Do the Candidates & the White House have Ukraine’s Sixes?

Voting is not only a right, it’s an obligation. Every four years Americans participate in what has been called a peaceful revolution. Voters base their decision on many issues, depending on their personal or group likes or dislikes, some of which are clear cut and others muddled.

If you are a Ukrainian American voter or a constituent who is sensitive to the issues of the former captive nations, then your decision this November regarding your candidate of choice in the 2020 Presidential Elections is not well defined. Indeed, your congressman or senators of any political affiliation may be staunch supporters of Ukraine in its life or death war with Russia and they sponsor or co-sponsor of suitable resolutions. The candidates for political office may also often voice favorable words and phrases about Ukraine and attend local events. However, the political parties themselves, the foundations of America’s vibrant, outspoken bipartisan democracy, are not ready to formally and strongly support Ukraine and all of the adjacent issues that are important to Ukrainian Americans.

I remember when years ago, the community and its leaders would jockey for positions to have one or another plank about then captive Ukraine included in the foreign policy platforms. The late Lev Dobriansky was active in the aisles with Republicans while the late Joseph Lesawyer advocated among Democrats. Their passionate efforts were bolstered by community leaders on the local level. All in all, a political slam dunk for the community and Ukraine. Since the days of Ukraine’s subjugation in Russia’s prison of nations through its Declaration of Independence in 1991 and beyond, Ukraine saw the political light of day at least in the United States thanks to that type of well-oiled community machine. And support for Ukraine by the candidates decided their presidential fates. Remember President Gerald Ford’s lapsus linguae about the captive nations and the uproar it created?

But in the 2020 elections, the wave has not resulted in the same political inundation for the good of Ukraine as in the past.

Secretary of State Pompeo’s recent statement on Ukraine’s independence anniversary merely restated Washington’s unwavering support for a “free, resilient, and democratic Ukraine” and hopes for a diplomatic end to Russia’s ongoing aggression in eastern Ukraine. He also said the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Russia returns full control of all Ukrainian territory to Ukraine. Pompeo emphasized that friendship between Ukraine and the USA “has never been stronger.” Old hackneyed clichés that do not offer any fresh hope. While there are implied warnings to Russia, they weren’t backed up with the word “sanctions” or stronger threats and would push Moscow into submission.

Then there is the 2020 Captive Nations Week Proclamation that the President has been mandated to issue every year in July since 1959. This presidential document is meant to pay tribute to those peoples who were or are subjugated by Russian communism. This officially recognized policy greatly angered the Kremlin’s leaders who demanded that it be scratched from the record.

This year’s iteration did not mention Russia, Soviet or Communist/ism but only repressive regimes and China without any designation which one. President Trump did sign and authorize it as he should have but it lacks teeth. The last time this happened was during the heyday of President Richard Nixon’s peaceful coexistence policy.

On August 12, I posted a blog about Kamala Harris, the Democratic vice-presidential hopeful, saying that she favors Ukraine but distrusts Russia’s President Putin. It was a noteworthy remark but from 2019.

Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, soon after the Democratic Party Convention concluded, issued a statement, in which he pledged that if elected “I will make it clear to the Kremlin that it must end its aggression toward and occupation of Ukraine. A Biden-Harris administration will ensure that Ukraine gets the economic and military support that it needs, including lethal weapons, while urging Ukraine to pursue the essential reforms that are vital to its success. Together, we will work toward the celebration of Ukraine’s Independence Day as a peaceful, whole, sovereign, democratic, and prosperous country.”

As strong as Biden’s statement reads, local congressional aspirants have issued stronger comments.

But the expected political language about Russia and Ukraine has sadly been missing from a public discussion among the partisan presidential contenders and their handlers.

For the record, the Democratic Party’s official foreign policy platform did include planks about Russia and Ukraine. For example:

• President Trump has undermined our alliances in ways that our adversaries could have only dreamed of—sowing doubts about our commitments to diplomatic agreements, mutual defense, democratic values, and strategic purpose. As a result, our alliance system today faces its biggest test since the end of the Cold War. He has pushed to bring Russia back into the G7 while lambasting our NATO partners and ignoring intelligence about Russian bounties for killing American troops and other coalition forces in Afghanistan. He has undermined confidence in America’s commitment to the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defense provision, and threatened to pull troops out of Germany without consultation. In the midst of a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, he tried to extort our South Korean allies to dramatically increase their share of alliance costs.

