyiv of the day summarized the mood of the nation: “Here and there a Ukrainian volunteer spoke harshly: ‘The Russian democracy is against us; it is against Ukraine.’”

Ukrainians weren’t caught up in the events that John Reed said shook the world. They were creating their own destiny that was built on national freedom, justice and democracy. They were building an inclusive nation-state that included all classes of its society as well as ethnic or national groups living in Ukraine. While Russia was ripping itself apart and killing one or another group of opponents as it oscillated between tsarist, whites, liberal democrats and reds, Ukrainians were solidly focused on their independence and sovereignty. In his article titled “National Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1919,” Nicholas D. Czubatyj (1889-1975), the first editor of The Ukrainian Quarterly, who I cited in a previous post, wrote that Ukraine was an oasis of peace, stability, discipline, dedication and commitment to a serious discussion of the vital ideas regarding its independence and sovereignty. While at the same time Russia was a den of intrigue, deceit and murder.

A series of meetings, conventions, congresses and four declarations honed Ukraine’s vision of its self-determination. Despite Russia’s devious attempts to penetrate the conclaves and highjack the deliberations, the Ukrainian side prevailed and circumvented Moscow’s heinous plans. The founding fathers of the soon-to-be independent Ukraine rejected all overt and covert efforts by Moscow to restrain Ukrainians’ march to freedom and re-subjugate the nation.

As Czubatyj wrote, Ukraine wisely took advantage of the murderous anarchy in Russia. “On November 20, 1917, the Central Rada issued the Third Universal, which emphasized definitely the international position of Ukraine. With this Ukraine formally proclaimed herself a Ukrainian National Republic. She severed herself from Soviet Russia, that is she ceased to recognize any form of power wielded by the Soviet of People’s Commissars, which made her a de facto independent nation. The Third Universal envisioned the formation of a federation of equal nations in Russia, and it proposed a radical agrarian reform for the peasants and an eight-hour workday for the workers. Likewise it assured cultural autonomy for all the national minorities in the country.

“Simultaneously, the Central Rada set the elections for the Ukrainian Constituent Assembly for January 9, 1918, and appointed the first meeting of it for the following January 22.

“Ukrainian people and all minority nations in Ukraine,” the Third Universal proclaimed. “A serious and dangerous hours has fallen upon the lands of the Russian Republic. In the cities of the north a bloody civil war is being waged. There is no central government; anarchy, disorder and ruin are spreading over the entire country. Out land also is in danger. Without a powerful, unified, national government, Ukraine can also fall into the abyss of civil revolution, bloodshed, and decadence … From today, Ukraine becomes the Ukrainian National Republic.”

The Ukrainian National Republic – or Ukrayinska Narodna Respublika. Czubatyj pointed out that the Ukrainian conservatives read into that appellation Ukrainian National Republic, while Ukrainian independence-minded socialists saw it as meaning “people’s.” Nonetheless, it was going to be an independent republic of the Ukrainian people.

“The meaning of the word ‘narod’ includes the two meanings. The supporters of all groups agreed upon the word, which had become a slogan wherever the Russian revolutionary movement penetrated,” Czubatyj opined.

The Russians kept themselves busy at this time, plotting to subvert the pro-Ukraine movement and convening its All-Ukrainian Convention of Councils, which the legitimate blue-and-yellow Ukrainian government naively did not forbid but fortunately saw to it that there were Ukrainian patriots present.

Czubatyj’s analysis showed that Ukrainians regarded with disdain everything from Moscow and that Bolshevism itself was a solely Russian gambit to subjugate Ukraine.

“The meeting proved clearly that Bolshevism in Ukraine was an external intrigue of the Russian government against the independence of Ukraine. Of the 2,000 delegates, only 150 delegates (and the majority of these were non-Ukrainian) took a stand against the Central Rada. The overwhelming majority announced full loyalty to the Central Rada. The meeting therefore became an enthusiastic demonstration for the independent government of Ukraine.

“This historic conference of the Ukrainian Councils at which the Bolsheviks suffered such an inglorious defeat, adopted the following resolution: ‘The meeting of the Ukrainian Councils emphasizes its definite decision that the Central Rada in its further work stand solidly on guard over the achievement of the revolution, spreading and deepening without halt the revolutionary activity to safeguard the class interests of a laboring democracy and call together without delay the Ukrainian Constituent Assembly, which alone can reveal the true will of all democratic Ukraine. The meeting of the Councils of Peasants, Workers and Soldiers’ Delegates of Ukraine in this manner expresses to the Ukrainian Central Rada its full confidence and promises it its absolute support … ‘On paper,’ continues the resolution, the Soviet of People’s Commissars seemingly recognizes the right of a motion to self-determination and even to separation but only in words. In fact the government of Commissars brutally attempts to interfere in the activities of the Ukrainian government which executes the will of the legislative organ of the Ukrainian Central Rada. What sort of self-determination is this? It is certain that Commissars will permit self-determination only to their own part; all other groups and peoples (nations) they, like the Tsarist regime, desire to keep under their domination by force of arms. But the Ukrainian people did not cast off the Tsarist yoke only to take upon themselves the yoke of the Commissars.”

