Welcome to the 

Ukrainian American Bar Association

UABA Feature Articles

  • 03 Dec 2014 1:49 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Press Release: December 3, 2014

    UABA Urges Swift Congressional Passage of
    S. 2828 and HR. 5782

    The Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA) strongly urges swift congressional passage of Senate Bill 2828 and House Bill HR 5782.  These bipartisan bills will grant Ukraine "Major Non-NATO Ally Status" (MNNA) and defensive military assistance.  Once these bills become law, they will greatly enhance the United States' national security interests and will promote peace on the Eurasian continent and throughout the world.

    It is obvious that economic sanctions in and of themselves are woefully deficient and will not stop Russia's unlawful aggression against Ukraine.  Despite all its denials, the Kremlin now openly deploys its heavily armed military on Ukrainian territory, and continually re-supplies its mercenary "separatists" with impunity under the guise of "humanitarian aid."  Putin has doubled down on his bellicose pronouncements and has vehemently restated his resolve to return Russia to the previous borders of the former USSR, and even to expand the Kremlin's hegemony over the eastern parts of the European Union.  Obviously, Vladimir Putin has made the economic calculation that he can withstand the financial price of a scolding by the West (including any additional sanctions that could be imposed in the future)  -- and all international agreements, promises, and pledges Russia had signed in the past don't matter.

    America readily supplies lethal weapons worth billions of dollars to questionable allies in the Middle East.  We are ready to put "boots on the ground" to protect countries in that region, many of which have well-equipped armies of their own and the economic strength to fully support their own military, but these same countries do not put their citizenry's boots on the ground to defend their own territorial integrity from invasion.  We are asked to do it for them -- and we have done that!   However, when it comes to Ukraine, which does not ask America to put our soldiers in the line of fire -- Ukrainians already have their sons and daughters dying daily on the front lines -- but asks only for adequate weapons so that Ukraine's sons and daughters can suitably defend themselves, America rebuffs Ukraine's dire requests with lame excuses.

    Had Ukraine received American and Western military aid earlier in a timely fashion, Ukraine would have been in a better military posture to repel the pro-Russian terrorists and seal its border from further Russian incursion.  Continued tardiness or inaction by the United States Congress in rendering timely military aid to Ukraine will  condemn Ukraine to an endless and hopeless waiting for American assistance -- as the characters in "Waiting for Godot"-- only to have its sovereign territory painfully eroded by Russian aggression, with extensive casualties to its population, with millions of people displaced, and many a young Ukrainian soldier killed by a stronger and brutal aggressor nation whose only goal is imperial territorial expansion.  If Ukraine falls, then the horrific conflagration of war will spill over into the eastern part of the European Union and will necessitate American "boots on the ground".  All this may be avoided if the United States Congress acts now and fulfills its obligation and duty to give timely military assistance to Ukraine.

    For further information, please contact
    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.
    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)
    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email;
    myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com


  • 01 Dec 2014 6:25 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Click here to view in PDF format  --- Натисніть тут для перегляду  у форматі PDF




    Nov 13-16, 2014
    Washington, DC 20008

    Address of Robert A. McConnell, Esq.

    Robert McConnell is a political consultant with the firm of R.A. McConnell & Associates. He has been very active in matters concerning Ukraine since the late 1970s playing a significant role in the Congress establishing the Ukraine Famine Commission in the 1980s, was a leader in gathering Washington support for the celebration of the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine (1988) and seeing to it that no American official participated in Mikhail Gorbachev’s fraudulent ceremonies claiming the millennium for Russia, Co-Founded the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation in 1990 (which opened an office in Kyiv in late 1990 – Ukraine was still in the Soviet Union – making the Foundation the oldest American presence in Ukraine) and between 1990 and 1993 testified or submitted testimony in approximately 30 hearings relevant to events in Ukraine.

     Follow the UABA on FACEBOOK!


    The Bear and the Ostrich – The Kremlin vs. Washington
    Speech to the Ukrainian-American Bar Association Convention
    Robert McConnell
    November 14, 2014

    Really, what more do I need to say?

    The Bear is engaged in a massive and dynamic war – the ostrich has its head in the sand regarding the reality of the situation and is simply engaged in the cosmetics of the conflict.

     Putin invades and seizes Crimea and NATO and the Pentagon actually say publicly they were surprised and had no idea Putin would do that.  Hello!  I can’t recall and names all the people who had predicted that invasion but I know that I wrote many in Congress and the Administration in December 2013 saying Russia would invade Crimea during or immediately after the Sochi Games.  And I am no military strategist.

    I read the paper and I read Paul Goble’s daily Window on Eurasia where he provides the only genuine news of what is going on inside Russia as written in Russia’s domestic media.  I wish I had been able to hear his presentation this morning.  Paul Goble is an American treasure, one of a kind.

    After the Crimean invasion the United States said the invasion could not be allowed to stand, it was wrong.  Are we saying anything about Crimea now? When was the last time you heard Crimean mentioned by an American official?

    Putin invaded two oblasts in Eastern Ukraine – forget “Russian speaking separatists,” forget “ethnic Russians,” forget “separatists,” Russia invaded Ukraine.  Oh sure, there were and are Russia-Ukrainians who supported the invasion but they didn’t initiate anything.  Putin’s forces invaded and created the conflict and eventually the United States couldn’t ignore the facts and had to condemn the Russian role.

    We disapproved.

    We threatened.

    We drew lines.

    We postured.

    We abhorrently parsed the terms of the Budapest Memorandum to explain that the plain meaning of the words – and the intent depended upon by Ukraine in signing the document – does not call for the United States to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty.  This was and is a disgrace of the first order given that the Memorandum was the culmination of the American and Russian effort to get Ukraine to turn over its nuclear weapons - not to the United States to whom Ukraine wanted to ship its nuclear weapons - but to Russia – the one country to which Ukraine did not want to give its weapons.  You won’t find that truth in any history now told of the events – indeed anyone and everyone in the U.S. Government will deny this.

    So what is the reality?  We provide a lot of talk, minimal aid under the circumstances and advertise our contributions and support of Ukraine loudly to a largely disinterested public.

    This may be a bit provocative – even for me – but you have to wonder who actually misses the Soviet Union more, Putin or the foreign policy community in the West?  Their respective feelings manifest themselves differently – the puny, strutting little former KGB colonel invades Ukraine, works to destabilize the Baltics, has Russian bombers patrolling the Atlantic and Pacific, seeks military landing rights in South American countries, has his navy showing up places it hasn’t been seen in years, he works with the terrorist mullahs and generally projects all of the evil for which the Soviet Union was known.

