Does Gorbachev Deserve Platitudes on His 90th?

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, inheritor of Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Stalin and Lenin, and the last ruler of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – the Evil Empire as President Reagan correctly observed – is 90 years old and some are fawning over his achievements as dubious as they were.

So what’s the big deal?

The National Security Archive at nsarchive.gwu.edu/ wrote a happy birthday tribute to him titled “Gorbachev’s Greatest Hits.”

Among other things, the article states: “Gorbachev did not have time to realize many of his ideas, chief among them the creation of a new voluntary and democratic and demilitarized Soviet Union.  But the seven years he spent as leader of the Soviet Union changed the world to an extent nobody imagined before.  Gorbachev, more than any other figure, ended the Cold War, then worked to ensure the story could be told.”

According to Reuters, President Putin hailed his predecessor Gorbachev as an “outstanding statesman” who influenced the course of history.

Gorbachev’s spokesman Vladimir Polyakov said messages of congratulations also came from world leaders, including British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

However, former captive nation Latvia’s Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics seemingly facetiously tweeted that Latvians were grateful to Gorbachev. “His perestroika and (glasnost reforms) were intended to save the Soviet Union, instead they sped up the collapse of the Communist empire paving the way to freedom for millions,” he wrote.

The article in National Security Archive attempted to white wash the cumulative evils of the USSR just because its last dictator, Gorbachev, involuntarily oversaw its demise on December 26, 1991, several months after a few of the captive nations had already proclaimed their independence. The last paragraph in the article bemoaned that Gorbachev did not have time to realize his plans and end the Cold War and sought to exonerate him for all of Russia’s crimes against humanity. Actually, his “perestroika” and “glasnost” policies did not restructure anything, they did not allow openness, and they really didn’t liberate anyone but rather they continued subjugating the captive nations but now cynically with a “happy face.”

In retirement Gorbachev cautioned against a return to the Cold War and urged Moscow and Washington to keep talking to each other, regardless of their differences. As for ending the Cold War, there was never any intention to do so because Moscow turned dialogue into regional hot wars such as its seven-year aggression in Ukraine.

Including Gorbachev’s reign, Russia – in all of its colorations – has never wavered from its belligerent behavior toward its “near abroad.” Gorbachev, himself, expressed opposition to the wave of independence that swept the Russian prison of nations in the past three decades. Its invasion of Ukraine is an example of the ongoing mission of the Kremlin.

Gorbachev is just like all of his predecessors and successors. He didn’t renounce Russia’s bloody past so he perpetuated centuries of its crimes against humanity.

He does not to deserve these ovations because he merely administered Moscow’s unchangeable malicious empire for a few years and was a segue between a Soviet-Communist Russia and Putin’s federal one. Aggression and oppression continue unabatedly.

Moscow Still Plans to Enslave Ukraine

Moscow’s fervent desire to rebuild the holy Russian empire and re-subjugate the former captive nations isn’t showing any signs of fading. It is graphically evident in the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-21, a European war that is longer than the Second World War.

To borrow from then Vice-President Joe Biden’s speech to the Verkhovna Rada on Dec. 9, 2015, Ukrainians have been fighting the latest installment of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine since Moscow “illegally occupied Crimea” in February 2014 and through the “unrelenting aggression of the Kremlin” as it spread to the eastern oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk.

Call it what you want, but you can’t avoid stating that this is Moscow’s ongoing effort to repair the torn curtain, conquer its neighbors and restore its global dominance. Dragging out its armed reconstruction in a piecemeal fashion by first illegally seizing Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, it seems that today’s successors of the tsars and commissars and pupils of Hitler are intensifying this campaign by targeting more Ukrainian lands.

Kremlin TV chief Margarita Simonyan late last month made a shocking declaration by publically urging Moscow to never return occupied Ukrainian oblasts. “Mother Russia, take Donbas home,” Simonyan exhorted her bosses in the Kremlin during a recent Russian Donbas Forum.

This undoubtedly raised eyebrows in Kyiv and the free world and signaled a new escalation in Moscow’s seven-year war against independent Ukraine. What will be their response?