The salient reference here is that the Ukrainian leadership understood that freedom, independence, sovereignty and statehood for Ukraine can only exist outside the Russian prison of nations. The Kremlin in any of its manifestations is the nemesis of Ukraine. The existing foreign powers of the day, the tsars, and other Russian groups, notably the Bolsheviks, whose successors today still rule with an iron fist in the Kremlin, are and will be enemies of the Ukrainian nation.

In other words the Ukrainians and their leadership rejected all notions and solutions from deceitful Moscow. Kyiv was committed to its own independent future. However, as is its legacy, despite its own internecine bloodbath, Russia has been persistent in its mission to deny Ukrainians of their just claim to self-determination.

On January 22, 1918, the Ukrainian nation severed all shackles to Russia with the Fourth Universal. On January 22, 1919, the Ukrainian National Republic with Kyiv as its capital and the Western Ukrainian National Republic with its capital in Lviv united into a single, indivisible state. The words of the unification decree should be carved into the hearts, minds and souls of all Ukrainians today: “From today, until the end of time, there will be One, Undivided, Independent Ukrainian People’s Republic.” And nothing and no one, Russia included, will ever tear it asunder.

Expressions of national independence continued throughout the 20^th century. On March 15, 1939, Ukrainians declared the establishment of an independent Carpatho-Ukrainian Republic. Then in the throes of World War II, when the Ukrainian nation was fighting for its life against Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, the Ukrainian nation, under the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, again declared its national independence with a suitable declaration on June 30, 1941. Decades later, on August 24, 1991, independence was reaffirmed with a resounding greater than 90% of the people’s support.

Throughout the modern era, the Ukrainian nation has persistently underscored that its safest course of action is national independence, sovereignty as well as disassociation from Russia. As Czubatyj wrote: “Just as dew disappears in the sunlight, so the old conception of autonomy in a federation has disappeared among the European Ukrainians. The idea of an independent and united Ukraine remains unchallenged today.”

There are no righteous among Russian democrats, liberals or humanitarians. They don’t deserve Ukraine’s trust. Ukrainian negotiators in the peace talks to end the latest war with Russia would do well to remember that.

For information about The Ukrainian Quarterly, contact the UCCA office at 203 Second Ave., New York, NY 10003 or www.ucca.org.

X-Captive Nations Brigade – 3 Swords – is Step in Right Direction

With Russian saber-rattling intensifying daily, I have opined on numerous occasions about the necessity for the former captive nations of Moscow’s brutal prison of nations to form multilateral alliances to defend against Russian aggression.

Scroll through my blogposts and you’ll see my commentaries about strong political, cultural and economic blocs that would build the former captive nations’ stature in the global community as well as raise a barricade against Russian encroachment.

I have even suggested that these now independent nations should form coalitions regarding the 17 Sustainable Development Goals inside the hallowed halls of the United Nations.

Any occasion that would allow the x-captive nations to advocate their independence and sovereignty while pointing out the ongoing danger presented by Russia should be encouraged.

Such a pact existed among the captive nations during World War II in order to fight Soviet Russian aggression.

The Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN) was a coordinating center for anti-Communist émigré political organizations from Soviet and other socialist countries. The ABN attributes its existence and its ideological foundations to an underground conference of representatives of non-Russian peoples that took place on November 21-22, 1943, near Zhytomyr, Ukraine, on the initiative of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The attendees adopted a platform of joint revolutionary struggle against Russian communism. The goal of the ABN was the dissolution of the Soviet Union into national states. Given an organizational structure in Munich in 1946, the ABN extended its scope of activity to include the Eastern European emigration.

The following organizations were members of the ABN from its inception or for varying periods of time: “Free Armenia” Committee, Bulgarian National Front, Belorussian Central Council, Cossack National Liberation Movement, Croatian National Liberation Movement, Czech Movement for Freedom (Za Svobodu), Czech National Committee, Estonian Liberation Movement, Union of the Estonian Fighters for Freedom, Georgian National Organization, Hungarian Liberation Movement, Hungarian Mindszenty Movement, Latvian Association for the Struggle against Communism, Lithuanian Rebirth Movement, Slovak Liberation Committee, National Turkestanian Unity Committee, United Hetman Organization, and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (Bandera faction).

In recent years, government officials from Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and others have regularly warned against Russian revanchism and called for increased military preparedness on the part of the x-captive nations. They used the example of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justification for their concerns. They have also urged the United States and other free world leaders not to give in to Russian propaganda but rather to increase sanctions against Moscow for its global crimes.