    On the other hand we – the United States government and many American institutions – deplore Russian aggression and huff and puff but we do very - - -very - - - little to assist Ukraine in being able to defend itself.

    As President Poroshenko said before Congress, you can’t fight a war with blankets.

    Oh sure, a representative of our government could challenge me with a list of things we have done:

    -          A billion dollar loan guarantee (a loan guarantee, not cash)

    -          Work to secure IMF funds

    -          Non-lethal support for this and that

    -          Supposedly projecting strength by putting planes in the Baltics, Poland

    -          Imposing sanctions

    -          Yada, yada, yada

    Half measures at best – all delayed from when they would have had genuine meaning. And all the while making it abundantly clear we would never provide lethal assistance, we would never really help Ukraine defend itself against an invading army that is killing Ukrainian citizens.

    Oh, and by the way, when Obama says there will be no lethal aid he means it.  A classic case of his commitment to keeping arms from Ukraine is playing out right now.  Ukraine worked to secure the purchase of rifles and ammunition from a United States manufacturer and obtained an export license to ship the arms to Ukraine.  But when the arms reached Customs they were essentially impounded by Homeland Security.  The stated reason – to investigate how Ukraine obtained the export license.

    You think Putin isn’t aware of this type of thing?

    How do you think Putin reads Washington? 

    We are a joke.

    Someone asked the other day, “When will Putin stop?”  Why would he stop?  No one is stopping him.

    Over and over again we provide Putin with a very clear picture of a paper tiger.

    We have a stated policy of isolating Russia until it withdraws from Ukraine.

    Isolate – really?

    Over the past 6 months I can’t recall how many conferences have been held in Washington and elsewhere in the States promoting business opportunities for American companies in Russia – with US government participation!

    What we say and how we behave are too entirely different things.  And Putin knows it.

    Look, the situation is deplorable and one can get depressed, one can think about giving up, one can say there is no way to change the situation - - but this situation, this mess is nothing new for Ukraine and Ukrainians or Ukrainian-Americans.

    It has always been so - there is a western fascination with Russia and wanting to believe there are common interests and the Kremlin isn’t what it appears to be, etc.  To me this is inexplicable and just plain stupid, refuted over and over by history but it is a reality. We have to understand it is what it is.

    But in facing this reality we have to remember that over the last 100 years every time – every time – anything good regarding Ukraine specifically has been accomplished in Washington it has been the Congress that has taken the lead.  It has never been an American Administration.  And that will be the case again.

    The Administration – at least the collective Administration – would like Ukraine just to go away.  The President simply could not care less about Ukraine.

    But it is the Congress where Ukraine finds its allies.  The steps that have been taken to support Ukraine have either come through Congress or been forced by Congress.  And Congress has been bipartisan in its support of Ukraine. 

    The Ukraine Freedom Support Act – S. 2828 – was reported out of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations unanimously.  It is worth taking the time here to know and understand what Chairman Menendez and Ranking Republican Corker provide in their legislation.

    The legislation requires the president to apply sanctions against:

    ·                  Rosoboronexport and other Russian defense firms that contribute to instability in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Syria;

    ·                  It requires sanctions of companies worldwide that make significant investments in particular unconventional Russian crude oil energy projects;

    ·                  It requires sanction on Gazprom, if the President determines that Gazprom is withholding significant natural gas supplies from member countries of NATO or further withholds such supplies from countries such as Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova. 

    It also imposes restrictions on foreign financial institutions' dealings with the United States banking system if it is determined the financial institution has engaged in significant sanctionable transactions related to Russia's defense and energy sectors, or significant transactions on behalf of any Russian individual or entity that has been sanctioned in connection with the crisis in Ukraine. 

    This legislation authorizes the president to provide military assistance to Ukraine, to include:

    ·                  Providing defense articles, defense services, and training to the Government of Ukraine for the purpose of countering offensive weapons and reestablishing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons; crew weapons and ammunition; counter-artillery radars to identify and target artillery batteries; fire control, range finder, and optical and guidance and control equipment; tactical troop-operated surveillance drones, and secure command and communications equipment.  It authorizes $350 million in fiscal year 2015 to carry out these activities.

    It requires the administration to outline a plan for how the United States, other governments, and international organizations will help Ukraine in protecting and assisting persons internally displaced because of the fighting in Ukraine. 

    The bill requires the administration to work with Ukraine to develop a short-term emergency energy assistance plan that will help Ukraine address a potential fuel and electricity shortage in 2014-15, and authorizes $50 million for fiscal year 2015 in support of these activities.  It also requires the administration to develop medium- and long-term plans to increase energy production and efficiency to improve energy security in Ukraine, and authorizes $50 million over three fiscal years for such activities. 

    Under this bill, the president would need to submit a strategy to Congress that outlines U.S. efforts to strengthen Ukrainian civil society, support independent media, reduce corruption, and increase election-monitoring capacity.  This legislation also encourages the president to assist entities in the Ukrainian defense sector to reorient exports away from customers in Russia and to find appropriate alternative markets for their products. 

    Finally, the bill designates Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia as major non-NATO allies and authorizes $10 million for the next three fiscal years to counter Russian propaganda in the former Soviet Union countries and prioritizes Russian-language broadcasting into Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia.

    If enacted would S. 2828 be enough?  No

    It would not be enough for a number of reasons.

    First I am certain that for S. 2828 to get to the Senate floor there will have to be a unanimous consent agreement.  If this is even possible several sources tell me that there will have to be changes in the legislation the most likely of which will have to be the striking of the language codifying the sanctions already in place.

    Second, the legislation authorizes funds, it does not appropriate.  Appropriations would have to be provided separately and it will take time to appropriate.

    But let’s be clear – S. 2828 is a genuine effort to back up American words with genuine support for Ukraine.

    Now, I am not optimistic that S. 2828 will get through the Senate, be accepted in the House and get to the President’s desk in 2014.  There is very little time left in the lame duck and the White House, which is against the bill, represents the only lobbyist in town with an Article I power under our Constitution – enactment, requires the President’s signature. 

    And the White House has Harry Reid’s ear and Reid sets the Senate agenda - - for now.

    But Mitch McConnell has long been a supporter of Ukraine and has indicated legislation would be dealt with expeditiously in the 114th Congress next year. But there are several things to keep in mind.

    We are at the end of a Congress, there is little time left and you can never predict what will happen.  There are other pieces of legislation less well known that have provisions which could have significant impact on Ukraine.  They are in the mix. Things happen at the end of a Congress, language gets added to must pass legislation; nuanced deals are made on the floor.  Good things could happen that will benefit Ukraine.

