CALL TO ACTION – CONTACT SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASHTON CARTER, SENATORS JOHN McCAIN, JACK REED, BOB CORKER AND BENJAMIN CARDIN TO PERSUADE NATO MEMBERS TO AGREE TO PERMANENT STATIONING OF NATO TROOPS IN THE BALTIC COUNTRIES.

Posted on May 31, 2016May 31, 2016 by wp@dhali.com

BACKGROUND

On July 8 and 9, the NATO North Atlantic Council representing 28 member countries will meet in Warsaw. The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision making body within NATO. It brings together high level Representatives of each member country to discuss policy and operational questions requiring collective decisions. Among the issues discussed will be the Baltic countries’ request that NATO troops be stationed permanently in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. This is an issue of strategic importance to the Baltic countries. Rotation of troop units is temporary in character and often a victim of budget cutting. There is a dangerous gap between the departing unit and the arriving unit. It is a cardinal principle of military doctrine that the best time to attack is when the other side is pulling back or changing units.

The Baltic countries are front line states to counter Putin’s aggression. There is a strong argument for permanent military bases and troops. Due to their small geographical size, the only way to guarantee their security from Russian conventional military threat is to have robust troops and military capabilities on the ground. The Baltic countries are too small to rely on a strategy of defensive depth that could buy NATO enough time to mobilize a sizable force. NATO troops must be on the spot and ready to respond on a moments notice.

Disregarding the increasing provocations and aggression by Russia, as well as the strategic importance of permanent deployment of NATO troops in the Baltic and Poland, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and some other members, notably France and Italy, strongly oppose the stationing of troops in 6 the Baltic countries and Poland. They argue that it would violate a 1997 agreement with Russia in which NATO pledges not to put “substantial combat forces” in the new NATO member countries. The eastern NATO members suspect, however, that the agreement with Russia is just a cover for not wanting to further damage economic relations with Russia.

The NATO-Russia Founding Act is a document describing how NATO and Russia will regulate their relations. It is all done in terms of political commitments. It is not a treaty approved by the Senate.

In 1997 when there was an era of good feeling between Russia and Western governments, President Boris Yeltsin, President Bill Clinton and the leaders of 15 other NATO countries signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act. The Act provided for an enduring and robust partnership between the Alliance and Russia, one that can make an important contribution to Europe’s security in the 21 century.

The Founding Act contains a pledge that both sides will not deploy nuclear weapons or station a substantial number of troops in the new member states. However, the most basic, important and undeniable fact written in the Founding Act is that all pledges are based on the current 1997 friendly and cooperative relations between NATO countries and Russia. If conditions change, the pledges are off.

Since the signing of the agreement, Russia has violated international law and breached its commitments under the NATO-Russia Founding Act through its aggressive actions in Georgia and Ukraine to mention only a couple of Russia’s violations.

Section I of the Founding Act elaborates the basic principles for establishing common and comprehensive security in Europe. These principles include strengthening the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), basing NATO-Russian relations on a shared commitment to democracy, political pluralism, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the development of free market economies. NATO and Russia also pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other or other states, to respect the independence and territorial integrity of all states and the inviolability of borders, to foster mutual transparency and to settle disputes by peaceful means.

Section IV of the Founding Act states that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” NATO will carry out its collective defense and other missions through interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new members.

When reading the phrase “in the current and foreseeable security environment” it is important to remember that it was written almost 20 years ago, in 1997, when the United States thought it was on a path to partnership with Russia, But in 2016, the security environment has dramatically changed. The conditions undergirding the 1997 understanding with Russia are in shambles. The benign “current and foreseeable security environment” that helped to frame the NATO Russia Founding Act is dead. A revanchist and resurgent Russia is pursuing a path of confrontation, aggression and coercion. When strategic circumstances change, policy makers need to adapt. It is time for NATO to change the fundamental precepts of the NATO Russia relationship. NATO cannot say on the one hand that Russia’s aggression against Georgia and Ukraine has changed the rules of the game, while on the other hand leave the NATO Russia Founding Act untouched.

The following are some of the violations of the NATO-Russia Founding Act that Russia has committed.