According to Alvydas Medalinskas in the Atlantic Council, “Simonyan’s words carry significant weight. As chief editor of the Kremlin’s flagship television network RT (formerly Russia Today) and international news agency Rossiya Segodnya, she occupies a position close to the summit of Putin’s propaganda apparatus and is widely recognized as a trusted regime insider. While Simonyan does not officially speak for the authorities, it is highly unlikely she would have traveled to the war zone in eastern Ukraine and made such provocative statements without having first received a nod of approval from the Kremlin.”

Indeed, nothing official or quasi-official happens in Russia without the Kremlin’s OK.

Medalinskas pointed out that Simonyan’s call for the annexation of Donbas was not an isolated declaration. Since December 2020, Russian propaganda efforts have increasingly focused on the so-called Russian Donbas doctrine, which aims to provide historical justification for Moscow’s claims to eastern Ukraine by emphasizing the region’s longstanding ties to Russia.

On the one hand, such pronouncements are not only contrary to Russia’s role in the Minsk Peace Process but they also directly contradict Moscow’s official commitment to supporting the reintegration of the Donbas region into Ukraine. By now it should be disturbingly obvious that the Kremlin has never intended to live up to its promises.

Moscow has often been caught rewriting history to demonstrate its faux-righteousness and the Russian Donbas doctrine is just the latest example. It distorts history, boosts its positive visibility, validates its belligerence, fabricates events and facts, and denies obvious examples of its war against Ukraine.

Perpetuating the false illusion of merely wanting to take back what was stolen from it, Russian leaders such Putin have repeatedly stated that they regard Ukrainians and Russians as “one nation.” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov asserted on February 8 that Moscow continues to view Ukraine as part of the “Russian world.” Brezhnev also claimed that Czecho-Slovakia was part of its world when Moscow lead the Warsaw Pact countries in an invasion of that captive nation that was on the verge of independence in 1968.

Halya Coynash of the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group pointed out that “Russian-installed ‘leaders’ of the self-proclaimed ‘Donetsk people’s republic’ [‘DPR’] have begun trumpeting a new ‘Russian Donbas doctrine’ pushing the idea that Donbas was created by Russians and has always been Russian.”

Coynash explained that the Russian Donbas narrative conceals the actual authors of the propaganda while enhancing the arsenal of propaganda, which residents of Donbas, especially children, are subjected to, as it helps Moscow to rewrite the historical truth about its fundamental role in causing the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The claim will now be that it was Russian Donbas that asserted its historical identity and formed the so-called republics.

Surely it is easier to seize foreign territory when the local population and the world have been exposed to a barrage of lies about the origin of the people and land. Hitler invaded foreign lands to protect the German people and Putin is doing the same.

Coynash continued: “There was huge fanfare in both occupied Donbas and Russian media for the very little substance that Russian-installed ‘DPR leader’ Denis Pushilin came out with on 13 December 2020.  He announced that they would be drawing up a ‘Russian Donbas’ doctrine which would, purportedly, become “a platform for the ideological structure of the republic, reflecting the Donbas’ historical links with Russia.”  He claimed that in 2014 they had known “what we were fighting for and against what,” but now they need a ‘Russian doctrine’ which will supposedly “reflect the main aspects of the cultural-historical development of the region; the world-view system of the population; the mentality; the formation of the idea of the republic’s statehood. It should become a program document, the basis for educational processes and decisions in the system of state planning.”

This identical warlike, belligerent attitude only emanates from the seat of power in Moscow.

Peskov declared that protecting what Moscow views as its Russian world, previously referred to as its near abroad and before that the Warsaw Pact countries, has been and will remain a priority of the Kremlin. According to him, Moscow believes that Ukraine and presumably the other x-captive nations are also a part of this world.

This declaration should send an earsplitting signal to the free world that if the Russian army isn’t halted in Ukraine, Europe should prepare to defend itself. Heed this alarm if you don’t want to be caught by surprise as the world was when Czech-Slovakia was invaded five decades ago.