    But the best known bill supporting Ukraine is S. 2828 so, regardless of the many hurdles faced this year to secure enactment of critical legislation, the UABA and anyone interested in American global interests should be making members of the Senate and the House of Representatives know passage of legislation like S. 2828 is important, needed and of vital interest to American voters.  These sentiments, this message can provide an important indeed necessary, backdrop of support for senators and House Members to act on behalf of Ukraine.  There is broad support in Congress for Ukraine and to counter the Russian problem.  But in the broad agenda of issues to be addressed, Congress needs to know it has support to make Ukraine a priority, that there is public support for making Ukraine an item to be addressed now.  Your demonstrated support for S.2828 can add pressure to cloakroom deals benefiting Ukraine via other legislation.

    Whatever you can do – letters, faxes, phone calls, speaking up at forums during Thanksgiving – anything and everything should be done now and should continue until enactment – momentum must build, voices must be heard.

    The Bear is stalking Ukraine.  The Bear is turning international order on its head.  Through Congress we must force the Ostrich’s head out of the sand and demand that it defend American interests starting in Ukraine.  

  • 15 Nov 2014 12:57 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Click here to view in PDF format  --- Натисніть тут для перегляду  у
    форматі PDF



    Nov 13-16, 2014
    Washington, DC 20008



    President of the National Endowment for Democracy, a private, congressionally supported grant-making institution with the mission to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts.

    For additional biographical information click here

     Follow the UABA on FACEBOOK!




    Remarks to the Ukrainian American Bar Association

    November 15, 2014        Washington, D.C.

    There are two important post-communist anniversaries this week.  The first is on Monday, November 17 - the 25th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution, on which occasion a bust of Vaclav Havel will be unveiled in the U.S. Capitol.  The second, just as important but probably less noticed, is the first anniversary of the Maidan Uprising  in Ukraine, which occurs next Friday, November 21.  It’s hard to believe that so much has happened in less than one year: the EuroMaidan uprising, the sustained protests in sub-freezing temperatures against the corruption of the Yanukovych government, the repression, the martyrs, the fall of Yanukovych, then the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, and now Russia’s continuing aggression in eastern Ukraine.  These have been world transforming events, and they’re continuing to this day, with consequences that go far beyond Ukraine.

    A new Ukraine has emerged from all of this turmoil and struggle.  It’s a more unified country than ever before, with a much stronger sense of national identity.  I was speaking over dinner with Professor Volodymyr Vassylenko, who said that Putin is trying to destroy Ukraine’s national identity.  But in an ironic way, it is because of Ukraine’s struggle, and therefore also because of Putin and Yanukovych, that Ukraine has  become a new country, a unitary state where language and other divisions are no longer as difficult as they once were; a country that wants to become a modern, European state with democracy and the rule of law.

    I was in Ukraine last May for a solidarity conference of intellectuals organized by Professor Timothy Snyder and Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic. There was a session bringing together religious leaders from all different faiths – Greek and Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews.  There was also a panel of seven Jewish leaders.  Everyone there was speaking as a Ukrainian.  This could never have happened before, and it’s happened because of the Maidan and the Russian aggression against the uprising and against Ukraine itself.

    The Maidan uprising was a profoundly democratic event, with the protesters embracing a concept of democratic citizenship involving individual responsibility to uphold democratic values and to serve the larger community.  Ukraine took another step towards democracy on October 26 when it held parliamentary elections.  NED’s Nadia Diuk, who is with us tonight, was there as an election observer.  She reported afterwards that one of the most significant things that happened in the elections was that civil-society activists, journalists and other leaders from the Maidan entered politics for the first time.  The decision by these activists and journalists to run for parliament was not an easy one because politics and politicians have such a bad reputation in Ukraine - for good reason since it’s considered a dirty business. But they knew that they could not defend the revolution and achieve the reforms contained in the Reanimation Reforms Package initiative if they did not make the jump from civic activism to politics.  They simply had done as much as they could do as civic activists and had to take responsibility for governance.  This is something that the protesters in Egypt’s Tahrir Square could not do, which is why in the end Egypt’s revolution fared so badly.

    And so activists like the journalist Mustafa Nayyem, whose Facebook post launched the Maidan protests,  made the difficult decision to move from protest to politics. And I think Ukraine will benefit as a result.  I’m happy to announce that on December 9 three of the Maidan activists who were elected to the new parliament will be honored at a dinner in Washington of the National Democratic Institute, one of NED’s four core institute which is chaired by Madeleine Albright and has been very active in Ukraine. The three are Serhiy Leshchenko, the investigative journalist who took a leave from his Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow at NED to return to Kyiv when the Maidan protests erupted last November; Hanna Hopko, an ecology advocate and journalist; and Oleksandr Solontay, a political analyst and civic educator.

    The entry of such people into politics is extremely important since there is now an urgent need to implement real reforms.  Anders Aslund, a leading specialist on postcommunist economic transition, has described the current economic situation in Ukraine as “desperate, though not hopeless.”  He has written that the economy is on the verge of a meltdown, with the GDP plummeting by 8 percent this year – 10 percent according to The Economist - and the budget deficit rising to 12 percent of GDP. The value of the hryvnia has fallen by half  and is  likely to fall much more. Inflation for this year will reach 24 percent, and of course the war in the east has caused billions of dollars in damage.

    In a policy brief published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Aslund offers “An Economic Strategy to Save Ukraine.” Among its key points are that the reformist forces that won the parliamentary elections need to agree as soon as possible on the formation of a highly competent coalition government, which then will launch the  kind of radical reforms contained in the Reanimation Package. These include cleaning up the government from the top down, including the purge of corrupt officials from the old regime,  especially in the judiciary and police; abolishing the legal immunity of parliamentarians so that they can be  held accountable; closing or merging superfluous or even harmful state agencies, and laying off excess staff while raising salaries and qualifications; cutting public expenditures by one-tenth of GDP in the next year; and reducing energy subsidies by unifying energy prices - meaning putting an end to the trading of gas between low state-controlled prices and high market prices - which Aslund calls “the main mechanism of corruption” in Ukraine. 

    In addition to implementing radical reforms, Ukraine will need much more financial support than it has received to date from the IMF and other international financial institutions – not in the form of credits, which Ukraine won’t be able to repay as the economy is collapsing – but as aid to rebuild its economy.  What’s needed, according to Aslund, is a new Marshall Plan to save Ukraine, just as the United States saved Europe after World War Two.  And it can work, because Ukraine is now ready to do what has to be done to control corruption and become a modern state.