In 1999, Russia agreed to remove all of its troops and weaponry from Moldova by the end of 2002. Today, 2000 Russian troops are still based in the breakaway region of Trasnistria.
In 2001, the U.S. Department of State raised concerns with Moscow about the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. Since then, there have been repeated accusations that Russia has deployed tactical nuclear weapons there.
In 2006, Russia temporarily cut natural gas supplies to Ukraine which also reduced gas supplies to other European countries, including NATO allies.
In 2007, Russia was behind a cyber attack against Estonia in retaliation for moving the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, a Soviet war memorial.
In 2007, Russia unilaterally suspended its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty which promoted military transparency and limited conventional arms deployments.
In 2008, Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia, getting to within miles of the capital. Today, Russia still occupies 20 percent of Georgia’s territory and is in violation of the 2008 cease fire agreement.
In 2010, Russia started to upgrade and increase the number of troops and armaments at its Gyumri base in Armenia which borders NATO member Turkey. Today, an estimated 5,000 Russian troops with dozens of fighter planes and attack helicopters are based in Armenia.
In 2013, two Russian bombers and four fighter jets took off from St. Petersburg and carried out what was thought to be a simulated nuclear strike against two targets in Sweden.
In 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea and invaded part of the Donbas region of Ukraine in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine‘s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Minsk Agreement agreed to by Moscow has been ignored and Moscow continues to support separatists with arms, training, and Russian military personnel.
In 2014, the state Department first officially accused Russia of violating the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, although Russia had begun to test prohibited missiles in 2008.
In 2014, Russian agents crossed the border into Estonia to abduct an Estonian Internal Security Service officer.
In 2014, a new Russian army helicopter brigade was formed and stationed near the Estonian and Latvian border.
In 2015, Russian Ambassador to Denmark Mikhail Vanin said during an interview: “I don’t think that Danes fully understand the consequence if Denmark joins the American led missile defense shield. If they do, then Danish warships will be targets for Russian nuclear missiles.
In 2015, Russia started its encirclement of NATO by sending thousands of troops to Syria, reinforcing the Black Sea Fleet, and increasing the number of troops in Armenia. Russia is also probing Turkish air space.
In 2015, according to NATO Commander General P.M. Breedlove, Russia has been developing a ground launch cruise missile version of the Iskander rocket in violation of the Intermediaterange Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987.

Probably the best proof that the security environment has drastically changed and the 1997 NATO-Russian Founding Act is obsolete is the Act’s preamble. It declares that “NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries.” Today Russia’s military doctrine designates NATO and the United States as a major threat to Russia. And Putin, Kremlin leaders and media have many times have publicly voiced that sentiment.

Government leaders in the Baltic nations and Poland have argued that Russia’s aggressive action in Ukraine has violated the Founding Act, and that it is no longer in effect urging NATO leaders to station permanent troops in the region. They are right! NATO should comply with their request.

NATO needs to declare the NATO-Russia Founding Act as void because of Russia’s gross violations and station NATO troops permanently in the Baltic countries. This is a MUST part of Baltic security.

I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO CONTACT ASAP THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THE CHAIRMEN OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE IN THAT ORDER.

As I mentioned in the beginning of the letter, this is a serious and critical issue to the Baltic countries, and they need and deserve 30 minutes of your time. Your letter need not be a long one. A half page will do. If you need, please consult our web site for instructions and sample letters. Iwould appreciate if you would let me know by letter or email that you have contacted the persons listed below. Thank you.

Valdis V. Pavlovskis, President

Click here to view Sample Letters >

PS.
Secretary of State John Kerry: Tel: (202) 647-5791, Department of State, 2201 “C” Str., NW, Wash. DC 20520
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Tel: (703) 692-7100, Department of Defense, 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301
Senator John McCain, Chairman Armed Services Committee, Tel: (202) 224-2235, Fax (202) 228-2862, U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510
Senator Bob Corker (TN), Chairman Foreign Relations Committee, Tel: (202) 224-3344, Fax (202) 228-9566, U.S, Senate, Washington, DC 20510
Senator Jack Reed (RI), Ranking Member Armed Services Committee, Tel: (202) 224-4642, Fax: (202) 224-4680, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510
Benjamin Cardin (MD), Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee, Tel: (202) 224-4524, Fax (202) 224-1651, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510

CALL TO ACTION – WILL WE LET UKRAINE DIE?

