‘Hymn of Hate’ from Yesteryear’s Trenches

The other day I watched a very interesting movie that’s based on a true story that dates back to World War One. It not only describes the day-to-day drudgery of a soldier’s life in battle a century ago, but it brings to light what the troops did to pass the time between battles. As they say, war is a long stretch of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

The 2013 movie is “The Wipers Times,” a story about the British 12th Battalion, known as The Sherwood Foresters, fighting against the Kaiser’s army in Belgium, in the heavily shelled town of Ypres. During a patrol, Captain Fred Roberts and Lieutenant Jack Pearson and their troops found in a warehouse a piece of damaged machinery that changed their lives. Amid the clamorous chatter among the troops, only one soldier, a sergeant, admitted he knew what it was. Since he was a printer in civilian life before the war, he quickly identified the machine to be a printing press. A small one. He said he was confident that he could make it workable but why? What will we do with it?

With a mind to filling in downtime for the soldiers, Roberts and Pearson came up with the idea of printing a periodical to express their battlefront points of view. Thus The Wipers Times. Wipers was how the Tommies pronounced Ypres.

The Wipers Times became a popular though controversial trench periodical that was published by British soldiers fighting in Ypres during the First World War. From their trenches, they produced a poignant satirical newsletter that captured what was happening and reflected their spirit, hopes, joy, grief and frustration through prose, poetry and limericks.

Comparable satirical magazines throughout history have been Charlie Hebdo, Punch, Perets, Mad, Spy, The Onion, National Lampoon, The Harvard Lampoon and others.

Parodying their lives, battles, enemies and officers in words, stories and stanzas, the editors of The Wipers Times quickly became beloved by the troops and the bane of the officers, much like the storyline of “Good Morning, Vietnam” some five decades later. One senior officer who understood its battlefield value observed in response to a colleague that morale would be better served if the publication were not banned.

But the purpose of this article isn’t to relive the War to End all Wars with its glorious battles but rather to highlight one particular episode in the lives of The Sherwood Foresters and a melody sung by the enemy, the Germans.

One rainy night, Roberts and Pearson with their soldiers were reinforcing the muddy walls of their trenches. Artillery shells were bursting all around them, when suddenly through the explosions they heard the strains of the enemy singing a German-language battle song. That simply tells you how close both sides were to each other.

None of the British soldiers as well as Captain Roberts understood the words of the song but Lieutenant Pearson did. As the German’s sang, Pearson translated word for word what became known as the “Hymn of Hate.”

Its salient refrain states:

“An oath for our sons and their sons to take.
Come, hear the word, repeat the word,
Throughout the Fatherland make it heard.
We will never forego our hate,
We have all but a single hate,
We love as one, we hate as one,
We have one foe and one alone —

ENGLAND!”

Indeed, two opposing sides, two nations harbor feelings of hatred to each other older than the war. Something from time immemorial must have instigated this detestation. And it continues until today. For example, the Scots boast that they have two favorite teams in the UEFA championships: obviously the Scots and any team playing against England.

Ukrainians have a similar rejoinder based on their national experiences at the hands of Russians.

Consequently, there are ancient ditties that transcend trenches and time and survive until today.

Yes, this animosity could be left in antiquity. This could end if the Russians would seek forgiveness for their crimes against Ukrainians. To paraphrase Willian Wallace’s point of seven centuries ago: “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.”

What if Germans Said Hitler was most ‘Outstanding’ Person of all Times?

The mere thought of that happening pierces the body with electrical shocks. The global response to such a declaration would bring all other discussions to a sudden halt.

Hitler and outstanding are mutually exclusive. They could not be considered or happen simultaneously. Murdering 7 million Jews and millions of others, including Ukrainians, would unequivocally send his soul directly to hell without any chance of exoneration.

Well, the Germans didn’t express that outlandish opinion but the Russians did about their bloody leader Stalin.