Peskov emphasized that there is a great number of Russians and Russian-speaking people residing in Ukraine – identical to Hitler’s vision of Reichsdeutsche and Volksdeutsche and his obligation to protect both regardless of where they lived. He, Putin, the liberals and others believe Ukrainians are part of the Russian world, therefore, Russia will continue its current warlike policies toward Ukraine through power.

The Russian president’s spokesperson noted that Russia never used methods that would violate any international norms, but Peskov is a bald-faced liar. Russia’s war against Ukraine is not being waged with what he called soft power. Tanks, missiles, soldiers and blood constitute hard power designed to invade, conquer and re-subjugate Ukraine.

Is this a threat?

In the July 29, 2013, edition of The Torn Curtain 1991 newsletter, I wrote that amid of host of religious, predominantly Orthodox spiritual leaders in Kyiv to commemorate the millennium of Christianity of Kyiv-Rus’, Putin on Saturday, July 27, urged Ukraine to join forces with Russia, saying Russians and Ukrainians were “one people.” Putin said the two majority Orthodox neighbors should further integrate economically. As well as promoting economic ties, Putin also emphasized the bonds between both countries forged by a common history and what he called Russia and Ukraine’s “spiritual unity.”

“Together we went through great trials, tribulations and tragedies, together we built and defended the Great Rus,” Putin said following a meeting with Ukraine’s top Orthodox clergy. “All of us are spiritual successors of what happened here 1,025 years ago. And in this sense we are certainly one people.”

Seven months later Russia invaded and seized Crimea, igniting the latest Russo-Ukraine War.

Sounds like a precursor to today’s exhortations. So when will the next shoe drop?

Small Step for Mykolayiv, Giant Leap for Ukraine

Every now and then you can come across a wonderful story about Ukrainization.

This is a vital process for the simple reason that of all languages in all of the regions in the world, the Ukrainian language after independence and centuries of russification is still under fire from Russia. Consequently, every word uttered in the Ukrainian language is a step in preserving the tongue for future generations.

The Ukrainian parliament, in the recent past, enacted a law on language which gave the Ukrainian language official national status just as national languages have in other countries. Over time, its usage was decreed in all spheres of governmental and business relations. However, implementation and enforcement have been difficult.

And now we arrive in the city of Mykolayiv in southern Ukraine, founded in 1789, population less than 500,000, not far from the Black Sea, some 480 kilometers (300 miles) from Kyiv.

At a meeting of the municipal council on Feb. 2, the newly elected, language conscious mayor, Oleksandr Senkevych, encountered stubborn councilmen who refused to speak in the Ukrainian language at an official council meeting, according to BBC Ukraine. They favored speaking in Russian.

The verbal altercation began when Vladyslav Chayka of the Opposition Platform – For Life, who lost to Senkevych in the mayoral elections, addressed the meeting in Russian. This prompted an outcry from the attendants, who demanded that he speak in Ukrainian.

Chayka admonished them, saying: “What, you don’t understand Russian? Listen, I can speak in Ukrainian as well as in Russian. For me, there is no difference. Right now we are dealing not with politics but with economics.”

Senkevych interjected, pointing out that Ukraine’s language law requires that the council members speak in Ukrainian.

Chayka insisted that he is not violating the Constitution but the Mayor wouldn’t concede, saying that he would simultaneously translate his remarks into Ukrainian.

And so he did, according to BBC, word for word, sentence for sentence.

The same situation occurred during Councilman Oleksandr Medvedev’s comments.

Ironically, at the end of the discussion, Medvedev turned to Mayor Senkevych and said in Russian: “Oleksandr Fedorovych, you’re a bad translator.” And the Mayor sarcastically translated word for word the councilman’s opinion into Ukrainian.

Local sources reported that in reply to a Councilman Ruslan Moskalenko’s earlier Russian-language statements, Taras Kremin, who is in charge of overseeing Ukrainian language fulfillment, reminded Senkevych of the law’s implementation. He said local officials, who took an oath to speak in Ukrainian, are required to do so at official meetings and events.

This occurrence in small Mykolayiv is worthy of emulation across Ukraine, even in linguistically conscious western Ukraine.