• Democrats commit to strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, maintaining the moratorium on explosive nuclear weapons testing, pushing for the ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and extending New START. Just as was the case during the height of the Cold War, it’s in our interest to work with Russia to verifiably limit and reduce our nuclear stockpiles. We will build on this foundation to negotiate arms control agreements that reflect the emergence of new players like China, capture new technologies, and move the world back from the nuclear precipice.

• In the 30 years since the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States and Europe have strived to build a transatlantic community of free and democratic societies that works together to bring peace, prosperity, and dignity to all our citizens. The Trump Administration has put that dream in grave danger. Donald Trump either does not know or has forgotten who America’s friends are. He sees Europe as a foe—not a friend—of the United States. He sees Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a strategic partner—not a strategic rival. He sees anti-European Union, far-right nationalists as political allies—not destructive antagonists.

• Democrats will join our European partners in standing up to a revanchist Russia. We will not allow Moscow to interfere in our democracies or chip away at our resolve. We will reaffirm America’s commitment to NATO and defending our allies. We will maintain transatlantic support for Ukraine’s reform efforts and its territorial integrity. Democrats will lower regional—and global—threats by reinforcing nuclear arms control.

For the record on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, probably because of President Trump’s dislike for foreign affairs, voted ahead of their national convention to abandon constructing a formal platform, opting instead to shake the cobwebs off their 2016 statement with the global issues of that day:

• In the international arena, a weak Administration has invited aggression. The results of the Administration’s unilateral approach to disarmament are already clear: An emboldened China in the South China Sea, a resurgent Russia occupying parts of Ukraine and threatening neighbors from the Baltic to the Caucasus, and an aggressive Islamist terror network in the Middle East. We support maintaining and, if warranted, increasing sanctions, together with our allies, against Russia unless and until Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are fully restored. We also support providing appropriate assistance to the armed forces of Ukraine and greater coordination with NATO defense planning. All our adversaries heard the message in the Administration’s cutbacks: America is weaker and retreating. Concomitantly, we honor, support, and thank all law enforcement, first responders, and emergency personnel for their service.

• For the people of Russia, we affirm our respect and our determination to maintain a friendship beyond the reach of those who wish to divide us. We have common imperatives: Ending terrorism, combating nuclear proliferation, promoting trade, and more. We also have a common problem: The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

• The survival of the internet as we know it is at risk. Its gravest peril originates in the White House, the current occupant of which has launched a campaign, both at home and internationally, to subjugate it to agents of government. The President ordered the chair of the supposedly independent Federal Communications Commission to impose upon the internet rules devised in the 1930s for the telephone monopoly. He has unilaterally announced America’s abandonment of the international internet by surrendering U.S. control of the root zone of web names and addresses. He threw the internet to the wolves, and they — Russia, China, Iran, and others — are ready to devour it.

• Also neglected are our strategic forces, especially the development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses. The Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system has been delayed and underfunded. To curry favor with Russia, defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic have been neutralized and the number of planned interceptors in Alaska has been reduced. A New START agreement (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), so weak in verification and definitions that it is virtually impossible to prove a violation, has allowed Russia to build up its nuclear arsenal while reducing ours. Meanwhile Moscow has repeatedly violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty (a treaty agreeing to the elimination of land-based mid-range nuclear missiles) with impunity, covertly testing missiles banned under that agreement.

• The United States needs a radical rethinking of our human rights diplomacy. A Republican administration will adopt a “whole of government” approach to protect fundamental freedoms globally, one where pressing human rights and rule of law issues are integrated at every appropriate level of our bilateral relationships and strategic decision-making. Republican policy will reflect the fact that the health of the U.S. economy and environment, the safety of our food and drug supplies, the security of our investments and personal information in cyberspace, and the stability and security of the oceans will increasingly depend on allowing the free flow of news and information and developing an independent judiciary and civil society in countries with repressive governments such as China, Russia, and many nations in the Middle East and Africa.