According to the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, citing the Levada Center, Russians would not be discomfited to name as one of the “ten most outstanding figures of all times and nations” the murderous dictator Stalin.

Both institutions point out that while nobody received an absolute majority, Stalin was very clearly ahead, being named by 39% of the respondents. This is not surprising given The Kremlin’s increasing rehabilitation of Stalin since Vladimir Putin first came to power and increasingly repressive measures to muffle Stalin’s crimes and those of the Soviet regime.

It was pointed out that the Levada Center has been taking these polls since 1989 as part of its study of the so-called Soviet person.  In general, the results make for very disturbing reading, the two groups noted. In 1989, Vladimir Lenin was named by 71%; Peter I by 38% and Stalin by a mere 12% - less than the 17% who named Mikhail Gorbachev. The latter had disappeared altogether by 1994. By 2021, Lenin was behind Stalin (on 30%) and Peter I was named by a mere 19%.  Essentially no liberal personalities since the collapse of the USSR even get a mention, while Andrei Sakharov (who died in December 1989) went from no mention in 1989 to 17% in 1994 and only 7% in 2021, the centenary of his birth.  Although respondents are asked to name people “of all times and nations,” there were relatively few non-Russian / non-Soviet figures even in 1989, and only three in 2021 (Albert Einstein, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler). The fact that Hitler is mentioned probably suggests that many respondents were searching for prominent figures, without this necessarily having the positive connotations that the word ‘outstanding’ normally has in both Russian and English, the Levada Center explained.

Levada Centre Director Lev Gudkov points out that the people named are essentially from the pantheon of typical Soviet name-symbols, beginning with Lenin and Stalin. Although the collective memory of others is fading, new names are not emerging.  Each such survey in the past has had around 300 names mentioned, however there was no noticeable consensus on other figures. Gudkov also notes that since 2008, the general number of names mentioned has fallen by 1.6 times.

“This is possibly a result of escalating censorship and the foisting of ‘traditional values,’ which are in fact of little importance for the public. It is, however, possible that this is also a reaction of the primitivization of mass consciousness, which is typical of all authoritarian regimes, and the stifling of immanent mechanisms of innovation,” he said.

In May 2020, following controversy over frescos for the new Russian Defense Ministry Cathedral depicting, among others, Stalin, Deputy Defense Minister Andrei Kartapolov asked rhetorically what they had to be ashamed of.  Stalin, he boasted, was a man who “took upon himself all the burden of the war, made the most important decisions.  Yes, and in general reinstated religion. Why should we be ashamed of him?  Because some people from abroad tell us to?  We will decide ourselves who to honor, who to portray on frescos.”

Surprisingly, a Levada Centre poll of young people published in June 2020 found that 41% knew little or nothing about Stalin’s repression (and murder of millions). But they knew of his alleged greatness. More than 70% of Russians have a positive attitude about Stalin’s role in their country’s history, with just over half the population saying that they view a dictator responsible for the death of millions “with respect.”

In March 2019, the Levada Centre reported a record level of approval for Stalin.  While the number of those who spoke of ‘admiration’ for Stalin had remained stable at 4%, there had been a huge increase (from 27% in 2001 to 41% in 2019) in the numbers who ‘respected’ Stalin. 

For the record, Stalin was personally responsible for the murder by starvation of 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children, the murders in the Bykivnia forest, the murder of 22,000 Polish officers in Katyn, the execution of thousands at Sandarmokh, the mass execution of 9,000-11,000 people in the Ukrainian town of Vinnytsia in 1937-38, and so on and so forth.

Stalin is outstanding in terms of the amount of blood of innocent people that he shed.

Yes, Russians Hate Ukrainians and Vice Versa

If you’ve seen “West Side Story” you know the scene. It’s the crucial pre-rumble meeting between the Jets and Sharks in Doc’s drug store that will decide the fate of the two gangs.