Now it seems that at least three x-captive nations, Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland, have transformed an idea into practice with the mobilization of the “Hetman Konstantyn Ostrohskiy” Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade (LITPOLUKR) – https://litpolukrbrig.wp.mil.pl/en/

According to military media and the brigade’s website, this unit represents a new era of multilateral security cooperation in Europe. Lithuanian, Polish, and Ukrainian efforts to bolster European stability in the wake of Russia’s destabilizing invasion of Ukraine led to the creation of the unit in 2015.

The brigade’s website notes that each participating country contributes an infantry battalion, staff for the headquarters in Lublin, and specialized smaller units, to create a brigade between 3.5-4,000 soldiers. Leadership switches on a rotational basis. Officers and NCOs in the brigade primarily use English to communicate, though Ukrainian and Lithuanian participants also develop some proficiency in Polish given the headquarters’ location. Units in the brigade are maintained by and use equipment provided by their respective armed forces, though units in the brigade have recently started to train using Polish equipment. The brigade’s costs are shared among all three states, though the host nation Poland provides the largest contribution.

The brigade’s main task is to serve as a peacekeeping force to be deployed with the unanimous consent of all participating states. However, the brigade is also intended to bolster regional military cooperation. The brigade has focused heavily on improving joint operational capacity and standardizing procedures and practices through joint training. It is also engaged in a public relations campaign to build close relations between Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland.

The work of this joint military unit should reinforce in the minds of global leaders the comprehensive concept of what was a captive nation in Russia’s dungeon and what is a former captive nation, now independent state. It is important for military leaders to know that they have a trusted, well trained and battle-hardened

ally in this brigade as the free world seeks to stem Russia’s aggression. They should also take note that if for any reason the free world fails to support the x-captive nations, they will then do so on their own.

Indeed, as Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania take concrete actions to defend their nations, sovereignty and independence, they are also “United for Peace” as the brigade's motto states.

Include Holodomor in the Dictionary

While many people around the world have heard of the famine deaths in Ukraine, the word Holodomor, Russia’s premeditated murder by hunger of at least 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children in 1932-33, they may not be as familiar. Yes, 7 million killed. That number has been sanctified in the minds of generations of Ukrainians.

H-O-L-O-D-O-M-O-R

Planned, deliberate death by hunger. Moscow sought to deprive Ukrainian peasants or farmers of food to eliminate this excess population so it decided to seize wheat and other foodstuffs from them. Simple starve every one of them. It was the first time that food was used as a weapon. It was a genocide according to the United Nations. In the past eight decades many national parliaments as well as America states and municipalities have adopted resolutions denouncing the Holodomor as genocide.

However, sadly, if you were to open the latest edition of the classic Merriam-Webster dictionary you wouldn’t find any reference to the Holodomor. You wouldn’t learn how to spell it and you wouldn’t find even a cursory reference to what it was and why it should be remembered.

However, it you looked under “H” for Holocaust, you would rightly find a succinct, accurate definition:

Definition of holocaust

1: a sacrifice (see SACRIFICE entry 1 sense 2) consumed by fire

2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire a nuclear holocaust

3a usually the Holocaust: the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II. Several members of her family died in the Holocaust. a Holocaust survivor

b: a mass slaughter of people especially : GENOCIDE a holocaust in Rwanda

Examples of holocaust in a Sentence

 The museum is devoted to the Holocaust. There were fears of a nuclear holocaust.

You would also find a definition of the Hebrew word Shoah:

Sho·​ah | \ ˈshō-ə  , -ˌä \

Definition of Shoah

: HOLOCAUST sense 3a

First Known Use of Shoah

1967, in the meaning defined above

History and Etymology for Shoah

Modern Hebrew shō'āh, literally, catastrophe, from Hebrew

But you wouldn’t find a definition for the world Holodomor. Instead you’d find:

“holodomor” – The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

It’s not that Merriam-Webster doesn’t include foreign words in its dictionary. Here’s what they say about blitzkrieg, Nazi Germany’s lightning fast invasion of Europe:

Definition of blitzkrieg

1: war conducted with great speed and force specifically: a violent surprise offensive by massed air forces and mechanized ground forces in close coordination

2: BLITZ sense 2a

Examples of blitzkrieg in a Sentence

The stunned survivors of the crash were then confronted with a blitzkrieg of in sensitive questions from the media

The war began with a blitzkrieg that was designed to shock the enemy into submission

A global campaign, launched by Bohdan Onyschuk, chair, Canada-Ukraine Foundation, and Chair, Holodomor National Awareness Tour, is currently underway by the Ukrainian World Congress, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and others to rectify this hopefully mere oversight and not premeditated expurgation of the word Holodomor. They are asking the global community to view a video and then sign a petition in support of this effort.