• Cyber attacks against our businesses, insti­tutions, and the government itself have become almost routine. They will continue until the world un­derstands that an attack will not be tolerated — that we are prepared to respond in kind and in greater magnitude. Despite their promises to the contrary, Russia and China see cyber operations as a part of a warfare strategy during peacetime. Our response should be to cause diplomatic, financial, and legal pain, curtailing visas for guilty parties, freezing their assets, and pursuing criminal actions against them. We should seek to weaken control over the internet by regimes that engage in cyber crimes. We must stop playing defense and go on offense to avoid the cyber-equivalent of Pearl Harbor.

• A single nuclear weapon detonated at high alti­tude over this country would collapse our electrical grid and other critical infrastructures and endanger the lives of millions. With North Korea in possession of nuclear missiles and Iran close to having them, an EMP is no longer a theoretical concern — it is a real threat. Moreover, China and Russia include sabo­tage as part of their warfare planning. Nonetheless, hundreds of electrical utilities in the United States have not acted to protect themselves from EMP, and they cannot be expected to do so voluntarily since homeland security is a government responsibility. The President, the Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the States, the utilities, and the private sector should work together on an urgent basis to enact Re­publican legislation, pending in both chambers, to protect the national grid and encourage states to take the initiative to protect their own grids expedi­tiously.

Is it safe to say that Ukraine and the other former captive nations will be safe and secure as they continue to evolve under the watchful eyes of the Kremlin that’s ready to pounce, as it has, on any one of them? Ukraine does not occupy enough of a solid place inside the beltway’s mentality to allow me to say “yes.” It could, but it’s not obvious. There are those lawmakers that are prepared to fight the good fight for Ukraine and those that are lukewarm on Ukraine, choosing to side with Russia. Ukrainian American voters will have to ride roughshod over this issue.

The absence of such a necessary discussion at this year’s national political venues was also the target of concern for Samantha Vinograd, a CNN national security analyst and a senior adviser at the University of Delaware’s Biden Institute, which is not affiliated with the Biden campaign.

In her commentary titled “Pompeo's dangerous foreign policy messages,” Vinograd wrote, in part: “But you know what we didn’t hear much about? Russia. You’d think that someone would have spent serious time talking about the threat from Russia, which is still trying to interfere in US elections. The fact that Russia didn’t get much of a mention isn’t surprising and probably wasn't an accident – Trump probably doesn’t want to risk upsetting Vladimir Putin this close to the November election. This egregious omission speaks volumes about how this administration views foreign policy – it focuses on what’s politically expedient.”

Considering what is happening in the United States – race riots, coronavirus, unemployment, economic hardships – and around the world, Ukraine is not top of mind for politicians. However, without a nudge or two from Ukrainian American voters, Ukraine will remain at the bottom of this election year’s issues. In other words, with insufficient, credible evidence to the contrary, Ukrainian Americans’ decision on whether to vote for Biden or Trump won’t be influenced by either candidate’s support for Ukraine.

But there are 65 days remaining to Election Day.

(This statement on the 29th anniversary of the reestablishment of 

Ukrainian Independence on August 24, 1991, was prepared by the

USA National Executive Board of the 

Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine.)

24-го серпня 2020 р.

Поклін Українській Нації з нагоди 29-ої Річниці

Проголошення Відновлення Незалежности України

 

Шановні Українці на Рідних Землях і розкидані по земській кулі! Головна Управа Організації Оборони Чотирьох Свобід України в США щиро вітає Вас з Днем Незалежности України!

 

З почуттям глибокого патріотизму, любові до рідного краю і нації, та прагненням до єдності, складаємо цей наш поклін Українській Нації з нагоди 29-ої Річниці Проголошення Відновлення Незалежности України. Беручи до уваги нелегкий шлях до сьогоднішнього дня, ми стверджуємо, що Українська Нація здала свій іспит здобути Українську Державу і зберегти свою історію, культурну спадщину, мову і духовність.