Riff’s Jets attempt some opening pleasantries but Bernardo of the Sharks won’t have it. He bluntly tells his opponents: “Look, every one of you hates every one of us, and we hate you right back. Let’s get at it!”

Indeed, the history of Ukraine and Moscow, later to be renamed Russia, basically follows the same scenario. We hate each other right back. They have invaded, conquered, enslaved and killed Ukrainians and Ukrainians have then waged war after war trying to free themselves of Moscow’s bondage.

Earlier this week that war spilled over into the UEFA championships.

Denmark is one of the global sites of a monument to Ukraine’s national poet laureate Taras Shevchenko. On Monday, Denmark played Russia and Russian fans took out their rage or drunkenness on Denmark by desecrating the Ukrainian monument with the colors of Russia’s flag. Danish police are now investigating this defacing of a monument to the Ukrainian national poet.

“We strongly condemn this act of vandalism and provocation against Ukraine,” the Embassy of Ukraine said. “This shameful case once again demonstrates to the civilized world that Russian aggression against Ukraine is real.”

Danish police confirmed it had received a report of vandalism against the Shevchenko monument and that it was investigating the incident. Copenhagen city authorities were made aware of the vandalism on Monday afternoon and cleaned the monument within an hour, a spokesperson for the Copenhagen municipality said.

Unsure whether Danish police will find the perpetrators but Shevchenko’s ghost prevailed and his words about Ukraine ultimately triumphing over Moscow rang true. Denmark won 4-1.

As for me, I have more than 7 million reasons to hate Russians.

America Must Assert its Leadership in the World

President Joe Biden has a formidable task. In the span of a week, America’s commander in chief must demonstrate to European allies and global enemies that the USA not only is a team player but more importantly he is the team captain with a clear vision of the goal, that he is the leader of the free world – as the job description states.

The President’s itinerary has defined the demands. At the G7 meeting he must lead in developing a workable solution for the free world in a post-pandemic world. There are economic, commercial, political and health considerations to take into account equitably for all.

At the NATO session, the United States must show its commitment to the concept of collective security developed in 1949. Since then the alliance has served as a barricade against Moscow’s expansionism, which wasn’t a fairy tale then nor is it now. But its purpose isn’t merely to designate the line in the sand but also to assure countries, such as Ukraine and Georgia, that they will be protected from continued Russian aggression and threats. Kyiv and Tbilisi must be allowed immediate accession to the alliance without the meaningless Membership Action Plan, which only satisfies Moscow’s demands and not the needs of the remaining captive nations of Russian subjugation.

NATO, the United States and the free world must cease formulating their policies from Russia’s vantage point, whose interests and mission are diametrically opposed to the bloc.

If NATO is to be relevant and succeed in the future it must do what it did at its outset – stand up to Russia and protect the endangered countries. The United States must insist on it and exhibit its commitment to the mission and goal – and budget.

As for President Biden’s meeting with the Russian leader, it’s dangerous and not needed. Moscow is not America’s adversary – it’s the enemy. Meetings, summits, negotiations and diplomatic pleasantries are not necessary. Russia has not done anything – ever – to endear itself to the United States. Truthfully, it has always sought to undermine, subvert and destroy America. Without a clear agenda and objective – such as stop destabilizing the United States and evacuate Russian troops from Ukraine including Crimea – commiserating in Geneva in the Spring with a dictator is a waste of time and effort.

Kurt Volker, President Obama’s point man on Ukraine, observed recently that the face-to-face encounter is riskier for Biden than it is for Putin. Volker continued, saying that “any outcome that seems reassuring and benign on the surface actually works in Putin’s favor.” If the two leaders smile, shake hands and say good bye without an understanding of severe sanctions and consequences for Moscow’s continued aggression against Ukraine and subversion of the United States, Volker said, that would “send a signal globally that the authoritarians can get away with aggressive acts at home and abroad.” Russia and others would then be given a carte blanche to do whatever they wish.