    The challenge confronting Ukraine is more difficult than the one faced by post-war Europe because it needs to rebuild economically while the war is still going on – in this case, the war caused by Russia’s continuing aggression in Ukraine’s east.  Ukraine is now fighting a war of survival against a very brutal, dangerous, and powerful enemy.  NATO Commanding General Philip Breedlove said on Wednesday that Russian forces have again crossed the border into south east Ukraine with tanks, artillery and troops.   He charged that Putin is ignoring last September’s Minsk peace accords calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the region, but as The Economist reports in the current issue, Putin claims he doesn’t have to do so since Russia has no troops in Ukraine in the first place. Of course he’s lying, but the West, Breedlove aside, is not calling him on it.  The Economist notes that Putin’s standard operating procedure is to escalate the conflict and then agree to go no further in exchange for concessions, and he has been getting away with it.  It quotes Kirill Rogov, a Russian political analyst at the Gaidar Institute in Moscow, as saying that “Putin likes to open talks by putting a knife on the table first.”  Yet somehow we continue to think that Putin is a potential partner in securing a more peaceful world order.   

    But of course he’s not a partner.  The German government has called the latest Russian move “incomprehensible,” but it’s perfectly comprehensible if one just observes Russian behavior. And the new foreign policy chief of the European Union, Federica Mogherini of Italy, has said that we can’t let the peace process break down because it will be so difficult to start it again.  But what peace process is she speaking about?  The Wall Street Journal said yesterday that “Putin has never stood down” – not in Chechnya in 1999 when he used the Chechen war to take power; not in Georgia in 2008; and not in 2012, when he whipped up anti-Americanism and domestic repression to crush anti-government street protests.  He will stand down only if and when he is forced to stand down.

    No, he’s not a partner in peace or in negotiations, and he has demonstrated a seething anti-Americanism.  Here’s how The Washington Post characterized his recent speech in Valdai.  They called it a poisonous mix of lies, conspiracy theories, thinly veiled threats of further aggression and, above all, seething resentment toward the United States.”

    Now he’s gone even further with his endorsement of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.  What can this mean?  Tim Snyder’s answer is that Putin is following Stalin: “In his own way, Putin is now attempting much the same thing. Just as Stalin sought to turn the most radical of European forces, Adolf Hitler, against Europe itself, so Putin is allying with his grab bag of anti-European populists, fascists, and separatists. His allies on the far right are precisely the political forces that wish to bring an end to the current European order: the European Union.”

    What are we to do?  More important, really the first question, is what are we dealing with here?  If Putin’s Russia is not a partner, then what is it? And if it is an adversary, or an opponent, or even an enemy – which is certainly how Putin views it – how does this affect us?

    I suggest that Putin seeks a different kind of world order than the one that followed the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, which he said was “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th Century.”  That’s why he “drove a tank over the world order” as The Economist put it last March after the invasion and annexation of Crimea: He thinks the current world order represents a grave injustice to Russia.  He is seeking to reverse the verdict of 1989, which he considers to be an unjust and humiliating defeat for Russia.

    The Russian analyst Lilia Shevtsova, who delivered the NED’s annual Lipset Lecture on Democracy last month at the Canadian Embassy, has said that the world is in the midst of an authoritarian surge. She adds that “Today’s Russia is an advance combat unit of the new global authoritarianism, with China…waiting in the wings to seize its own opportunities.” She warns that if the West chooses to respond with appeasement, “this will give a green light to the Authoritarian Internationale, signaling that the  West is weak and can be trampled underfoot.”  As The Wall Street Journal said yesterday, it will certainly open the way for Putin to threaten and attack other countries aside from Ukraine – Moldova, the Baltic states, Poland, and Kazakhstan.

    Should this matter to the United States?  Are our own interests involved, leaving aside those of Ukraine and our allies?  Why should we care?  I raised this question at a forum we organized the day following Lilia Shevtsova’s lecture.  A member of the panel, Leon Aron of the American Enterprise Institute, responded that Russia is a country with 1,700 nuclear missiles and is now in the grip of a leader with a messianic, revanchist ideology and historic grievances against the United States.  Shouldn’t that matter to us? If Putin wants to destroy NATO and the EU, shouldn’t we care?  Have we no sense of what our national interest is and what we must do to defend it? 

    We are entering a new moment in our politics.  After last week’s election, we can expect a much tougher tone in the debate in Congress over foreign policy, and more pressure for a stronger response than we’ve seen so far to Putin’s aggression.  There will certainly be an effort to expand sanctions to sharpen the economic crisis that is growing in Russia.  The ruble has fallen by 22 percent so far this year, a rate of decline second only to Argentina.  The drop in oil prices, the outflow of capital that could exceed $100 billion this year, the inflation in food prices caused by Putin’s retaliatory embargo on agricultural imports from the West – all of this will contribute to Russia’s severe economic difficulties and present new opportunities to increase pressure on Russia by tightening sanctions.

    But what is most urgent, as Senators Carl Levin and Jim Inhofe wrote in The Washington Post last month, is the need to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend itself.  They don’t want U.S. boots on the ground, but blankets and foods rations are hardly enough, as President Poroshenko told the Congress in September.  What they need is what was provided for in the bill adopted with bipartisan and unanimous support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: anti-tank weapons to defend against Russian-provided armored personnel carriers; ammunition; vehicles and secure communications equipment; and intelligence support and training.

    Key leaders in the U.S. and Europe have said that they oppose weapons for Ukraine because they fear that an armed Ukraine might think that there is a military solution to the conflict.  Unfortunately, as The Washington Post has repeatedly pointed out, Mr. Putin does not agree that there is no military solution.  He has used military escalation to achieve his victory in the form of a dissected Ukraine and a frozen conflict that will destabilize Ukraine for the foreseeable future and deny it membership in the European Union and NATO.  Military aid to Ukraine may not by itself bring the conflict to an end, but no political solution will be possible in the absence of a military balance that convinces Putin that his aggression will meet with stiff resistance and will not be able to succeed.

    If he does fail, the consequences for Putin could be severe.  Clearly he hopes that the invasion and annexation of Crimea and the attack on eastern Ukraine will help him gain support in Russia and resist pressures for change.  He’s not the first Russian leader to think that way.  In 1904, the czarist interior minister Vyacheslav Plehve said, “What this country needs is a short victorious war to stem the tide of revolution.”  He had in mind Russia’s war against Japan.  But what happened? Plehve was assassinated, Russia lost the war, and the defeat precipitated the revolution of 1905, which brought about Russia’s first parliament and the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin.  According to both the Russian analyst Vladimir Kara Murza and the Georgian writer Ghia Nodia, this was not the only case of a Russian military defeat or setback leading to political change.  They note that Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War of 1853-1856 demonstrated the backwardness of its autocratic system and led to the abolition of serfdom and other liberal reforms, including the establishment of local self-government and trial by jury.  Russia’s devastating setbacks in World War I contributed to the collapse of the czarist system and the Russia Revolution of 1917, which began as a democratic revolution before the Bolshevik coup.  And the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan precipitated the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  Putin may yet regret the day he decided to send troops into Ukraine.