 

Проголошення незалежности стало закономірним результатом нашого історичного розвитку, спільною перемогою багатьох поколінь найкращих синів і дочок України, які здобули Державну Самостійність у тяжких боротьбах з різними ворогами. Це не просто день народження держави. Це свято пам’яті про цілі покоління наших предків, що творили націю і боролися різними способами за державність, а також день, коли варто думати про день завтрашній, про майбутні покоління, про нашу відповідальність перед історією.

 

У всі часи існування Української Держави, Україна зазнавала багато ворожих нападів і зазіхань. Біля витоків і на сторожі державности стояли великі мужі Української нації – Микола Міхновський, В’ячеслав Липинський, Дмитро Донцов, Євген Коновалець, Степан Бандера, Роман Шухевич. Поруч із ними – тисячі українських патріотів, героїв, знаних і невідомих, які поклали життя за Вітчизну.

 

І тому нам не однаково чи буде Україна українською чи ні, чи будуть українці говорити українською мовою чи ні. Безліч поколінь українських патріотів віддали своє життя за те, щоби Україна була вільною, незалежною, суверенною українською державою.

 

Сьогодні, як ніколи раніше, це свято висуває перед кожним із нас високі вимоги, спонукає до особливої відповідальности перед собою, своєю країною, прийдешніми поколіннями, оскільки це – найскладніший період сучасної України, тому що щераз проливається українська кров і наша нація знову потерпає від збройної агресії Росії. Такою є ціна за прагнення нашого народу до гідного, самостійного життя у цілісній, незалежній та процвітаючій, демократичній європейській державі. Зокрема, сьогодні віддаємо найглибшу шану Збройним Силам України та старшинам і рядовим воякам, які мужньо захищають тимчасово анексований Московією Крим і частину Донбасу.

 

Нам випала велика історична місія здійснювати мрію багатьох поколінь українців – мати свою незалежну державу. Боляче про це говорити у святкові дні, але за неї Україна платить надзвичайно високу ціну – людські життя. Та нехай наші вороги знають, що націю, яка так дорого платить за свою Незалежність, – неможливо здолати.

 

У цей святковий день, ми закликаємо Президента і Уряд України недозволити російському реваншеві, надати українським воякам у війні проти російського кровожадного ворога всі ресурси до перемоги, зберегти українську мову як державну мову України, і піднести Україну до найвищого рівня у спільноті незалежних, демократичних держав світу.

 

Тож нехай це святкове привітання лине, насамперед, до ветеранів визвольної боротьби різних часів, до сьогоднішніх захисників Нації, які боронять Батьківщину на Сході нашої держави. До їхніх рідних і близьких. Хай кріпне віра у неминучу перемогу над однією з останніх імперій зла на планеті – нелюдської і кровожадної Росії.

 

Наша держава і нація гідні кращого майбутнього і чільного місця у когорті провідних незалежних держав.

 

Бажаємо Українській Нації миру і злагоди, міцного здоров’я, щастя, вагомих успіхів у всіх починаннях, нових здобутків в ім’я нашої держави та її майбутнього!

 

З Днем Незалежности вітаємо тебе, Україно, і Твоїх синів і дочок! І усіх українців, сущих на рідних землях та розкиданих по всьому світу!

 

«Згинуть наші вороженьки, як роса на сонці»! Бо з нами Бог! Бо за нами Правда!

 

Слава Українській Державі! Слава Нації! Слава Україні!

За ГУ ООЧСУ:

 

Микола Грицковян                                                                                         Ігор Длябога

голова                                                                                                             секретар

Today’s Russia Adds to its Roster of War Crimes in Ukraine

Mass graves, mass murder, wartime atrocities and crimes against humanity are not confined to any place and time. Nazi Germans committed them in Ukraine during World War II and so did the Soviet Russians throughout history. Mass graves were also uncovered during the war in the Balkans in 1991-2001.

The culprits behind the latest discovery are today’s Moscow and its leaders Putin, Lavrov et al who are wined and dined around the world.

Authorities in the war-torn eastern Ukrainian town of Sloviansk uncovered this week a mass grave of people killed in mid-2014 when the town, located some 430 miles east of Kyiv, was under the control of the known Russian military intelligence officer and killer Igor Girkin and his militant cutthroats, according to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. The unearthing is part of a preliminary criminal investigation, and therefore some of their findings are still secret.

Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group reported that the atrocity is located on the territory of a cemetery but it noted that it was clearly not intended to be found. DNA samples have been taken and sent to Kyiv for analysis in hopes that local residents can finally learn the fate of their loved ones who disappeared without a trace during the early months of the Russo-Ukraine War and subsequent occupation from April 12 to July 8 July, 2014. Forensic experts from the International Committee of the Red Cross were present during the exhumation.

“The police note that this is not the first such exhumation of mass graves in Sloviansk. On July 24, 2014, just weeks after the militants fled the advancing Ukrainian Army, a major exhumation was carried out which uncovered the bodies of 14 civilians believed to have been killed by Girkin and his Russian and pro-Russian militants. These included four members of the Evangelical Church of the Transfiguration in Sloviansk: the two sons – Reuben and Albert – of Pastor Oleksandr Pavenko, and two deacons of the church Viktor Bradarsky and Volodymyr Velichko. The four were abducted from the Trinity Sunday festive service on June 8, and are believed to have been tortured and then killed the next day,” KHPG said.

Russian television earlier had tried to pass off the murders as the work of Ukrainian soldiers, falsely claiming that the Ukrainians had been killed for helping the Russian invaders. In fact, KHPG explained further, the innocent residents may have been killed for their cars, which would not be the first time that militants, regarded as heroes by Russia, killed purely in the commission of a robbery.

The bodies in the mass grave were not the only signs of Russian war crimes in Sloviansk.

“The militants did not bother to hide the bodies of all their victims. Volodymyr Rybak, a 42-year-old Horlivka City Council deputy, was seized on April 17, 2014, after he tried to remove the flag of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), which the Russian and pro-Russian militants had hung over the Council building and restore the Ukrainian flag to its place. His horrifically mutilated body was found in a stream near Sloviansk, together with that of 19-year-old Yuri Popravka. The young lad had, together with Yuri Dyakovsky, who was 25, and three other young Maidan activists, set off for Sloviansk to try to gather information about the militants. They were seized almost immediately, with Dyakovsky’s body found a bit later,” KHPG wrote in its edition of August 19.

Girkin is known for his brutality and Sloviansk is not the first example of his demonic behavior. KHPG said the first evidence of extrajudicial executions and other war crimes was reported by western journalists that arrived in Sloviansk soon after the militants fled. Girkin, who is on trial in absentia in The Hague for his alleged role in the destruction of Malaysian airliner MH17, frequently boasts about his criminal activities in Donbas, and in 2016 admitted to extrajudicial executions during an interview. Although the latter was later removed, it has been widely reported, and was doubtless saved for submissions from Ukraine to the International Criminal Code. More recently, Girkin also admitted to using civilians as human shields in Donbas, KHPG said.

Christopher Miller, one of the journalists who had entered Sloviansk after the militants left, and other RFE/RL journalists published an article in July 2020 titled The Executioners of Sloviansk. They identified some of what they called “the Russia-backed militants — including one with ties to a longtime Putin aide in the Kremlin — who ordered the extrajudicial executions of Ukrainians by firing squad and set a dark tone for the war in the Donbas,” KHPG said.

KHPG further noted that documents about the extrajudicial killings of civilian Oleksiy Pichko and two Ukrainians who joined the militants (Dmytro Slavov and Mykola Lukyanov) show that the order to execute came from so-called “military tribunals” set up by Girkin “on the basis of a draconian law conceived by dictator Josef Stalin and imposed shortly after Germany invaded the Soviet Union in World War II.” The authors identified nine militants who took part in these military tribunals, and discovered that one of them, Viktor Anosov, “is tied through a Moscow-based organization for Russia-backed fighters to Vladislav Surkov, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest aides at the time of the executions and the architect of the Kremlin’s Ukraine policy.”

The human rights group also said the authors determined that at least a few of the nine men had received Russian citizenship and will undoubtedly be protected from prosecution, just as Russia is shielding the men on trial over MH17, the men who tortured and murdered 16-year-old Ukrainian student Stepan Chubenko, and others. “That is one of the reasons that justice is denied the victims and their families, but unfortunately Ukraine is also to blame. In the seventh year of Russian aggression Ukraine’s legislators are still dragging their feet on critically important legislation that will enable criminal prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.,” KHPG said.