Native language plays an essential role in establishing your and your people’s identity. History, faith, culture and experiences are inherent in language. Learning the native language signifies learning the same history and culture of your parents, relatives, ancestors, and even the generations past and still to be born.

Tenacious, conscious usage of the Ukrainian language will keep Ukraine independent and sovereign and the nation alive.

2021 Begins with Unending Support for Ukraine

The New Year is beginning on a high note for Ukraine as Kyiv charts its sovereign course amid economic obstacles and Russia’s imperial war in Donbas. The international community continues to stand up in support of Ukraine economically and militarily and Ukrainians in Ukraine and the Diaspora should cheer.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, in one of his first telephone conversations with a foreign official on February 1, assured Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba of America’s ongoing support.

According to the official readout, Blinken emphasized strong bipartisan support for Ukraine and the priority the United States places on Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Euro-Atlantic aspirations.  He pledged to continue robust US economic and military assistance to Ukraine.

Blinken highlighted the importance of Ukraine maintaining progress on fighting corruption and implementing rule of law and economic reforms that will strengthen Ukraine’s institutions and ensure a bright and prosperous future for all Ukrainians.  He and Kuleba also discussed Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to combat COVID-19, and to achieve a diplomatic resolution to Russia’s aggression in eastern Ukraine and Crimea.

On a broader scale, the G7 Ambassadors’ Support Group announced on January 11 that they will continue to support Ukraine in carrying out reforms that stimulate economic development for the benefit of all Ukrainians.

“What will the G7 do under the UK presidency? As we have since 2015, we will continue to engage with the Ukrainian authorities, experts and civil society to support Ukraine in delivering reforms which boost economic development for the benefit of all Ukrainians. This will include improvement of the investment climate, promoting equitable development, eliminating corruption, and strengthening the rule of law and transparency. We will share our full list of priorities later this month – stay tuned!” the UK Presidency of the G7 Ambassadors' Support Group in Kyiv said on Twitter.

The full list of priorities of the group of ambassadors of the G7 countries to support Ukraine was promised to be announced later that month.

The United Kingdom expressed on January 11 its support for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine and will continue to do so in the future.

This British Embassy in Ukraine stated this on the occasion of the 29th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries on January 10.

“Today marks the 29th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the UK and Ukraine. The UK strongly supports Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity and will continue to do so in the future,” the embassy posted on Twitter.

The diplomats also recalled that Ukraine and the UK signed a “historic” strategic partnership agreement last year, which opened new opportunities for deepening British-Ukrainian relations and cooperation.

It is important to remember that Ukraine relies on the free world’s support against Russia since Moscow illegally annexed Crimea in 2014 and has been waging the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-21 – the longest war in Europe since the Second World War. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are the only soldiers – both servicemen and women – with actual combat experience in successfully fighting the Russian war machine.

Ukrainians in Ukraine and the diaspora should not only applaud this but especially those in the free world, with access to their elected officials, should maintain pressure so that support does not evaporate.

International Court Rules against Russia – again

Despite sanctions and censures, cold-hearted Russia continues on its traditional destructive course of barreling through global security, international relations, innocent foreign populations, and its own domestic opponents in order to perpetuate its existence.

At the same time, the list of admonishments and condemnations continues to grow apace without causing a dent in Moscow’s behavior and hostile plans.

Beyond condemning the Kremlin for imprisoning Alexei Navalny, global judicial institutions last month have again sharply censured several instances of Russia’s criminality while the free world sadly shuns drastic punitive steps beyond repeating its sanctions.

As Western analysts have observed regarding the Navalny case – though their comments can be attributed to all of Moscow’s high crimes and transgressions – the Kremlin’s lawlessness may contribute to a tarnishing of relations with it but don’t expect Russian leaders to be taken behind the woodshed. Relations with Russia will continue to flourish without any disruptions.

Last month, Ukraine won a crucial victory in the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) against Russia over Crimea. It was a ruling that would make any country stop and reconsider its policies.