Posted on July 7, 2015July 13, 2015 by wp@dhali.com

Years ago, ago before the Baltic countries regained their independence, I stopped by a philately store to ask whether they had any Latvian stamps. Oh! You mean one of the dead countries the clerk behind the counter asked me. Are we ready to declare Ukraine a dead country? Will we let Ukraine to die?

Please read The Washington Post article below. Then before it’s too late, contact your Representative to cosponsor the Crimea Annexation Non-recognition Act, HR 93, introduced by Congressman Gerald Connolly.

To sign on as a cosponsor, your congressperson should contact Mr. Collin Davenport of Congressman Connolly’s staff at Collin.Davenport@mail.house.gov.

The bill prohibits federal departments and agencies from taking any action or extending any assistance that implies recognition of de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea.

Do it now, so that we do not have to send a Call to Action letter later, in a year or two, for the Baltic countries.

Thank you.

Valdis V. Pavlovskis, President
Baltic American Freedom League

WILL WE LET UKRAINE DIE?
THE WASHINGTON POST
By Jackson Diehl
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
July 5, 2015

A Ukrainian military unit last week released footage from a drone showing a large new Russian military base in eastern Ukraine, equipped with T-72 tanks, barracks, communications equipment and even a parade ground. International observers reported “increased intensity” of fighting in the region, in violation of a cease-fire.

Russia meanwhile suspended gas deliveries to Ukraine, thwarting its attempt to stockpile supplies for next winter. In Washington, a committee of Ukrainian bond-holders, led by several U.S. hedge funds, resisted an International Monetary Fund-backed plan to reduce the government’s debt burden so that it can avoid a default.

Ukraine’s democratically elected and fervently pro-Western government faced all these trials essentially alone. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her European Union partners are preoccupied with the crisis in Greece; Barack Obama is intently focused on completing a nuclear bargain with Iran. Western governments have taken no new action either to prevent a new Russian military offensive this summer or to provide Ukraine’s government with the funds it needs to survive through another year.

Will this be remembered as the summer when the West let Ukraine die? It’s beginning to look like it.

The figment of a strategy embraced by the United States and the European Union calls for the implementation of a peace plan, known as Minsk 2, that Russia accepted in February but has never respected. U.S. officials regularly agree with their Russian counterparts that the fighting should stop and agreements should be reached on implementing other parts of the deal; meanwhile, the estimated 9,000 Russian troops in eastern Ukraine — whose existence Moscow denies — continue to lay the groundwork for another major attack.

Analysts Pierre Vaux and Catherine Fitzpatrick of the Interpreter Web site have identified two new Russian bases near the front lines in recent months, including the one filmed by a drone. They are positioned so as to support an offensive against the government-held city of Mariupol, which is the strategic key to southeastern Ukraine. “The time for such an attack may be drawing nearer,” Vaux reported last week in an article for the Daily Beast. Similar warnings have been sounded by other experts, including an Atlantic Council mission led by former NATO commander Wesley Clark.

They have been ignored. Secretary of State John F. Kerry is still talking about the moribund Minsk deal. Obama turned aside the latest request by the Ukrainian government last month for defensive weapons that might blunt a Russian attack, including anti-tank missiles. The European Union recently renewed its economic sanctions against Russia, but declined to react to Moscow’s brazen cease-fire violations and continuing military buildup.

Obama and Merkel argue that aiding the Ukrainian army wouldn’t prevent a Russian attack and might provoke one. Their logic is dubious: Russian analysts say that Vladimir Putin has reason to worry about the casualties a strengthened Ukrainian army could inflict.

In any case, the military arguments don’t explain the West’s passivity on the economic front. By any measure, Ukraine’s situation is dire: Economic output has fallen by more than 15 percent in each of the past two quarters. The government has imposed drastic austerity measures, including a huge cut in the subsidy for gas and a big reduction in pensions. Unlike Greece, it has taken every painful austerity step required by the International Monetary Fund, even while fighting a war.

Yet the European Union, which has committed $222 billion to bailing out Greece, has offered Ukraine $5.5 billion. The United States, which provided $20?billion to save Mexico from default and $18 billion for reconstruction in Iraq, has approved $3 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine.