Putin must see Biden “is negotiating from a position of strength,” Volker opined.

If not, then Putin and Moscow – as well as North Korea and Islamic terrorists – will continue to ride roughshod over the world. Not a good lasting impression for the world about President Biden.

Рональд Рейген – Останній антикомуніст

Сьогодні день відходу у Вічність Президента Рональда Рейгена. У його пам’ять, дозвольте мені запросити Вас прочитати мою статтю про останнього дійсного антикомуністичного американського президента Республіканської Партії Рональда Рейгена, який віддійшов у вічність у 2004 р. Ця стаття появилася в тому році у діяспорній газеті «Національній Трибуні».

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another International Demand for Moscow to End its War vs. Ukraine

Another group of countries, supporters of Ukraine in its war against Russia, has issued a statement demanding Russia’s immediate cessation of hostilities against Ukraine and withdrawal from Crimea.

Fifteen member-states are part of the Arria-formula meetings, demanded that Moscow immediately cease its aggression against Ukraine.

“We call on Russia to immediately cease its aggression against Ukraine and end its occupation of Crimea and the egregious human rights abuses it inflicts on the Crimean population,” the group said in a statement issued by the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations on June 2.

Arria-formula meetings are not formal meetings of the UN Security Council. They are convened at the initiative of a member or members of the Security Council in order to hear the views of individuals, organizations or institutions on matters within the competence of the Security Council.

The statement was supported by Albania, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The text reads:

“Russia held its fourth informal Arria-formula meeting since December 2020 at the UN today to once again promote a false narrative about Ukraine. We regret Russia’s deliberate and repeated misuse of the Arria-formula process to pervert the truth and obfuscate Russia’s malign activities. As we saw today, Russia invited speakers sanctioned by UN member states for their violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia’s false narratives about Ukraine are part of a disinformation campaign designed to destabilize and divert the attention of the international community. We recognize and appreciate the statement by the European Union, further demonstrating the international community’s unwavering support for Ukraine.

“The 2014 Revolution of Dignity saw Ukrainians exercise their right to peaceful assembly, demand a prosperous, democratic, and peaceful Ukraine, and reject Moscow’s influence. Russia’s response was to brazenly violate international principles, occupying Crimea and launching the conflict in eastern Ukraine that it perpetuates to this day. Russia is a party to the conflict, not a mediator. We fully support the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the Ukrainian people, and continue to work with the government of Ukraine to help it fulfill the demands of the Revolution of Dignity in the face of continued Russian aggression. We reaffirm our resolute commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, within its internationally recognized borders and territorial waters.

“We call on Russia to immediately cease its aggression against Ukraine and end its occupation of Crimea and the egregious human rights abuses it inflicts on the Crimean population. We urge Russia to fulfill its Minsk commitments, including implementing an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and withdrawing its military personnel and materiel from the territory of Ukraine.”

This is not the first statement by a subset of the United Nations to demand Moscow’s immediate end to its seven-year war against Ukraine, that has cost the lives of 14,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers, forced more than 1 million Ukrainians to flee their homes, caused the destruction of homes and cities as well as polluting the environment. Previously, UN General Assembly resolutions have formally declared Russia to be an aggressor state.

For the record and posterity, this is another step in the right direction but words and resolutions will not sway Moscow and Putin. Only actions will. And the most important action that the free world, the United States, European Union and NATO can undertake now is to accept Ukraine, the only country with battlefield experience in fighting the Russian war machine, into the North Atlantic alliance’s membership. That will send a needed strong signal to the Kremlin that Ukraine has active supporters that are committed to its long existence as an independent, sovereign country.

Ukraine Naturally Belongs in NATO

Baseball fans will appreciate this analogy from “61*” – Roger Maris had just missed hitting a historic homerun and sportswriter Milt Kahn sympathetically observes that the Yankee slugger “gave it a helluva shot.” To which his fellow reporter Artie Green mockingly replies that Maris failed because “The pressure got to him.”