You can access the petition on the website http://deeptruth.ca, where you can also view the “deep fake” video of Stalin finally telling the truth about the Holodomor, and the posters for the campaign which will be carried out on the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, other social media, and hopefully press stories and morning show interviews.

Using rare color film footage of Stalin, the Soviet dictator’s features have been painstakingly mapped onto the face of a modern-day actor, effectively bringing Stalin back to life. In the video, Stalin lays claim to his right to be credited as the true originator of “Fake News” by denying the Holodomor and successfully concealing from the world how he engineered the famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, killing millions of innocent men, women and children.

The campaign needs support by: (a) adding your name to the petition, which you can find on the deeptruth.ca website, or directly here: https://www.change.org/p/merriam-webster-dictionary-help-us-get-the-word-holodomor-included-in-all-major-english-dictionaries?use_react=false

(b) sharing this information, and the deeptruth.ca website with your organizations and your own personal contacts (including politicians at all levels), and

(c) offering any advice in areas where you could be helpful in expanding the campaign.

History and contemporary references to the Holodomor must be rectified for the sake of the innocent victims.

Why exactly don’t Ukrainians Trust Moscow?

Actually, it’s historical and Moscow has left a centuries-long trail of reasons why it doesn’t deserve to be trusted by Ukrainians – and for that matter anybody else.

It doesn’t matter who occupies the corner office in the Kremlin or the prevailing ideology, Russia will never abandon its steadfast objective to subjugate Ukraine and erase the Ukrainian nation from the face of the earth. Whether tsarist, communist or today’s so-called federative regime, Moscow remains the same. Any illusion of commonality between Ukrainians and Russians spewed by the Kremlin simply favors Russian national achievements and the results of ill-gotten gains of Russia’s bloody aggression and imperialism.

Ukrainians’ justified distrust of Russians is also based on the Kremlin’s belief that Ukrainians are in fact the moronic little brothers of Moscow worthy of being deceived, mislead, betrayed, cheated, hoodwinked, tricked, duped, deluded, invaded, starved, killed and conquered for the sake of Holy Mother Russia.

That’s why today, it matters not if Vladimir Putin or someone else occupies the corner office in the Kremlin. Russia’s aggressive, belligerent and imperialistic mentality will not change regardless of summits, handshakes, accords and sanctions. Furthermore, contemporary polls show that Russians, themselves, are not willing to oust peacefully or otherwise their führer.

I recently came across a dramatic retelling of history of Ukrainian independence 100 years ago that substantiates this observation. As editor of The Ukrainian Quarterly, a 76-year-old journal of Ukrainian and international affairs published by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, I encounter many scholarly articles about Ukraine and Russia. One of them is a poignant case in point.

It is titled “National Revolution in Ukraine, 1917-1919” by Nicholas D. Czubatyj (1889-1975), the first editor of The Quarterly. The article from the inaugural edition of 1944, elaborates on the events leading up to the declaration of independence of Ukraine, the establishment of the Ukrainian National Republic and its unification with the Western Ukrainian National Republic on January 22, 1919. Tapping into Ukrainian and Russian sources, Czubatyj demonstrates the high degree of national euphoria among all classes and segments of the Ukrainian nation and its active participation in the processes leading up to independence from what they called the despotic Russian empire. Despite Russian and others’ propaganda to the contrary, he points out that the nation comprehended the servile position of Ukraine in relation to Russia and unwaveringly supported independence. Mass rallies, parades, conventions, congresses and meetings were held in the spirit of the national aspirations that ultimately led to complete independence and sovereignty from the Russian empire.

Czubatyj also wrote about the hatred for Ukraine not only by the Russian tsarist supporters but by their opponents from the Russian Bolshevik and democratic liberal camps. Consequently, it doesn’t matter if Putin or a contemporary Russian liberal democrat is in the Kremlin. Ukraine and the other former captive nations will always be in danger.

Czubatyj wrote of those historical days: “The Ukrainian Legion bore on its flags the slogan, ‘War against Russia for the freedom of the Ukrainian nation.’ The same slogan was accepted by the political organization of an all-Ukrainian character, the League for the Liberation of Ukraine, which was organized in Lviv at the very outset of the World War. Its membership consisted of Western Ukrainians under Austria and of political emigrés from Russia. The Ukrainians under Russia at that time had only a secret organization – the Organization of Ukrainian Progressives.” In the inter-war era, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists similarly adopted as one its mottos “Kyiv against Moscow.”

Under the spiritual helm of Prof. Mykhailo Hrushevsky, the first president of Ukraine, Ukrainians on both sides of the Dnipro began to act on their aspirations and sculpt a truly independent and sovereign mentality. Initially, some Ukrainians were under the misplaced delusion that supporting Russia in its quest would contribute to the demise of the tsarist regime and bring freedom to the people. However, Russia being Russia soon squashed this false belief.