The ECHR Grand Chamber on January 14 found Ukraine’s complaints against Russia over violations in Crimea partly admissible and essentially determined that Russia has occupied Crimea since February 27, 2014. This substantiated earlier United Nations resolutions, which also called Russia an occupying power of the Ukrainian peninsula. (Read my blogpost on December 9, 2020 https://thetorncurtain1991.blogspot.com/2020/12/another-un-resolutionon-crimea-russia.html)

The only reason the ruling was deemed partly, not wholly, admissible, was because ECHR considered that Ukraine had not provided sufficient proof to back a very small part of the huge number of complaints, explained the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group. 

The Court pointed out that it did not need to decide “whether Crimea’s admission, under Russian law, into Russia had been lawful from the standpoint of international law.” However, by agreeing that Russia had wielded effective control since February 27, 2014 – the day when Russian soldiers without insignia – the now infamous green men – seized control of government buildings, etc. on Ukrainian territory – the court de facto pointed to Russia’s flagrant violation of international law. 

Russia’s outrageous excuse claims that “the Crimean people” decided to hold a referendum on March 16, 2014, that was enforced by Russian bayonets and lead to Russia’s official control dates beginning with March 18 of that year. 

The list of violations that Ukraine has asserted is extensive, and covers almost all the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. They include violations that are also part of Ukraine’s case against Russia before the UN’s International Court of Justice (over violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.)

“Although there is still a long way to go, this is a victory for Ukraine. Russia is now facing liability over its violations in occupied Crimea and Donbas in several international courts (ECHR; ICJ, the International Criminal Court and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). Moscow’s sole argument when faced with Ukraine’s inter-state claims has been to deny that this or that judicial body has the jurisdiction to examine the case. It is a policy that is, thankfully, proving to be doomed,” observed the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group.

The court found “sufficient prima facie evidence regarding both the “repetition of acts” and “official tolerance” of the following violations, listed by the Kharkiv group:

• enforced disappearances and the lack of an effective investigation into such a practice (under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights);

• ill-treatment and unlawful detention (Articles 3 and 5);

• the application of Russian law in Crimea with the result that as from February 27, 2014, the courts in Crimea could not be considered to have been “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6;

• automatic imposition of Russian citizenship and raids of private dwellings (Article 8);

• harassment and intimidation of religious leaders not conforming to the Russian Orthodox faith, arbitrary raids of places of worship and confiscation of religious property (Article 9);

• suppression of non-Russian media (Article 10);

• prohibiting public gatherings and manifestations of support, as well as intimidation and arbitrary detention of organizers of demonstrations (Article 11);

• expropriation without compensation of property from civilians and private enterprises (Protocol No. 1 § 1);

• suppression of the Ukrainian language in schools and harassment of Ukrainian-speaking children at school (Protocol 1 § 2);

• restricting freedom of movement between Crimea and mainland Ukraine, resulting from the de facto transformation (by Russia) of the administrative delimitation into a border (between Russia and Ukraine) (Protocol No. 4 § 20;

• targeting Crimean Tatars (under Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention and with Protocol No. 4 § 2 to the Convention.)

The ECHR found that the above transgressions were consistent with the conclusions set out in a number of reports by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, notably a report of 2017 by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The court adopted the same positions as the UN General Assembly, the International Criminal Court and other international bodies and effectively found Russia to be an occupying state just as Nazi Germany was in Ukraine and across Europe eight decades ago. As such it is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention from applying its legislation on occupied territory. If the courts in Crimea cannot be considered to have been “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6, then all such politically motivated trials and horrific sentences are in grave violation of the right to a fair trial.

Then, one week later, on January 21, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also concluded that Ukrainian authorities, during the Euro-Maidan uprising in late 2013 and early 2014 – when Viktor Yanukovych served as Moscow’s gauleiter – committed a series of human rights violations that resulted in the killing of more than 100 peaceful protesters. It should be noted that the Ukrainian authorities that the court referred to was visibly following Moscow’s orders, which enraged the Ukrainian population.

In a ruling on five lawsuits filed by 33 Ukrainian nationals, the ECHR said during the protests there were multiple violations of the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The violations dealt with the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to liberty and security, freedom of assembly and association, the right to life, and the right to respect private and family life.