    But many people think who argue that the fall of Putin would itself present a great danger because he will likely be replaced by someone even worse.  They say that Russia, with its autocratic history and authoritarian culture, is not capable of establishing a real democracy. But is that true?

    I asked that question to my friend Vladimir Kara Murza, who now works in Moscow for Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Open Russia, which seeks a democratic opening and a European future for Russia.  Kara Murza responded by saying that anti-democratic forces have always done badly in Russian elections whenever they were free and competitive.  The first-ever election was in 1906, when the Constitutional Democratic Party, which had campaigned for liberal reforms and a British-style parliamentary system, won a plurality of seats in the State Duma, while the far-right monarchists failed to get even a single candidate elected.  In 1917, in the election for the Constituent Assembly held after the Bolshevik coup, the Bolsheviks lost to the pro-democracy Socialist Revolutionary Party by 40 to 24 percent, which is why the Bolsheviks then dispersed the “bourgeois” Assembly by force.  The next time the Russians had a chance to vote, according to Kara Murza, was in 1991 when Boris Yeltsin, backed by the opposition Democratic Russia movement, overwhelmingly defeated the Communist candidate, former Soviet Premier Nikolai Ryzhkov, by 57 to 17 percent.  Even in the 1993 parliamentary elections, when ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky won a plurality, the centrist and liberal parties out-polled the combined total received by Zhirinovsky and the Communists by 40 to 35 percent.  And in 1996, even though Yeltsin was an unpopular incumbent and in poor health, he was able to defeat the Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov by 54 to 40 percent in the second-round presidential runoff. 

    I am by no means saying that democracy is inevitable in Russia, only that it is possible, and that one should not resign oneself to Putin’s continued rule on  the grounds that the only possible alternative to him would be worse.  I believe that Putin does not feel secure in his power, and that the greatest threat to autocracy in Russia is a successful and a democratic Ukraine.  This is what Putin fears most, because the mentality of Russian imperialism that Putin represents will wither if Russia cannot control Ukraine. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has said, and it can become a more normal country, even a democracy, where the central concern is not the power of Great Russia but the welfare of the people. 

    Putin also fears a democratic Ukraine because it will be a powerful model for Russia itself.  He knows that a neighboring Ukraine, with millions of Russian-speaking people freely expressing themselves, will be a magnetic symbol of democratic freedoms for people inside Russia.

    So the strategic goal for people who want to see a more peaceful and democratic world is a Russia that, like Ukraine, wants to be democratic and a part of Europe.  I don’t know if that will happen.  But I do know that a successful and democratic Ukraine is a precondition for it to happen.  Therefore, Ukraine’s struggle for democracy, independence, and territorial integrity has global significance.  It’s a struggle that will  have consequences for the whole world.  And I believe that the U.S. has a profound national interest in its success.  So we must stand with Ukraine, not just because it deserves our support, but to defend our values and our national security.

    In conclusion, I want to refer back to the October 26 election and to the thought that Ukraine is a new country.  As I mentioned, Nadia Diuk was there as an observer, in Dnipropetrovsk, which used to be a center for Soviet missile production.  She wrote afterwards that she saw signs of a different country and a new patriotism all about her, in political graffiti and in walls and fences painted yellow and blue.  She said that on her return plane trip to Kyiv from Dnipropetrovsk, the steward made the usual announcements before landing, saying that the passengers should make sure to take all of your personal belongings.”  And then he ended with the phrase that was as unusual as it was expressive of the new spirit of the country, and it’s how I want to end tonight: “Slava Ukraini!” – Glory to Ukraine.  Thank you very much.


  • 20 Sep 2014 5:03 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Click here to view in PDF format  --- Натисніть тут для перегляду  у форматі PDF

    COMMENTARY:  September 20, 2014

    Ukraine to the US: "Live free or die!"

    The US to Ukraine: "Do the best you can!"

                   On September 18, 2014, I had the honor and privilege [at the invitation of Congressman Bill Pascrell. (D-NJ), a strong supporter of Ukraine] to personally witness a truly historic event - Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko addressing a joint session of Congress.  President Poroshenko's speech was very eloquent and emotionally charged, but laser focused on the realities of Ukraine's present geopolitical situation.  His oration garnered many a standing ovation from members of the House and Senate. His speech emphasized that Russia's war against Ukraine is not only a local war of aggression, but, if this unprovoked hostility in violation of international norms is not contained and reversed now, it will infect Europe in the future with bloodshed and will ultimately militarily engage the United States, thus, returning the world to the dangerous [and possibly] nuclear bipolar political and military stance that existed in the previous century.  In President Poroshenko's words  "It is Europe’s, and it is America’s war, too. It is a war of the free world – and for a free world!.... To prevent this, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are in the line of fire right now".

                   The Ukrainian President pointed out that in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, Ukraine voluntarily surrendered the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal in the world.  In return, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China and the United States agreed, jointly and severally, to assure Ukraine's economic, political independence and territorial integrity.  In the past year, Russia breached this international agreement in a blatant and violent manner.  It first invaded and annexed Crimea, and then instigated an insurrection in Eastern Ukraine by alleged separatists/terrorists that were guided and supported by Russian troops, which hostilities are in reality an invasion and violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity.  During the course of this Kremlin inspired "insurrection", 298 lives were lost in the downing of Malaysian flight 17 by Russian equipped terrorists.  President Poroshenko emphasized that "the United States made a commitment that it would stand behind Ukraine’s territorial integrity – and we hope that it will live up to that promise."

                   The Ukrainian President's speech ended with an emotional appeal to America. He said:
    “Live free or die!” – was one of the mottos of the American Revolutionary War.
    “Live free or die!” – was the spirit on the revolutionary Maidan during the dramatic winter months of 2014.
    “Live free or die!” are the words of Ukrainian soldiers standing on the line of freedom in this war.
    “Live free!” – must be the answer, with which Ukraine comes out of this war.
    “Live free!” – must be the message Ukraine and America send to the world, while standing together in this time of enormous challenge.

                   The question arose in my mind: So what has been the reaction of the United States to date and what will be its future response to Russia's blatant invasion of Ukraine and Moscow's overt violation of the Budapest Memorandum?  And how would the American President react to Ukraine's impassioned plea for military aid?