“The first months after the outbreak of the Russian revolution proved the fallacy of this idea and vindicated the minority who insisted upon full independence for the Ukrainians. The Russian democratic parties concealed their imperialistic policies with phrases regarding the community of interests of all Russia democracy, and said that these interests would be imperiled by a confederated Ukraine. The Bolsheviks voiced attractive phrases about the rights of every nation in Russia to self-determination and even separation, but, at the same time, their specialist in nationality affairs, Comrade Stalin, explained that this separation hinged upon whether or not it was harmful to the Communist Party of the proletariat. Naturally the separation of wealthy Ukraine from centralistic Russia would always be harmful to the Communist Party of the proletariat in Russia, and therefore in practice the stand of the Communists did not differ in the slightest from that of the reactionaries,” Czubatyj wrote, highlighting Moscow’s enduring intention of lying to achieve its goal.

The Ukrainian scholar, an eye witness in and participant of the events as well as colleague of Hrushevsky continued: “Thus it was no wonder that after a few months of the Russian revolution, when ‘the holiday of the revolution ended and the weekdays arrived,’ as expressed by Hrushevsky, then president of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Parliament, all the Ukrainian political groups quickly abandoned their former federalistic program for Ukraine and began to advocate the platform of full independence. The fall of Austria at the end of the war enabled the Austrian Ukraine to unite with Eastern Ukraine and to realize not only the ideal of independence, but also the ideal of a United Ukrainian Democratic Republic.”

Czubatyj also pointed out that it was not so easy to carry into effect the resolutions of the All-National Ukrainian Congress. The civil administration and the army control were in the hands of the Russians who after the Revolution feigned being democratic, but who had no intention of obeying the Ukrainian Central Rada – more treachery. They heeded the orders of the Russian Provisional Government in Petrograd. Here and there orders of the Central Rada were executed by Ukrainians in the administration and in the army, but by no means did the Rada have complete control.

The formation of a Ukrainian government was initiated by the previously clandestine political organization, the Organization of Ukrainian Progressives, which had an understanding with the Ukrainian Socialist parties in Kyiv. The revolution in Ukraine became moderate in character because it tried to be not only national but also social in character. The independent nationalists headed by attorney Mykola Mikhnovsky, Dr. Lutsenko and others were forced at the outset to remain in the background. However, thanks again to Russian deceit, they gradually came out into the open. The political and military leadership and people realized that attempts to fulfill Ukrainian national aspirations within the framework of a Russian plan proved hopeless because of the resistance of Russian democracy itself. Then the majority of Ukrainian socialists joined them in their political program of complete independence for Ukraine.

With an ironic nod toward future discussions about the possibility of a righteous Russian leader of Russia, a Russian-language newspaper in Kyiv of the day thus summarized the mood of the nation: “Here and there a Ukrainian volunteer spoke harshly: ‘The Russian democracy is against us; it is against Ukraine.’”

The current generation of Ukrainians in Ukraine and the diaspora must see to it that the nation abides by the lessons learned a century ago.

For information about The Ukrainian Quarterly, contact the UCCA office at 203 Second Ave., New York, NY 10003 or www.ucca.org.

Russia Brandishes Nuclear Swords at Free World

As if the free world doesn’t have enough troubles that threaten the existence of humanity. Now Vladimir Putin has reminded everyone that Russia is in possession of a deadly nuclear arsenal that he is ready to use if provoked even slightly – even by a non-nuclear country.

The Russian führer signed on Tuesday, June 2, the latest diabolical decree approving the “Basics of Russia’s State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence” that not only doesn’t disavow stockpiling of nuclear weapons but also gives him the authority to use this type of weapon of mass destruction against aggressors and other enemies. Consider it Putin’s personal Mein Kampf.

The document, published on the official website of the Russian government, expands and clarifies the list of conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear forces that appeared in earlier versions.

The overall tone of the decree with its murderous potential and ominous consequences reaffirms that Putin’s Russia was never interested in seeking peaceful, non-violent and non-militaristic solutions to regional or global conflicts. Think impertinently about Russia and you’ll suffer the penalty.

According to the 2014 edition of the military doctrine, the Russian president could press the “nuclear button” whenever he detects a nuclear or other threat, as well as aggression using conventional armed forces, that endanger the “very existence of the state” – Russia. That document alone should have been enough to make the free world sit up and listen to Russia’s inhuman nuclear threats at a time when the civilized world was seeking ways to curb WMDs use. Each iteration of Russia’s military doctrine cast a darker pall on Putin and his cohorts in the Kremlin, justifying the free world’s strongest condemnation of their actions. However, the opposite occurred. Sanctions were tepidly limited and ineffective while Putin continued to be accepted and recognized by the global fraternity of leaders.