It is indeed mindboggling that the legislators and government of independent Ukraine, which is engaged in the latest iteration of war with Russia, refuses to expeditiously adopt legislation that would give it the authority to punish the perpetrators – the Russian soldiers on the ground – and organizers and co-conspirators – the Russian leaders in the Kremlin – for their latest round of war crimes against Ukraine.

 At Least Kamala Harris Supports Ukraine, Dislikes Putin

Kamala Harris, Joe Biden’s selected vice-presidential nominee, brings to the Democratic frontrunner’s campaign knowledge of issues facing Ukraine and a desire to assist it against Russian aggression.

No, she didn’t say anything new since her selection yesterday, but in a wide-ranging interview on foreign policy issues with the Council of Foreign Relations published on August 21, 2019, Harris used the proper words to describe the dire situation faced by Ukraine and its source.

When asked what steps she would take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine, she frankly said Russia used military force to seize territory in Ukraine and Georgia and undermined democratically elected governments.

“Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea is a severe violation of the international norms that have guided the world since World War II – as are Russia’s support for combat operations in eastern Ukraine and its cyber-attacks,” she said. She accused Russia of contributing to the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians as well as 298 civilians killed when Moscow shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in 2014.
At the time, when she was a Democratic Party presidential hopeful, Harris said if elected she would continue to support Ukraine and ensure the United States is “unequivocal in affirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

She continued, “I would also prioritize working with the government of Ukraine to build out its military, strengthen its civil society, and combat corruption, while working closely with our European partners on a diplomatic solution.”

Harris pointed out that her position is different than the one professed by President Donald Trump, adding that she will “consistently stand up to Putin in defense of democratic values, human rights, and the international rule of law” – something that Trump declines to do.

Well, on that point Harris is correct. Hopefully, together with Joe Biden, who was President Barack Obama’s point man of issues pertaining to Ukraine, the Democrats have a duo that will support Ukraine against Russian aggression and set apart Putin as the global threat to all former captive nations and the free world.

We’ll keep you updated.

The complete interview with Harris can be read here: https://www.cfr.org/article/kamala-harris

X-Captive Nations Alliance Gains Momentum – The Lublin Triangle

One of the mainstay themes of my blog, The Torn Curtain 1991, has been the necessity for the former captive nations of Russian subjugation to form a multilateral alliance for their common security, stability and development in the face of Moscow’s enduring aggression.

I wrote about this from a variety of angles including building such a bloc among non-governmental organizations of their respective countries affiliated at the United Nations. At the time I suggested that their civil society representatives and the appropriate member-states’ permanent missions form such a coalition along the lines of the much-discussed UN Sustainable Development Goals. The 17 principles and 140-plus subtexts discuss more than just environmental issues. Human rights are included in the goals.

I had also cited an interview with Pavlo Klimkin, when he was minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, who advocated the creation of such a far-reaching bloc. Outraged by the Russian invasion of his homeland, Klimkin suggested soon after President Petro Poroshenko’s visit to Canada and the United States the creation of a Coalition of Freedom to defend democracy and Western values in a troubled world.

“It is about security for everyone,” Klimkin had said during an exclusive Fox News interview on the eve of the 71^st UN General Assembly in 2016. “If someone in this interchangeable and intertwined world cannot feel secure, how can US citizens here feel secure?”

Klimkin explained that Ukraine is confronting – and still is – a threat any nation can face, adding “we need a network of security.” His Coalition of Freedom would consist of “countries which are committed to freedom, to democratic values, where we are not talking about spheres of influence, but the values and real interests of democratic countries.” Indeed, his theme fits today’s dangerous global agenda, especially that faced by the former captive nations.