Have patience, stay with me on this.

Kahn, with a deadpan expression, looks at Green and asks if he ever played baseball. “No, not really,” he answers.

“That’s what I thought,” the straight-faced Kahn comebacks in a soft-spoken indictment of his buddy’s clueless lack of understanding of the essence of baseball.

Yes, you may know how to write, you may even know baseball, its rules and statistics, but you don’t know the practical tactics and strategies that make up a player’s success or failure, you don’t know the vital contributing emotions, passions and pressures.

In the world of geopolitics and security, NATO members – the free world – would also have to meekly admit “No, not really” when asked if they ever fought in a war against Russia, the acknowledged enemy of democracy.

However, Ukraine has and NATO quite illogically continues to refuse to open its membership to this country with its well-experienced military.

The ancient concept of collective security is not an evil though some pundits and government officials have turned it into a perverted model of global relations by implying that safeguarding some – its members – from global threats and not others is sensible. That way the free world won’t upset or seem to threaten Russia and its allies while paying lip service to the former captive nations of Russian aggression, notably Ukraine.

NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – was formed in 1949 by the United States, Great Britain, France and Canada to protect countries that adhere to their democratic and market principles against aggression by Moscow. A noble and necessary mission then and now. In the course of time, some have argued that the Russian threat has been replaced by radical Islamic countries. While the latter group has emerged as a genuine global threat, Russia has not withered in the noonday sun. Even though it dropped its Communist and Soviet monikers, Russia remains a threat to near and distant countries. The news media are filled with examples of Russian aggression by land, sea, air or cyberspace. Its war against Ukraine continues and Eastern and Western European countries have taken note and are preparing to avert Russian aggression.

For Moscow, Ukraine is its No.1 target that must be returned to its resurfacing prison of nations in order to propel itself to insurmountable global dominance.

Ukraine, finally, has seen the light of day or Russian artillery explosions and has formally and constitutionally established its goal of joining NATO as the Zelenskyy Administration is openly advocating this objective.

On paper, NATO seems to comprehend Ukraine’s dire situation and supports its existence while enunciating an “open-door” policy. In April, it stated that “A sovereign, independent and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security. Relations between NATO and Ukraine date back to the early 1990s and have since developed into one of the most substantial of NATO’s partnerships. Since 2014, in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, cooperation has been intensified in critical areas.”

However, its unfortunate choice of the word “conflict” demonstrates its refusal to concede that Ukraine is ground zero of the seven-year Russo-Ukraine War, the only one in contemporary Europe. Calling it a conflict belies NATO’s commitment and tones down the gravity of the situation in hopes of avoiding any direct involvement. The ostrich hides its head in the sand.

NATO is preparing for a summit in Brussels on June 14 but Ukraine wasn’t invited. This doesn’t say much for the alliance’s support for Ukraine.

Predictably, this snub miffed Kyiv. Last week Ukraine decried the lack of progress in NATO’s “open-door” policy to membership and said it could not comprehend why it wasn’t invited when surely the war will be on the agenda.

“We understand the desire of the Allies to hold their own summit to discuss Trans-Atlantic unity. There are examples of such summits, including one in Brussels, in 2017. To be honest though, we don't understand at all how a closed-format NATO summit could be held against the background of the aggressive actions by the Russian Federation targeting Ukraine, in the Black Sea region, as well against the Allies,” Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba bemoaned, “How can you not invite Ukraine, how can you not find a format for Ukraine’s participation in the current summit?”

Speaking at a joint news conference with Helga Schmid, the secretary-general of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) who was visiting Kyiv, Kuleba expressed gratitude to NATO for its “constant confirmation of the open-door policy,” but added that not a single step had been taken to implement it.
“When we, in Ukraine, are accused of too slow reforms, what can we say about the adoption and implementation of the decisions of the alliance, which have been covered with dust for 13 years?” Kuleba insisted.
U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price recently was guilty of stating the U.S. policy of supporting an “open door” to NATO for countries meeting “the standard for membership” that in his words meant that Ukraine must “implement the ... reforms necessary to build a more stable, democratic, prosperous and free country.”