“The court observed that it had found multiple violations of several articles as a result of how the authorities had conducted themselves during the Maidan protests and the absence to date of an independent and effective mechanism within Ukraine for the investigation of crimes committed by law-enforcement officers and non-State agents,” the court said in its ruling, adding that “Ukraine was to pay some of the applicants the awards in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and costs and expenses set out in the relevant judgments.”

The Maidan protests, which became known as the Revolution of Dignity, began in November 2013 when protesters gathered on the Maidan, the central square in Kyiv, after Yanukovych announced he was postponing plans to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union and would seek closer economic ties with Russia. Russian security forces opened fire at unarmed protesters throughout the 90-day demonstration that had swelled to nearly 2 million participants. Ukrainian prosecutors said 104 people were killed and 2,500 injured in the protests.

Shunning a deal backed by the West and Russia to end the standoff, Yanukovych abandoned power and fled Kyiv on February 21, 2014. He was flown to Russia in secret and remains there, denying ordering police to use their weapons on protesters and claiming the violence was a “planned operation” to overthrow his government.

Moscow responded to his downfall by seizing control of Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in February 2014 and fomenting separatism in the Donbas region of Ukraine that sparked the Russo-Ukraine War of 2014-2021 that has killed more than 13,200 people in eastern Ukraine.

And finally, also on January 21, Georgia has won its 2008 war case against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court released its judgement which said that Russia violated several articles of the European Convention on Human rights during the conflict and carried out ethnic cleansing of Georgians. 

The court said Russia violated the following articles: 

• The right to life (Article 2).

• Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3).

• The right to liberty and security (Article 5).

• The right to protection of private and family life (Article 8).

• Protection of property (Article 1 of Additional Protocol 1);

• Freedom of movement (Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The verdict said Russia had to pay Georgia 10,000,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 1,500 Georgian nationals. However, Russia has not paid the compensation so far. 

These are the consequences of Russian aggression in 2008 in Georgia include:

• Human losses: 412 killed on the Georgian side – including 170 military servicemen, 14 policemen and 228 civilians

• 1,747 wounded on the Georgian side – including 973 military servicemen, 227 policemen and 547 civilians

• Three journalists killed, six journalists wounded

• 130,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) – out of which 26,000 are still denied the right of return. [Overall, the number of IDPs from both occupied regions is now close to half a million]

• 35,000 houses burned, ruined and destroyed

• 125 more villages have been occupied since the August 2008 war

Referring to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding Russia’s crimes in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba cheered this victory for Ukraine, saying “This is an important step toward bringing Russia to legal responsibility for aggression against Ukraine. And with each step the price of this responsibility will grow,” according to Interfax-Ukraine.

Kuleba said Ukraine’s legal set of actions confirm the truth that Kyiv reported and refute the disinformation of Russia.

“I am absolutely convinced that the legal set of actions of Ukraine, and this is not only the European Court of Human Rights, these are the processes that are taking place at the International Maritime Tribunal, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court – they will confirm that truth step by step that Ukraine has reported to the world since 2014, when the Russian aggression started, and they will refute all the propaganda and disinformation that the Russian Federation was spreading in this regard,” he said.

The court has issued its verdict against Russia for its crimes against Ukraine and Georgia, and crimes must be accompanied by punishments. Col.-Gen. Ruslan Khomchak, commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, for one, believes Russian leaders must be punished for all crimes committed against the civilian population and military personnel in Ukraine.

Speaking with Obozrevatel, Khomchak said: “For all crimes against the civilian population and military personnel in Ukraine, Russia must be held accountable. For every home destroyed, for every life of our people, broken or lost.”

Sounds very similar to what William Wallace of “Braveheart” told the British invaders: “Lower your flags and march straight back to England, stopping at every home you pass by to beg forgiveness for a hundred years of theft, rape, and murder. Do that and your men shall live. Do it not, and every one of you will die today.”

The court itself declared that Moscow committed flagrant violations of international law. In other words Russia is guilty. Certainly this verdict by itself demands justice, at least some sort of sentence, a reckoning for crimes committed and human and property damages done. What will be the price for these crimes? The International Tribunal in Nuremberg efficiently dealt with guilty Nazi defendants.