In a recent blogpost I welcomed the formation of a special brigade composed of soldiers from Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland as a major step forward in developing such an alliance that will defend the former captive nations from any belligerent action by Russia meant to reestablish its domination of Ukraine, the Baltic States, the remainder of Eastern Europe and beyond. Three x-captive nations, Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland, have transformed this worthy idea into practice with the mobilization of the “Hetman Konstantyn Ostrohskiy” Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade (LITPOLUKR) – https://litpolukrbrig.wp.mil.pl/en/ . Russia invading the captive nations is not as farfetched a notion as some may claim because in the past six years Moscow proved its overt mission is to rebuild the holy Russian empire and establish tight control of the nations in its near abroad.

Finally, it has come to light that five days ago, on July 28, this idea began to gel. In the Polish city of Lublin, where the tripartite brigade is stationed, the foreign ministers of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine met and signed a document acknowledging the importance of such a nascent formation. The three countries officials’ acknowledged the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine and the military occupation of Crimea.

The following is the text of their joint declaration that appeared on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine:

Lublin, 28 July 2020

Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, Republic of Lithuania and Ukraine recognize the multi-centennial historical and cultural links between their nations.

They also recognize the benefits of creating even stronger political, economic, infrastructure, security, defense and cultural links between their countries in contemporary world.

They draw attention to the activities of Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine in the process of shaping the modern political, cultural and social realities of Central Europe.

At the same time, they underline the strategic importance of intensified cooperation between the European Union, NATO and Eastern Partnership countries and pay due attention to the functioning of the Three Seas Initiative.

They note with due attention common threats in security area as well as in others, i.e. pandemic threats.

They underline the important role of dialog between the three countries in the parliamentary dimension, especially within the Parliamentary Assembly Poland-Lithuania-Ukraine.

They recognize the benefits of their trilateral cooperation in the security sphere, in particular functioning of the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade (LitPolUkrBrig).

Taking into account the ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine, they commit to coordinating their activities in order to uphold the international law, both through trilateral cooperation and within international organizations (NATO, European Union, United Nations, Council of Europe, OSCE).

They declare invariably their strong condemnation of the attempted annexation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol by the Russian Federation. They do not recognize it and will never do it. They also call upon Russian Federation to withdraw its troops from the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.

They reaffirm their unwavering support to Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders and call upon Russian Federation to stop its aggression against Ukraine, as well as its temporary occupation of Ukraine’s territories of Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.

They reiterate their firm support for the European and Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Ukraine and welcome its European choice.

They note with satisfaction granting of NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner status to Ukraine. They support Ukraine’s aspirations to NATO membership. Providing Ukraine with the NATO Membership Action Plan should be the next step to this direction.

They recommit to deepening and broadening of Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian military-to-military cooperation, both through bilateral and trilateral activities and by making full use of possibilities created by NATO.

They reaffirm the unwavering commitment to the development of the Eastern Partnership by broadening and deepening cooperation and proposing ambitious and strategic long-term goals.

They commit to providing mutual support in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.

They envisage active actions aiming at promoting trade and investments, securing better access to regional infrastructure and improving its quality by stepping up with ambitious projects promoting cohesion in the region.

They support the cooperation of Ukraine with the Three Seas Initiative, as well as cooperation within other regional formats.

They support the effective implementation of political-economic reforms in Ukraine, taking into account Polish and Lithuanian experiences and best practices worked out in cooperation with other European countries.

They commit to strengthening people-to-people contacts and civil society cooperation, including between scientists and experts.

In order to ensure achieving the above-mentioned goals the Ministers decide to create a trilateral platform for political economic and social cooperation between the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Lithuania and Ukraine – Lublin Triangle.

The Ministers decide to organize their regular meetings, also in the margins of multilateral sessions and with the participation of chosen partners.

They also decide to organize consultations of high-level MFA officials and establish liaison-officers within the Ministries of Foreign Affairs.

•••

This document is by far the most important political document concluded in the post-World War II era. It recognizes the ongoing threat that Russia poses to global and regional peace, security and development. It also declares that three captive nations – Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland – acknowledge their common fate and the need to stand shoulder to shoulder in their defense against Moscow’s belligerence.

The Lublin Triangle, if properly developed, expanded with additional x-captive nations, and supported by the free world, has the potential of becoming an historic alliance that will bring peace to the region and world by curbing Russia’s aggression and imperialism.

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.