As a matter of fact, we read in the version of six years ago such hair-raising passages about Russia’s nuclear intentions:

“Main tasks of the Russian Federation with regard to deterring and preventing military conflicts are:

… to resist attempts by some states or group of states to achieve military superiority through the deployment of strategic missile defense systems, the placement of weapons in outer space or the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapon systems;

… The Russian Federation has the legitimate right to employ the Armed Forces, other troops and bodies to repel aggression against itself and/or its allies, to maintain (restore) peace as decided by the UN Security Council or another collective security body, as well as to protect its citizens abroad in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation.

… Within the framework of strategic deterrence measures of a forceful nature the use of high-precision weapons is envisaged by the Russian Federation.

… The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.

… The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

… The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation may be employed outside the country to protect the interests of the Russian Federation and its citizens and to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties of the Russian Federation and the federal legislation.

… The main tasks of the Armed Forces, other troops and bodies in peacetime are:

… to protect sovereignty, territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and inviolability of its territory;

… to ensure strategic (nuclear and non-nuclear) deterrence, including the prevention of military conflicts;

… to protect citizens of the Russian Federation abroad from armed attack on them;

… to maintain the nuclear deterrence potential at the required level of readiness.”

Note the references that underscore Russia’s willingness to use nuclear weapons as well as Moscow’s self-anointed mandate to defend Russians wherever they live that is akin to Hitler’s Volksdeutsche policy that launched World War II.

The new document, according to Ukrainian news sources as well as the copy in my possession, actually buries the principle of “counter-response,” which Moscow has had as its main principle since Soviet times. According to the “Basics of The State Policy of Nuclear Deterrence,” Russia can launch nuclear missiles without a direct threat of a strike on its territory – if the enemy’s anticipated attack could have a critical impact on the state or military facilities.

The document does not explain the term “impact” though it probably means in the event that a military facility or Russia is under imminent danger of being invaded and destroyed. Inasmuch as Russia acts without provocation or warning, Moscow can also reply to threats in the same manner.

In addition, the list of conditions for retaliation is evolving. While earlier versions spoke about the “use” of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction by the enemy, now nuclear missiles can be launched after “receiving credible information about the launch of ballistic missiles” in the direction of Russia. In other words, Russia can retaliate while the missiles are en route. Remember the 1964 move “Fail Safe,” in which a computer glitch brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war?

The document states that Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons in response to others’ launching of nuclear or other WMD rockets against it or its allies. Furthermore – and this is essentially the game changer for Moscow – Russia can respond with nuclear weapons against a conventional armed attack against its territory.

Imagine a realistic scenario from today’s events. If Ukraine, which is a non-nuclear country, was to launch a retaliatory attack into Russia, which has been fighting against Ukraine since its invasion in 2014, then the Kremlin could reply with a nuclear attack and say in its own defense “I warned you.”

Russia can launch nuclear strikes in response to an attack against its “allies,” according to the doctrine, which only lists Belarus as the only one. An attack by nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction may be considered a condition for the nuclear strike.

According to the doctrine, Russia can target countries which either have or do not have nuclear weapons if they consider Russia as a potential adversary or are part of an opposing military bloc that has “significant combat capabilities of the general forces.” This means that countries or blocs such as NATO that criticize, condemn or sanction Russia can be targeted for destruction.

The only person authorized to decide whether or not to use nuclear weapons, according to the “Basics of State Policy,” is the president. Yes, Putin and presidents of other nuclear countries enjoy that prerogative. As of today, the nuclear club includes the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea. Furthermore, this document says that President Putin may – not must – inform the targeted country and the international community of an impending nuclear attack.

Moscow considers the build-up of nuclear forces “in neighboring territories” and the deployment of missile defense systems, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic weapons in countries opposed to Russia as an enemy provocation and potential threat.

Among the perceived threats is the deployment of missile defense and strike systems in space – perhaps like the United States Space Force, the “uncontrolled proliferation” of nuclear weapons and their appearance in the territory of previously non-nuclear countries.

Russia, the doctrine somewhat facetiously states, views nuclear weapons “exclusively as a deterrent which is to be used in extreme and forced circumstances” and “makes all necessary efforts” to prevent military conflicts, including nuclear ones. This implies that all-powerful Russia, armed with nuclear weapons, is the only global peacekeeper.

At the same time, “guaranteed deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against Russia and/or its allies is among the highest state priorities” and “is provided by the entire body of military power, including nuclear weapons,” the document emphasizes.

Additionally, Putin said today, according to Reuters, that Russia will soon be in a position to counter hypersonic arms deployed by other countries, adding that Moscow was ahead of the United States in developing new types of weapons. Hypersonic glide vehicles can steer an unpredictable course and maneuver sharply as they approach impact. They also follow a much flatter and lower trajectory than ballistic missiles.