In the case of Russian crimes, there is always the historically proven possibility that the Kremlin and its leaders will be released to go on their way without any occasion for punishment, allowing Moscow to bask in the sunshine of absolution, with global leaders queuing up to shake hands with Putin and toast Russia’s achievements.

Justice certainly is not served.

Reddit, GameStop Could be Ace up Moscow’s Sleeve?

The surprising calamity caused by retail traders is surely providing Moscow with another avenue for disrupting America’s way of life and business.

Stories about the latest stock-market volatility regarding Reddit users, GameStop and hedge funds have been visible on all hot and cold media. Who can resist a story about amateur little guys beating Wall Street behemoths in a fair competition? All the day traders did was to band together on Reddit to execute a classic short squeeze to nearly bankrupt a multibillion-dollar hedge fund.

However, this event has unexpected benefits for America’s adversaries and enemies, according to a story on Market Watch.

“But when the laughter subsides, a few serious policy questions emerge. And none of them are more important than the question of whether GameStop’s stock surge will open the door to malicious domestic and international actors trying to manipulate markets and destabilize the global financial system,” the financial website wrote.

Can America’s enemies seize the moment and multiply this example to undermine the United States and the world? Of course. Will they try? As sure as the crazies attacked the Capitol.

Moscow has certainly taken its position at the head of the line.

Market Watch reminded its readers: “In the run-up to the 2016 election, Russian operatives demonstrated how easy it was for a determined malign geopolitical force to use social media to manipulate American voters at scale; it is only a matter of time before a malign financial actor employs similar techniques to manipulate American investors at scale. Just imagine what the Russians, Chinese and Iranians are thinking of watching what’s happening with GameStop over the last week. A road map has just been laid out for the intentional mass manipulation of stock prices through targeted disinformation on social media.”

This possibility not only pertains to evil state actors like the KGB-FSB but also to a host of Russian oligarchs and gangsters that do the Kremlin’s bidding and have the resources to pay top ruble for the best hackers and web geniuses.

Market Watch noted that the recent crazy explosion of prices offers a convenient “how-to” guide for criminals on the use of social media to rig prices. The financial website pointed out that these criminals “are playing on fertile ground, softened by a decade of central bank liquidity, enormous fiscal stimulus, widespread access to sophisticated trading techniques, and woefully inadequate regulation. Unfortunately, Reddit’s anonymity makes it a tempting tool for those who might want to fuel illicit activity.”

Russia and other global criminals take advantage of so-called troll farms that typically “exacerbate political tensions in the US” but now “could easily be redirected to hype a particular stock on social media. With the added layer of ‘class warfare’ being ascribed to the GameStop situation, our adversaries can get a two-for-one shot.”

Extend your imagination outside the box. These troll farms can now be tasked to subvert any Internet-controlled municipal service such as power, hydro-electric dams, radar, nuclear facilities, skyscraper elevators, etc. Scary.

Market Watch continued: “Finally, the national security community should prioritize protecting our financial markets from disinformation the same way it focuses on protecting our elections. Russia’s social media campaigns designed to destabilize American society came after years of careful observation of the incentives created on social media, and have since been copied by malevolent actors both at home and abroad. In the days since the ‘GameStopGate’ story broke, it has been leveraged by extremists to radicalize and recruit over encrypted digital communication platforms. The main angle so far is inflaming anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the financial world.

“Just think what the Kremlin learned this week about the opportunities to use similar techniques to undermine both democracy and democratic capitalism — and to potentially make a fortune in the process.”

Dictators from the Middle East to Moscow are gloating and rubbing their hands as they post classified ads for junior Internet and data specialists.

No rest for America’s security agencies.

Death of Independent Civil Society in Russia

Non-governmental organizations, community organizations, civil society or not-for-profits are the backbones of democracies. Staffed or operated by volunteers, these dedicated men and women are the hallmark of a democratic society. While some officials from both sides of the aisle may discount them as nuisances, NGOs are needed to initiate and fulfill beneficial changes that help humanity and keep the powers that be from slipping into despotism.