The paltry sums have placed the Kiev government at the mercy of foreign creditors holding $19 billion of its private debt — including the Russian government, which holds a $3 billion eurobond. Outside of Moscow, the biggest bondholders are U.S. hedge funds, including bottom-feeder Franklin Templeton. To meet the IMF’s plan, the government must extract $15 billion in relief from them over four years. But Franklin Templeton and its partners have refused to accept a reduction in principal, despite prodding from the IMF and the U.S. Treasury.

That leaves Ukraine facing the possibility of default as soon as the end of this month, and no later than September, when a $500 million bond falls due. Anders Aslund, an expert on the Ukrainian economy at the Atlantic Council, thinks Ukraine needs $10 billion in additional financing to survive the next two years. At best, it may get half of that.

Ukrainian leaders, who see themselves fighting in defense of Western democracy against Putin’s imperialist autocracy, increasingly express bewilderment at their inability to attract support. “If we fail,” Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk told The Post last month, “this will be a failure for the entire free world.” But the free world, it seems, is otherwise occupied

DON’T FORGET TO CALL OR SEND AN E-MAIL TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS! THEN PASS ON THE “CALL TO ACTION”.

WANTED: PATRIOTS TO ASK DEPLOY NATO TROOPS PERMANENTLY TO THE BALTIC COUNTRIES.

Posted on June 1, 2015 by wp@dhali.com

WANTED: A THOUSAND BALTIC AMERICAN PATRIOTS TO ASK THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE TO DEPLOY NATO TROOPS PERMANENTLY TO THE BALTIC COUNTRIES.

Dear Friends:

“The Baltic States of Estonia Latvia and Lithuania are the West Berlin of the new Cold War–the symbolic vital front line of the free world. Their security depends on their fortitude in the face of the propaganda and subversion of Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, and on the willpower of the West if Russia’s aggression escalates in military confrontation.” Edward Lucas (The Wall Street Journal 5/22/15).

“In a recent article urging Russia to undertake a ’preventive occupation‘ of the Baltic nations, Rostislav Ishchenko, a political analyst close to influential nationalist figures in Moscow, asserted that Latgale’s separate identity could help open the way for a ‘revision’ of Baltic borders.” Andrew Higgins (International New York Times 5/20/15).

“The [Ukraine] war poses the greatest threat to European security since World War II, and we shouldn’t take it lightly, and we shouldn’t be idle, and we shouldn’t sit back, and we shouldn’t let other countries tell us what to do.” Eliot Engel, Ranking Member House Foreign Affairs Committee (3/24/14).

“The Baltic States may experience attempts at coercion, intimidation, and incursion during the coming years due to their location, history, and the importance of the region for Moscow.” James Haasik and Magnus Nordenman (Modernizing Baltic Land Forces, 4/2015).

Russia has achieved its goals in Ukraine. It has shown it can destroy the European security order dating back to the Helsinki agreements of 1975. It has repudiated the Budapest Memorandum and the United Nations Charter. To Russia, these promises are considered as worthless papers. That opens the road for Russia‘s invasion of the Baltic countries. And that is a tempting prize for the Kremlin.

The Russian attack on Ukraine and instances of aggressive and threatening behavior against the Baltic countries have confirmed their concerns about the fragility of their security environment. Russian military activity on land, air, and sea has been provocative, intimidating and even dangerous. The Baltic Sea states and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in particular, have become focal points for an aggressive Russia determined to re-establish itself as a significant power by shattering the NATO security order.

As a means to assure the Baltic countries of NATO’s support in case of Russian attack, NATO has created a modest rapid reaction force, increased air policing and sea patrols, expanded joint training and exercise programs and has deployed small numbers of soldiers to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. NATO plans require Poland to take the brunt of reinforcing the Baltic countries by deploying a third of the Polish army there in case of an attack by Russia. These actions taken by NATO, however, are inadequate to the scope, scale and seriousness of the situation the Baltic countries face.

The overriding question is whether NATO can respond adequately and in time to the security needs of its most exposed members–the Baltic countries. Recently, soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Germany were deployed to the Baltic countries and Poland. It took them 96 hours–4 days to get in position. And it took British fighter planes participating in the maneuvers, flying off Polish airfields, 18 hours to get in the air. That is too slow! It will not do.