                   Needless to say, the initial response to Russia's invasion were numerous verbal condemnations of the Kremlin's actions which resounded vociferously throughout the world.  All civilized nations deplored this blatant and callous undermining of the basic principles of international law that were the cornerstone of the peace and stability on the European continent for 70 years after World War II.  As a stern scolding of Russia, the United States and the EU instituted a variety of economic sanctions on an escalating basis.  It is true that these economic sanctions have had a negative effect on Russia's economy, but it has not stopped the Kremlin's aggression [much less reversed it] and Putin has doubled down even further on his bellicose rhetoric and actions.  The United States had also pledged nonlethal military support to Ukraine such as food rations and blankets for the Ukrainian Armed Forces; a poorly prepared military which is defending Ukraine from the onslaught of a well-equipped, fully armed Russian fighting apparatus [much of whose weaponry was purchased by Russia from the West].  Ukrainian President Poroshenko acknowledged and appreciated this American non-lethal assistance for Ukraine but stated Ukraine's soldiers in the field ".. need more military equipment – both non-lethal and lethal. Blankets and night-vision goggles are important but one cannot win the war with blankets    Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket."

                   Recently, the American Congress initiated legislation that would give President Obama the authority to grant lethal and nonlethal military aid to Ukraine.  The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 sailed through the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate with unanimous bipartisan vote in short order.  Similar bills were introduced in the House: H.R. 5241 "Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Act" which prohibits any recognition of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation; H.R. 5190, the Ukraine Security Assistance Act of 2014, authorizes  the President to give military assistance to Ukraine and the designation of Ukraine as a Major non-NATO Ally (MNNA).  Hopefully, Congress will act upon this legislation in a timely manner since time is of the essence for Ukraine.

                   After his speech, President Poroshenko ceremoniously met with American President Obama at the White House only to get additional verbal assurances and pontifical statements of solidarity – but no lethal military assistance nor MNNA status.  Apparently, the core foreign policy principle of the United States towards Ukraine [as expressed by President Obama at a fundraiser earlier this month] is that since the US "does very little trade with Ukraine, what happens to Ukraine doesn't pose a direct threat to America."  In essence, money trumps all!  Is that what "live free or die" means?  Is that one of the founding principles of our democratic society?  This ill-founded foreign-policy position is grossly naïve at best and is grounded on a systemic lack of understanding of the historical realities of the existing world order, how it came to be, and inadvertently puts global stability into great jeopardy.  International agreements are not to be disregarded merely because there's no money in it - especially if they deal with nuclear nonproliferation.  What happened to our solemn pledges to uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations as embodied in the UN charter, the Helsinki Accords, the Budapest Memorandum and a plethora of other international agreements?  America readily supplies lethal weapons worth billions of dollars to questionable allies in the Middle East.  We are ready to put "boots on the ground" to protect countries in that region, many of which have well-equipped armies of their own and the economic strength to fully support their own military, but these same countries do not put their citizenry's boots on the ground to defend their own territorial integrity from invasion.  We are asked to do it for them - and we have done that!  However, when it comes to Ukraine, which does not ask America to put our soldiers in the line of fire - Ukrainians already have their sons and daughters dying daily on the front lines - but asks only for adequate weapons so that Ukraine's sons and daughters can suitably defend themselves, America rebuffs Ukraine's dire requests with lame excuses.

                   The Obama Administration must seriously take a long hard look at itself and its foreign-policy and the image it portrays of the United States and of our core American principles to the rest of the world.  The Administration must recognize that its present anemic policy towards Ukraine jeopardizes our own country's national security in the future.  Regrettably, the Administration's actions to date have given the green light to despots in other countries [ i.e. Putin] to ignore international norms and freely grab territory by unprovoked surreptitious warfare.  These dictators only need to make an economic calculation as to whether they can withstand the financial price of a scolding by the West--and all international agreements, promises, and pledges they signed don't matter.  International politics and world law and order should not be all about money.  In the long run, the present American myopic foreign policy towards Ukraine will unwittingly create a conflagration on the European continent in which our children or grandchildren will be putting their "boots on the ground".  America can continue to give blankets to Ukrainian soldiers so they can be warm in the winter -- and also to use them to cover and bury their dead.  But, by failing to give Ukrainians the necessary means to defend themselves, we, as a country, are telling Ukraine "Do the best you can!".   And that is simply the wrong message!  It does not reflect the principles of freedom upon which this country was created.  We Americans should and must do much, much more to aid Ukraine and to reestablish the primacy of the principles that we claim are our core values - and that our promises mean something.

    The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author
    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.
    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)
    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email;
    myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com


  • 14 Sep 2014 10:16 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Click here to view in PDF format  --- Натисніть тут для перегляду  у форматі PDF

     Press Release:  September 14, 2014

     Is Ukraine "Waiting for Godot"?

    On September 18, 2014, the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, will address a joint session of the United States Congress. No doubt he will strongly applaud the latest round of sanctions that were imposed on Russia by the United States and the European Union on September 12, 2014 in response to Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.  But he will also likely repeat his prior requests for immediate military aid from the United States and its Western partners so that Ukraine can defend itself from further Russian aggression.  It will not be a request for "boots on the ground" but for military weapons and supplies for Ukraine's armed forces.  The US and the West have made it crystal clear that their military participation in Ukraine's defense is not an option despite the fact that in 1994, Ukraine voluntarily surrendered its entire nuclear arsenal – the 3rd largest in the world – in return for guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum [pledged by Russia, the US and the UK] of Ukraine's economic and political sovereignty and the integrity of its borders.  

    Most of the civilized countries of the world have condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an affront to international rule of law and as a violation of the numerous international treaties and agreements that require civilized countries to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.  These linchpin agreements - such as the UN Charter and the Helsinki Accords - maintained peace and stability on the Eurasian continent for over 70 years. Regrettably, it is now patently obvious that Russia's actions clearly evidence that it will not abide by any promises that it has made or will make in any future treaty or other international agreement. 

    Numerous concerned voices in the American political, academic and mass media arena have urgently called for America and the EU to give immediate military aid to Ukraine.  All of these voices recognize that despite the increased economic sanctions, the Kremlin obstinately continues its military buildup within Ukraine and continues to violate the cease-fire agreement reached in Minsk earlier this month.  It now arrogantly and openly continues its military actions against defensive Ukrainian forces inside the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, in spite of the stronger economic sanctions imposed on September 12 by the US and EU.  Currently, additional convoys of "humanitarian" trucks openly unload lethal weapons inside Ukrainian territory and Russian military forces in and outside of Ukrainian borders are bombarding Ukrainian defensive military positions within Ukraine.  So much for Russia and its surrogate pro-Russian terrorists abiding by a cease-fire agreement!  Putin has doubled down on his bellicose pronouncements and has vehemently restated his resolve to return Russia to the previous borders of the former USSR and even to expand the Kremlin's hegemony over the eastern parts of the European Union.  He has now publicly declared the United States, NATO, and the European Union to be enemies of Russia and announced an escalated buildup of his military arsenal.  Putin has also made not so veiled threats of using his nuclear military capabilities in his quest.  Needless to say, the conquest of Ukraine is the Kremlin's first necessary step in achieving its imperialistic goals. 