They are regarded so valuable to civilization that the United Nations has designated them the fourth leg of its foundation and provided them with official status in its chambers. These NGOs and others not in the system constitute a diverse global community ranging from small NGOs to subsidiaries of large networks. They deal with a wide range of UN subjects and beyond, from disarmament and development to sustainability, women’s issues, poverty, education, trafficking of women and girls, migration, refugees, food security and human rights, among many others. They bring passion and conviction to their work and to those with whom they network. They keep the agenda of the ordinary citizen at the forefront of their information work thus ensuring that the message of the UN continues to be relevant to the developed world and also the poorest persons in the smallest village, wherever they may be. The good ones help governments do their jobs. In 2011, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed the conviction of the UN in the vital role of NGOs as actors on the international stage and as partners of nation states in promoting the development agenda: “…Governments cannot do it alone. We need support from business communities, civil societies, philanthropists, and faith leaders, and we need coalitions, we need alliances, multi-stakeholder platforms. This is our business model, and we know that it works” (Remarks to Non-Governmental Organizations, UNHQ, October 2011).

NGOs can be found around the world, doing their bit for humanity, sustainability and future generations. It is a loathsome official or civilian who can be brash enough to disparage their work.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the tyrannical leaders in Moscow are not only dedicated to controlling everything in their country and beyond but they’re also committed to destroying independent Russian non-governmental organizations.

According to the Warsaw Institute, the Russian State Duma, its parliament – though it resembles not a dynamic, democratic legislative body but rather a collection of brainless Putin puppets – on December 23, 2020, approved a bill, under which any individual or group of individuals could be deemed “a foreign agent” if they receive material or monetary support from abroad. The law as well as the whole package of others adopted that day could prevent anyone whom the regime deems an enemy from engaging in public activity.

In other words, civil society has been muzzled or eliminated. NGOs in Russia could be terrorized into non-existence because after all do they have the wherewithal to fight Putin’s thugs.

This is yet another time that the Kremlin through its so-called lawmakers tightened the law on civil society. In 2017, the law cited a range of foreign-funded media outlets as “foreign agents.”

The Warsaw Institute noted that the restrictions enacted in December are even more draconian. Any citizen who “carries out political activities on the territory of the Russian Federation in the interests of the foreign state and/or deliberately collects information on the military and military-technical activities of the Russian Federation,” which “may be used against the security of the Russian Federation” after being transferred abroad, could be considered a “foreign agent.”

The requirements for being designated “a foreign agent,” according to the updated law, is funding. If financial and organizational support come from abroad, the NGO is a foreign agent and consequently can be held suspect or even declared traitors.

How does the law define “political activity” for which individuals or institutions risk being called a “foreign agent?” It is enough to take part in rallies, be a member of a political party, or help hold elections or carry out polls and socio-political research.

In today’s age, when civic organizations seek funding to carry on their work from like-minded organizations around the world, this Russian legislation will certainly curtail the potentially humanitarian and beneficial work of NGOs in Russia.

The Warsaw Institute noted: “Recognizing someone as a ‘foreign agent’ will severely limit their public rights. The law also says that individuals labeled as ‘foreign agents’ would be banned from joining the civil service or holding a municipal government position, while being refused access to state secrets. The new law adds that any such person is obliged to submit detailed paperwork every six months if they receive money from abroad. Under the changes, also foreign media correspondents could be labeled ‘foreign agents.’ Tight restrictions would also affect NGOs not being legal entities. Groups or individuals deemed foreign agents had previously been required to register with the Justice Ministry and submit their planned activities. What is worth attention is that media outlets – while publishing reports on individuals or organizations labeled ‘foreign agents’ – will be required to include this information.”

This diabolical wide net that Moscow has cast bodes ill for all NGOs in Russia. Indeed, the good ones could be scared into closing their doors or submission to the state while those that continue to exist could be distrusted because their allegiance will not be truly non-governmental but rather very pro-Kremlin. For the privilege of keeping their doors open, they’ll toe Moscow’s line.

This is an opportunity for civil society – non-governmental organizations – in the United Nations system to condemn Moscow’s latest effort to stifle free speech and come to the rescue of their Russian colleagues.