 “It’s very likely that we will have means to combat hypersonic weapons by the time the world’s leading countries have such weapons,” Putin was quoted as saying by the RIA news agency.

Russia is a signatory to the UN Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is regarded by naïve global leaders as a levelheaded country with sensible leaders. But global affairs have been known to spawn odd conclusions. This decree on nuclear deterrence as well as its earlier ones paint a dangerous image of Russia, one that is not known on any Main Street in the USA or Pennsylvania Avenue. Moscow is suffering from a credibility gap that no one wants to address. What Russia says and does globally compared with its war against Ukraine are as different as day and night. Moscow is a genuine nuclear threat that should be dealt with on the same level as Nazi Germany and Islamic terrorist organizations.

The White House should take note of this declaration and its obvious threat to freedom-loving countries around the world.

Media Nuptials for Russian TASS & Reuters

Is the business of new that bad that one of the legendary examples of journalistic credibility is forced to create a relationship with the epitome of dictatorial government propaganda?

Earlier this week, the venerable Reuters announced that TASS, the Russian news agency, has become a partner on its digital content marketplace, Reuters Connect. According to the announcement, this partnership with Reuters Connect brings Reuters media customers access to breaking news and exclusive video; videos on the Kremlin and Russian President, Vladimir Putin, as well as feature videos and general news. The Russian news agency joins 17 similar outlets in Reuters’ network.

Michael Friedenberg, Reuters president, was quoted as saying: “I’m delighted that TASS and Reuters are building upon our valued partnership by having TASS join Reuters Connect. Their addition shows our ongoing commitment to bring incremental value to Reuters Connect customers. Alongside the vast output of Reuters own world-class newsroom, we continue to provide customers content with unrivalled breadth and depth.”

Sergey Mikhailov, TASS CEO, returned the gesture by saying: “This is truly a significant event for us as well as for the entire Russian media market. Never before have any of Russia’s media outlets been presented on the Reuters Connect platform. However, now video reports from our country will be available to thousands of Reuters’ clients around the world. News from Russia today is playing an increasingly significant role in the global information agenda, so it is crucial that it is presented as objectively and reliably as possible. Selecting our agency as a partner highlights the reputation of TASS as a source of exceptionally verified news. We are extremely pleased that our cooperation with Reuters has reached a new stage of development.”

Has the media world turned upside down? Would Reuters have considered enlisting the partnership of Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda?

Is TASS the source of “exceptionally verified news” or content meant to glorify Russia and promote its imperial goals?

Since the October Revolution, news outlets in Russia never reached the level of journalistic credibility and excellence that would allow others to regard their information as true. All Russian so-called news outlets – print and broadcast – have provided dubious information, propaganda and bully-pulpit analyses meant to defeat an opponent and promote its mission. The old adage about the two biggest Soviet Russian newspapers, Pravda (Truth) and Isvestiya (News), comes to mind: There is no news in truth and no truth in news. In the old days, in Ukraine, apartments came equipped with a cable version of radios that were called “brekhuntsi” – liars or fibbers – for obvious reasons. And, after the collapse of the Soviet Russian empire, why didn’t the new, non-Soviet powers that be revise the acronym TASS, which stood for Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union?

TASS is a progeny of an evil system created by the Russian revolutionary bloodsucker V.I. Lenin who was notorious for using news and information to promote the glory of his murderous regime. Newspapers of the day were notoriously gray, mechanically spouting simple, choppy messages such as “All Power to the Soviets!” “Create a New Socialist Man!” and “Bread! Peace! Land!”

What Lenin’s journalists were expert at was turning these gray organs into monopolies. Instead of persuading with words, Lenin simply closed other newspapers and killed their editors and newswriters, leaving only his Bolshevik publications. The resulting monopoly intensified the impact of his Bolshevik message.

Lenin’s quotable quotes about newspapers include:

“A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organizer.”
“The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.”

The vestiges of Lenin’s system of centralized propaganda rather than a free press remain in place today and are seen regularly as the Kremlin’s attempts to manipulate the United States, Ukraine, Eastern European, and other countries.

Last month, Poland was hit with a barrage of fake news stories, including a phony interview with a U.S. commander ridiculing allied militaries, days before a major NATO exercise kicks off in the country, Polish officials said. “The military cooperation between the U.S. and Poland is constantly targeted by Russian activities,” they said.

As for targeting today’s health crisis, Russia and China use the global coronavirus pandemic to spread false reports and other online disinformation, according to the latest update published from the European External Action Service's team dedicated to highlighting such digital tactics. The group, called East Stratcom and whose mandate includes debunking fake news originating from Russia, said there had been more than 150 cases of pro-Kremlin disinformation linked to the global health crisis since late January. That includes claims that the European Union was on the verge of collapse because of national governments' fumbled responses to Covid-19.