    The United States [together with the UK], as a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, has a joint and several obligation to Ukraine to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty.  Had Ukraine not willingly relinquished its nuclear weapons in 1994, the present balance of power between Ukraine and Russia would have been substantially different and would have most likely deterred Russia's illegal invasion and "annexation" of Crimea and the blatant invasion of Eastern Ukraine .  Since Ukraine kept its part of the bargain under the Budapest Memorandum, it is now time for the United States to make good on its word to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

    It is obvious that the present economic sanctions in and of themselves are woefully deficient and will not stop Russia's unlawful aggression against Ukraine.  Had Ukraine received American and Western military aid earlier in a timely fashion, Ukraine would have been in a better military posture to repel the pro-Russian terrorists and seal its border from further Russian incursion.  Prior to September 5, 2014, Ukrainian military forces were in a strategic position to defeat the pro-Russian terrorists in Ukraine. On that day, NATO leaders were debating what sanctions to impose upon Russia.  In response to the verbal threats of NATO leaders - which the Kremlin perceived as a shallow non-consequential scolding - that same day Moscow ordered its troops into Ukraine with superior weaponry and fire power to substantially push back the Ukrainian military from its gains painfully attained with the life and blood of many a brave Ukrainian soldier.

    The question is: will Ukraine need to wait endlessly and hopelessly for American and EU military aid to arrive in the same exhausting and fruitless manner as the two characters in Samuel Beckett's absurdist play "Waiting for Godot" who wait incessantly in fervent hope for a person named Godot to appear but who never arrives?

    The United States Congress has before it two bills: H.R. 5241 "Crimea Annexation Non-recognition Act" which prohibits the United States to recognize the de jureor de factoannexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. H.R.5190, the Ukraine Security Assistance Act of 2014,provides military assistance to Ukraine and to designate Ukraine as a Major non-NATO Ally (MNNA).  The Ukrainian American Bar Association strongly urges the United States Congress to expeditiously pass - on a fast-track basis - this legislation so as to signal to the world that the United States abides by its word in international agreements that it signs and will help Ukraine defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty as the quid pro quofor surrendering its nuclear arsenal.  Failure to do so in a timely and expeditious manner  will only reaffirm Vladimir Putin's strongly held belief that the United States is only a paper tiger – all words and no teeth. 

    If the United States does not keep its word regarding sovereignty and security guarantees relating to nuclear non-proliferation agreements, why should any other country such as Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel or North Korea have any faith in America's representations or promises in future nuclear disarmament negotiations and accords.  Any tardiness or inaction by the United States Congress in rendering timely military aid to Ukraine will also condemn Ukraine to an endless and hopeless waiting for American assistance  -- as the characters in "Waiting for Godot"--  only to have its sovereign territory painfully eroded  by Russian aggression, with extensive casualties to its population, with millions of people displaced, and many a young Ukrainian soldier killed by a stronger and brutal aggressor nation whose only goal is imperial territorial expansion.  If Ukraine falls, then the horrific conflagration of war will spill over into the eastern part of the European Union and will necessitate American "boots on the ground".  All this may be avoided if the United States Congress acts now and fulfills its obligation and duty to give timely military assistance to Ukraine.

    For further information, please contact
    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.
    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)
    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email;
    myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com



  • 31 Aug 2014 6:19 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Click here to view in PDF format  --- Натисніть тут для перегляду  у форматі PDF

    PRESS RELEASE  August 31, 2014

    The 2014 Russian War against Ukraine

    In the past few weeks, what was painfully obvious from the very beginning to Ukrainians [that the terrorist conflict in Eastern Ukraine was artificially manufactured, clandestinely funded, militarily supplied with weapons and fighting personnel, and secretly orchestrated by the Kremlin] is now grudgingly acknowledged by the rest of the world.  Russia has now openly invaded Ukraine and only Putin's generously paid Western apologists or the extremely naïve could argue otherwise.  The Russian government's continuing boldfaced lies that the alleged Donbas "separatists" are self-reliant disgruntled Ukrainians who are Russian speakers seeking only to protect their rights can no longer be credulously accepted by the West.  This ruse has run its course.  Russia is and has for months been in a state of war against Ukraine -- its sole objective is to eradicate Ukraine's independence, and return it to a vassal state under the dictatorship of Moscow thus giving a rebirth to a new USSR-like empire. 

    Since the cataclysmic events of World War II, the world's nations have attempted to establish basic principles of international law and behavior to be adhered to by the governments of all nations so as to prevent future conflagrations on a global scale.  The UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act [the charter document of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] and the various organic documents of the European Union, have had as their linchpin the principle of territorial integrity and security and the inviolability of borders of independent states.  NATO was created in part to protect the territorial integrity of its member states from outside military threats.  Since 1994, when it entered NATO's Partnership for Peace Program, Ukraine has participated in NATO outreach programs and took part in NATO-led missions around the world and alongside American troops in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.  It was this principle - territorial integrity and sovereignty of independent states - that was solemnly invoked - jointly and severally - by the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and the United States in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 which fervently pledged assurances by these countries of the inviolability of Ukrainian borders, on which assurances Ukraine relied and voluntarily relinquished 1600 nuclear warheads - the then third largest nuclear arsenal on the globe. 

    It is now self evident that the Kremlin has not and will not adhere to any of its internationally made pledges regarding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of states thus undermining the bedrock upon which European peace is built in the aftermath of World War II.  Rather, Russia has intentionally trampled upon Ukraine's political and economic sovereignty and its territorial integrity for quite some time in full view of the world.  Regrettably, the response from the United States and the European Union has been a blinders-like muted scolding of Putin with tempered economic sanctions but specifically excluding any military assistance to Ukraine.  This piecemeal approach has only emboldened Putin and has given him a strategic time-advantage to fully implement his invasion of Ukraine, which in turn, will directly affect the economic and political stability of the member states of the EU.  In recent days, and to the world's astonishment, Putin has brandished not so veiled bellicose threats emphasizing the nuclear armament power that he has at his disposal. Clearly, it is in the long range self-interest of the West to take meaningful steps to stop and reverse Russia's aggression against Ukraine and thus protect its own political and territorial integrity from future jeopardy.