THE NEW REACTION FORCE IS A WEAK “ERSATZ” SUBSTITUTE FOR PERMANENT TROOPS IN POSITION. ONLY U.S. AND WESTERN SOLDIERS PERMANENTLY STATIONED IN THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WILL ESTABLISH A CREDIBLE GUARANTEE THAT NATO WILL DEFEND THEM IN CASE OF RUSSIAN INTRUSION.

The Ministers of Defense of the three Baltic countries in a joint letter to the Supreme NATO Allied Commander Europe have asked that NATO combat troops be deployed in their nations, as a credible deterrent against an increasingly assertive and threatening Russia. In their request, the Ministers asked for a brigade sized unit to be deployed in the three countries. A NATO brigade typically numbers around 3000 soldiers and is made up of three or more battalions. Poland made a similar request.

The Commander of NATO troops in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, told the House Armed Services Committee: “There is simply no substitute for our forward force presence in Europe. It is the bedrock of our ability to assure our allies to deter real and potential adversaries. Rotating presence is no substitute for permanent force presence.”

While General Breedlove wants to discuss the ground troops option, the Germans, the French, the Italians and others are absolutely opposed to permanent deployment of combat units in the Baltic countries. German Chancellor Merkel maintains that deployment of NATO forces on the territory of the Eastern member countries would violate the 1997 NATO-Russian Founding Act, which sets out a road map for cooperation between the two sides, even though Russia itself has nullified the agreement by invading Ukraine and by annexing Crimea.

The United States will play a major role in assessing the request. Therefore, we urge you to contact President Barack Obama and the officials listed below to ask them to honor the Baltic request.

The officials to contact, in order of importance are:
-President Barack Obama (202) 456-1414, www.whitehouse.gov
-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (703) 692-7100, www.defense.gov
-Secretary of State John Kerry, (202) 647-5291, www.state.gov
-Chairman Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain (202) 224-2235, Fax: (202) 228-2862, McCain.senate.gov
-Ranking Member Sen. Armed. Serv. Committee Jack Reed (202) 224-4642, Fax: (202) 224-4680, Reed,senate.gov

Let me make one thing very clear: ten or twenty contacts will not do. Every one of us has to participate in the effort to significantly improve the defense of the Baltic countries. Whether you call or write, or do both, be brief and to the point. Four or five sentences will do. And do it today!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Valdis V. Pavlovskis
President

P.S. In 1938, another dictator named Adolf Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and said he was invading the Sudetenland to protect ethnic Germans. Putin said the same thing about Crimea. Hitler got away with it in 1938, and there were people who said, Well you know, if we just give Hitler the Sudetenland he’ll be happy. He’ll be content. He’ll leave us alone. His aggression will stop. Some people today are saying the same thing. Just give Putin Crimea. Just give him a little bit of Ukraine and he’ll be happy. And he and Merkel will continue to trade happily ever after.

COSPONSOR THE CRIMEA ANNEXATION NON-RECOGNITION ACT HR 93.

Posted on February 4, 2015June 1, 2015 by wp@dhali.com

CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSPERSON TO COSPONSOR THE CRIMEA ANNEXATION NON-RECOGNITION ACT HR 93.

There is war in Europe. A sovereign nation in the heart of Europe has been invaded and its territory forcefully seized and annexed by its larger neighbor. This has serious implications on the security and stability of all Euro-Atlantic nations. Russia is the aggressor and Ukraine is the victim. The attack on Ukraine runs contrary to the principles of a civilized world that Europe and America have sought to build since the end of the Cold War.

Ukraine cannot be left alone to face Russia’s military might. The aggression must be reversed, Crimea and other occupied territories returned to Ukraine. Ukraine must remain an independent nation with its borders intact, free to follow its democratic will.

It is about time that Europe and America understand that the invasion by Russia is a clear-cut case of a larger country bullying a smaller country. We cannot have an international order if might is right. We cannot have a safe and secure world if powerful countries are able to take what they want. President Obama, recently speaking of the war in Ukraine stated: “This is a vision of the world in which might makes right. And we believe that right makes right.” So does the Baltic American Freedom League. So should Congress.