Across social media, these narratives, often promoted by Russian propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik, have also highlighted how the Kremlin has been better prepared than its Western counterparts, and how some European governments welcomed aid provided by both Moscow and Beijing, reported Politico.

The Brookings Institute observed: “The coronavirus pandemic is laying bare a growing competition between democratic and authoritarian governments. As the US and Europe struggle to contain the virus at home, Russia and China are seizing the moment to enhance their international influence through information operations. Moscow and Beijing have long aimed to weaken the United States, blunt the appeal of democratic institutions, and sow divisions across the West. Their goals in this crisis are no different.”

Numerous sources have pointed out that Russia has a rather diversified arsenal. Indeed, you’ll find such common items as well-armed soldiers, tanks, aircraft, rockets and nuclear weapons which are called upon to expand its political influence in Washington, Kyiv and the United Nations as well as its empire.

But that’s not all. The news media are also important elements of Russia’s arsenal, with which it pulls countries around the world into its information mire. Russia is known for effectively and convincingly using them to expand its influence around the world, mask the Kremlin’s aggression, deny that it is happening, slander its few but vociferous critics, and spread disinformation that undermines the US and the West.
Acting Senate Intelligence Chair Marco Rubio (R-FL) recently warned his fellow Republicans in an interview with Politico not to fall victim to Russian disinformation as they move to probe the involvement of Obama administration officials, including Joe Biden, in the opening of the Russia investigation.

Russian propaganda, disinformation and fake news are pervasive in the world. They’re mission driven. And the mission isn’t to keep its readers, listeners and viewers informed about global events but rather to build the glory of “Holy Mother Russia.”

In the midst of today’s race riots, news surfaced that Russia has been planning for a long time to divide Americans according to race because, as Lincoln warned, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

“Russia is doing right now what Russia always does,” Bret Schafer, a media and digital disinformation fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States' Alliance for Securing Democracy, a think tank in Washington, was quoted as saying by Politico. 

Across the ocean, Russia is spreading disinformation about the coronavirus in the Netherlands, Minister Kasja Ollongren of Home Affairs revealed in a letter to parliament. Intelligence service AIVD found “Russian narratives” about the virus being shared in a number of Dutch-language social media groups, she said.

These narratives emphasize “alleged European divisions and lack of mutual solidarity between countries in Western Europe in the field of Covid-19,” Ollongren wrote. She added that outside the social media groups in which these messages were shared, their reach remained limited.

The Kremlin is adept at creating for the unaware, vulnerable and gullible a credible false impression of facts. If there a pandemic? Yes, but … Is there racism in America? Yes, but … Is Ukraine fighting for its independence again? Yes, but …

The refined nature of Russia’s propaganda was highlighted by Viktoriia Romaniuk, deputy director at Mohyla School of Journalism in Kyiv and deputy chief editor of Stopfake.org in an article she wrote in the Nos.1-2, 2019 edition of The Ukrainian Quarterly. While her observations directly pertain to the effects of ongoing Russian propaganda in Ukraine, conclusions can be drawn for other situations.

“Since the beginning of the Russian aggression in Donbas and occupation of Crimea, Ukraine has become the epicenter of Russia’s hybrid war. Signs of Russian propaganda are not only its illogical, emotional presentations (there are no facts, evidence, testimonies of officials, etc.) but most importantly their systemic nature. For five years in a row, the Kremlin media has regularly promoted important messages for the Russian authorities to various target audiences, via fake and manipulative messages, that were meant to promote political and military goals…

“Russian propaganda is actively working with narratives or narrative discourse…

“It should be noted that the narrative itself is not a direct fake or manipulative distortion of information. It is a regular infusing an audience with a particular content and interpretation of events, a phenomenon that leads to the formation of a new societal towards certain political decisions and events. Obviously, the task of Russian propaganda was to discredit Poroshenko’s pro-Western policy and to discredit in the minds of the electorate the democratic achievements of Ukraine over the past five years.

Interestingly, in fact, before the conclusion of the presidential elections, when various polls were forecasting the results of the voting, which showed that Volodymyr Zelenskyy would win, in the Russian media there was a new topic ‘Peace between fraternal peoples.’ Russian mass media also began to write that the war in Ukraine was beneficial solely to President Poroshenko, and Russia only seeks to help in resolving the ‘civil war.’…

“Thus, the propaganda strategies were aimed at changing the pro-Western paradigm that existed in the Ukrainian politics in the period from 2014 to 2019. The main strategies aimed to undermine the confidence of the Ukrainian people in Western initiatives and reforms, as well as to formulate a negative image of the European Union and the United States.”

With Russian wars, repression and dirty tricks around the world, Reuters should not have remunerated TASS with such a noble distinction. Hopefully, this nuptial will soon end in a divorce.