This bogus issue must be taken off the table and cease being the basis of the free world’s whining against Ukraine. It is a poor excuse for excluding Ukraine from the alliance. To be sure those problems exist but they are being resolved – it’s a work in progress. Consider how much corruption exists in the anointed countries. However, these difficulties won’t be eliminated in an independent Ukraine if NATO dawdles with accession. Moscow will surely allow them to fester.

The prevailing argument that under current circumstances NATO shouldn’t admit Ukraine because it can’t is disingenuous. One point of the reasoning says there’s no consensus among the alliance’s 30-member states to do so, and no prospect of unanimous ratification by their parliaments. Many of those openly hypocritical countries should recall that they are fortunate to exist today after the devastation of World War II due to collective security in defeating a recognized enemy.

The naysayers argue that promising membership can only provide political grist to Russia’s propaganda mill, raise unattainable expectations in Ukraine followed by bitter disappointment, and, eventually, discredit NATO as a whole. First of all, the free world cannot seriously expect that any of its actions will ever be supported by Moscow’s propaganda mill, which is genuinely dedicated to Russia more than NATO’s propaganda mill is to freedom and democracy. Secondly, NATO members cannot be guided by fear of Moscow, which won’t benefit Ukraine nor them. The only unattainable expectation is NATO’s denial which will leave the Armed Forces of Ukraine fighting Russian invaders by themselves while the alliance looks on impassively. Inaction will sooner discredit NATO than anything else.

As many current statesmen have pointed out, Moscow’s belligerence must only be met by strict counter measures and not diplomatic warnings and debates.

Recent history – since Kyiv restored independence and sovereignty three decades ago – is filled with numerous examples of the Ukrainian nation overcoming internal and external threats against its existence as it endeavors to establish an independent, democratic, market-based country. Finally, once it became evident to Putin and the Kremlin that Ukraine can’t be coaxed back into its so-called sphere of influence, Moscow launched in 2014 its latest war against it. For seven years Ukraine has been successfully countering Russian aggression, recording unexpected battle victories, developing modern weapons, while rebuilding its decimated armed forces, and protecting not only itself but the wider region between the Baltic and Black seas. Indeed, all of Eastern and Western Europe. Ukraine has gained invaluable and unique experience deterring greater Russian aggression on the traditional, bloody battlefield and in the realm of hybrid warfare, which extends from cyber to disinformation and beyond. At the same time NATO strategists predict modern warfare on computer-generated battlefields.

Simultaneously, Ukraine has molded a nationally conscious population across all demographic and geographic segments.

The movement of Russian military forces near Ukraine’s border in early April should be a reminder to all members of NATO’s founding and unifying purpose: to safeguard freedom and preserve peace and security. Russia stood down a few weeks ago but the threat persists as tens of thousands enemy troops still bivouac near Ukraine. That mission is now more relevant than ever as NATO’s hopeful close partner Ukraine understands and the world should also that it can lose its freedom and territorial integrity without the strong signal that NATO membership conveys.

To be sure Ukraine’s Membership Action Plan – the first step toward accession – is merely a weak stopgap that will not accomplish anything. It will not keep Moscow at bay. The situation on Ukraine’s border with Russia continues to deteriorate and will not improve anytime soon. Only Ukraine’s immediate acceptance into NATO will declare the following: the free world is committed beyond mere words to Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty and its Euro-Atlantic choice; Moscow must evacuate from Ukraine and withdraw its forces deep into Russia, and the free world has a genuine proactive guardian of its interests on the ramparts of freedom.

These factors make Ukraine a genuine candidate for NATO membership and the United States, the international community and the alliance must support it now to safeguard their own freedom.