It has been almost a year since the Russian invasion. But the United States still has failed to officially declare that Russia’s invasion, occupation and annexation is illegal, and that the United States will never recognize the occupation as legitimate. Sure, the Department of State and Administration officials and Congresspersons in passing have said that Washington does not recognize Russia’s actions as legal, but that is NOT sufficient. The non-recognition policy declaration needs to be given real content and strength to ensure that no part of our government may take actions that undermine the non-recognition policy; and may it serve as notice to Russia and the world that Putin’s actions against Ukraine are unacceptable and will be reversed eventually. In other words the declaration “must be cast in concrete” as was the case with United States non-recognition policy of the Baltic countries‘ annexation by the Soviet Union.

CONGRESS SHOULD ADOPT A DECLARATIVE STATEMENT THAT RUSSIA IS AN AGGRESSOR AND THAT THE UNTIED STATES WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE THE OCCUPATION AND ANNEXATION OF UKRAINE’S TERITORRY AS LEGITIMATE. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESOLUTION H.R. 93 DOES THAT.

H.R. 93 also known as Crimea Annexation Non-recognition Act was introduced by Representatives Gerald Connolly (D-VA), a member of the House Baltic Caucus and Steve Chabot (R-OH). Both are members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. H.R. 93 is the same bill as H.R. 5241 that the two Representatives introduced in the last session, but which was not adopted by the House due to the Administration‘s and the Department of State’s lack of support.

H.R. 93 “Prohibits any federal department or agency from taking any action or extending any assistance that recognizes or implies recognition of the de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace or its territorial water.“ The bill will serve as notice to Putin that the Russian Federation, a state which seizes by force the territory of its neighbors, can never be legitimate in the eyes of the world.

H.R. 93 is also a notice to the Russian Federation, other nations, and international organizations to ensure that those guilty of violating the borders of sovereign nations and those who forcefully seize territories should be punished. By taking this step the United States has made it easier for the West to impose additional sanctions on Russia. “American response must be much more than a verbal slap if we want Putin to understand his actions in Ukraine are unacceptable…Congress must refuse to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” U.S. Senator Dan Coats (R-IN).

By the illegal land grab of Ukraine’s territory, the Russian Federation—a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council—revealed an utter disregard for the most basic principles of international law as well as of its own commitments: the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the post 1980‘s European Settlement, the 1990 CSCE Paris Charter, the 1991 Alma Ata Declaration, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the 1997 Ukraine Russia Bi-lateral Friendship Treaty (SIC). Today, Russia is violating the Minsk Truce Agreement signed by the United States, Great Britain and the Russian Federation last September.

Since 1932, the United States has maintained a doctrine known as the Stimson Doctrine, named after Secretary of State Stimson. The doctrine declares that the United States government will not recognize territorial border changes or occupation of sovereign territory brought about by force or the threat of force. It was first applied to Japan for its unilateral seizure of Manchuria and in 1940 to the Soviet annexation of the Baltic countries. The doctrine was adopted by the League of Nations as part of its protocol. After World War II, it became the foundation of the United Nations Charter. The United States must continue to stand by the doctrine. It is inherent in relations among civilized nations. The United States should recognize the realities of the attack on Ukraine and formally declare the Non-recognition doctrine relative to Crimea.

It is vital that Europe and the United States recognize that this war is not just about Ukraine. Having taken Ukraine, Russia might attempt to seize more land from its neighbors. Many highly regarded and knowledgeable persons–government officials, political analysts, scholars, politicians and media persons–have stated that Putin’s endgame is Europe with Teheran and Yalta agreement boundaries. “If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine’s new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every-pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.” T. Friedman, [The New York Times, 1/28/15].

In his 14 years of power Putin has never concealed his ambitions to take control or concealed his ambition not only to destroy the post Cold War European consensus settlement, but also to recreate Russia’s regional hegemony. To do this, he has replaced Soviet Marxism with ultra-nationalism and contempt for the West. The peaceful European order that the United States and Europe have worked for after the fall of the Soviet Union is about to collapse.

The Budapest Memorandum that the United States, Great Britain and Russia signed in 1994 requires: “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, refrain from economic coercion, seek immediate U.N. Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine“… if Ukraine should becomes a victim of an act of aggression or object of a threat of aggression.” It seems that Ukraine has a moral claim on Washington and London to step up with means of protection. H.R. 93 is one of the means.

But when all is said and done, the simple truth remains. Putins’s aggression in Ukraine is and remains wrong. It must be denounced because it is wrong and it must remedied because that is the right thing to do. A non-recognition policy is a step in that direction.

LET’S GET THE RUSSIANS OUT OF UKRAINE AND PREVENT THEM FROM MESSING AROUND WITH THE BALTIC NATIONS! CONTACT YOU CONGRESSPERSON TODAY AND GET HIM OR HER TO COSPONSOR H.R. 93, CRIMEA ANNEXATION NON-RECOGNITION ACT.

After the House adopts H.R.93, it goes to the Senate. If the Senate adopts, it goes to the President. If the President signs it, it becomes LAW.

To read the text of H.R. 93, or to see who the cosponsors are, and to find the name and address of your Representative go to the Internet, type in THOMAS-LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. For information on your Representative click House of Representatives on the left side of the page, for information on H.R. 93 go to the Legislation in Current Congress box on the right side of the page. If you need information on how to write letters to congresspersons, or to view sample letters check BAFL’s web site www.BAFL.com Call to Action.

To sign on as a cosponsor, your congressperson should contact Collin Davenport of Representative Gerald Connolly’s office at (202) 225-1492 or at Collin.Davenport@mail.house.gov. I suggest, if you have a fax machine, fax your letter. If do not have access to a fax, call you congressperson’s local office. Most of the time they will fax it for you. Or you may use e-mail. Sending a letter by postal mail is the last resort as it is the slowest method to reach a congressional office.

MY FRIENDS, THE SITUATION IS CRITICAL FOR UKRAINE AND ALSO FOR THE BALTIC COUNTRIES. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSPERSON IMMEDIATELY.

Thank You.

Valdis Pavlovskis, Director

Contact Your Congressperson To Cosponsor The Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Act HR 93

Posted on February 4, 2015February 12, 2015 by wp@dhali.com

H.R. 93 also known as Crimea Annexation Non-recognition Act was introduced by Representatives Gerald Connolly (D-VA), a member of the House Baltic Caucus and Steve Chabot (R-OH). Both are members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. H.R. 93 is the same bill as H.R. 5241 that the two Representatives introduced in the last session, but which was not adopted by the House due to the Administration’s and the Department of State’s lack of support.

H.R. 93 “Prohibits any federal department or agency from taking any action or extending any assistance that recognizes or implies recognition of the de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace or its territorial water.” The bill will serve as notice to Putin that the Russian Federation, a state which seizes by force the territory of its neighbors, can never be legitimate in the eyes of the world.

H.R. 93 is also a notice to the Russian Federation, other nations, and international organizations to ensure that those guilty of violating the borders of sovereign nations and those who forcefully seize territories should be punished. By taking this step the United States has made it easier for the West to impose additional sanctions on Russia. “American response must be much more than a verbal slap if we want Putin to understand his actions in Ukraine are unacceptable. Congress must refuse to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” U.S. Senator Dan Coats (R-IN).

By the illegal land grab of Ukraine’s territory, the Russian Federation a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council revealed an utter disregard for the most basic principles of international law as well as of its own commitments: the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the post 1980’s European Settlement, the 1990 CSCE Paris Charter, the 1991 Alma Ata Declaration, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the 1997 Ukraine Russia Bi-lateral Friendship Treaty (SIC). Today, Russia is violating the Minsk Truce Agreement signed by the United States, Great Britain and the Russian Federation last September.

It is vital that Europe and the United States recognize that this war is not just about Ukraine. Having taken Ukraine, Russia might attempt to seize more land from its neighbors. Many highly regarded and knowledgeable persons government officials, political analysts, scholars, politicians and media persons have stated that Putin’s endgame is Europe with Teheran and Yalta agreement boundaries. “If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine’s new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every-pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger.” T. Friedman, [The New York Times, 1/28/15].

In his 14 years of power Putin has never concealede fall of the Soviet Union is about to collapse.