    Towards this end, the United States and the United Kingdom have a particular responsibility under the Budapest Memorandum.  There are those apologists that argue that the Budapest Memorandum is not a "treaty" [even though it was part of Ukraine's accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty] and, according to their flawed logic, its breach is not enforceable nor has any consequential obligations for its other signatories.  However, The Budapest Memorandum is clearly a contractual agreement under which three countries [Russia, the US and UK] together obtained a valuable and tangible concession from Ukraine for their joint benefit - i.e. the relinquishment of 1600 nuclear warheads - in consideration for which these three countries [Russia, the US and UK] together gave their joint assurances for the territorial integrity and economic independence of Ukraine.  As such, since one of the beneficiaries of the Budapest Memorandum [Russia] egregiously breached its promise to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, it is the obligation of the other two beneficiary signatories of the Budapest Memorandum [the US and UK] to make certain that Ukrainian territorial integrity is fully restored.  Failure to do so will undoubtedly completely undercut any future negotiations with other nuclear powers in the hope of achieving nuclear disarmament and world peace.

    The time has now come for the West to take strong and meaningful action in support of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity.  The West must stop moving the goal line in order to placate Putin in the unlikely Pollyanna-like expectation that he will take an "off-ramp" and deescalate the situation in Ukraine.  The hard and uncontroverted evidence proves exactly the contrary - Putin only interprets such peace intended initiatives as a sign of weakness.  He only respects decisiveness and power.  Therefore, the West must face him with resolve and strength.

    It is crystal clear that neither the United States nor the EU will put boots on the ground in Ukraine.  However, as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has expressed to world leaders, - Ukrainians have the resolve and will to defend their homeland – what Ukrainians need are military supplies and weaponry to aid them in their battle for national survival. Therefore, we strongly urge that the following steps be implemented immediately by the United States government, NATO, and its European allies.

    ·        Military assistance in the form of lethal weapons and nonlethal military supplies, as well as advisors and related intelligence and equipment.

    ·        The imposition of full sector sanctions, especially in the banking and fossil fuel industries, and the bank accounts of Russian governmental business entities frozen.

    ·        Ukraine's accession to non-NATO ally status by the United States should be expeditiously granted.

    ·        Increased humanitarian medical and other assistance by the international community for persons injured in the war and for the displaced persons from Eastern Ukraine and Crimea should be accelerated.

    ·        All sales of military or dual use equipment should be immediately stopped - especially by France which is planning in the near future to transfer two Mistral type helicopter attack carriers to Russia.

    ·        Additional monetary funding for the Ukrainian government in the form of guaranteed loans should be provided to help Ukraine weather the economic crisis caused by the Russian invasion.

    The United States and Europe are at a historically crucial crossroad.  America must take strong and decisive action and reaffirm its world leadership position now!  If Western governments continue on the existing path of placating Putin and "doing business as usual", then they will condemn our children and grandchildren to a probable conflagration on the European continent that will be as great or even greater than the horrors of World War II [recall Putin's recent verbal flexing of his nuclear muscle] .....and from which America will have no escape.

    For further information, please contact

    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.

    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)

    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email; myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com


  • 24 Jul 2014 1:32 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    Read in PDF Format

    Press Release: July 24, 2014


    As days go by, the absolute shock and horror of the shoot-down of Malaysian Flight 17 sinks agonizingly deeper and deeper into the collective consciousness of the international community. 298 innocent lives were needlessly lost - at last count, 189 Dutch, 44 Malaysian, 27 Australian, 12 Indonesian, 9 British, 4 German, 4 Belgium, 3 from the Philippines, 1 Canadian, 1 New Zealander, 1 US citizen, and 4 victims yet to be identified .  The indisputable facts evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the pro-Russian supposed "separatist" groups, which control parts of the Luhansk-Donetsk regions of Ukraine, are guilty of this horrific terrorist crime. It is equally clear that these alleged "separatists" are supported, controlled, guided, trained, and armed with extremely deadly weapons by the Russian government.  One of these Russian supplied weapons - a BUK S11 SAM missile launcher  -- brought down Malaysian flight 17.

    The perpetrators of this terrorist attack should not be called "separatists" but must be called for what they truly are -- terrorists! . They are a motley conglomeration of Kremlin paid hoodlums, thugs, and mercenaries [many of whom are from Russia] who are controlled and directed by Russian special operatives sent into Ukraine by the Kremlin in the past half year so as to create chaos and lawlessness in order to undermine the lawful Ukrainian government.  Their sadistically heartless and bandit handling of the victims' remains, pilferage of their belongings, and spoliation of the crash-site only further confirms their true terrorist nature.  No amount of obfuscation by the propaganda machine of the Kremlin can hide the Russian government's direct involvement with these terrorist organizations nor camouflage Russia's objective to use terrorism in order to reach its political objective - the ultimate destruction of Ukraine's independence.

    18 U.S.C. § 2331 of the Federal Crimes and Procedures Act states that:

    "(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that - (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."

    US Code - Chapter 113B - establishes the jurisdiction of the US Courts [18 U.S.C. § 2334] and imposes criminal penalties for international terroristic acts resulting in the death of a US national [18 U.S.C. § 2332] including situations in which the victim's death was caused by missile systems designed to destroy aircraft. [18 U.S.C. § 2332G]

    The US Department of State has the obligation under 22 U.S. Code § 2656f to report to Congress those countries that are sponsors of international terrorism and the Secretary of State has the authority to impose sanctions for such immoral conduct:

    "Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

    Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are four countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria."  US Department of State Website

    The American government will certainly continually and ever more strongly use condemning rhetoric to express our country's shock and horror at the shoot down of flight MH17.  However, our government - both the executive and legislative branches -- must also put words into actions and firmly enforce the basic principles of human decency which we as a nation profess and which are codified in our laws.

    It is high time for the Russian terrorist groups in the Luhansk-Donetsk regions of Ukraine to be designated as "Terrorist Organizations" under 8 U.S. Code § 1189 and for the Russian Federation to be added to the list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism".  Russia's continuing conduct in supporting, directing, financing and lethally arming the Luhansk-Donetsk terrorist organizations falls directly within the legislative definition of state-sponsored terrorism.  These terrorist organizations and the Russian Federation should and must now suffer the consequences that flow as a result of their actions in violation of US and International Law.  If we fail to put our words into action, we will only embolden Russian President Putin to continue with his terroristic behavior in flagrant disregard of international norms causing further untold human suffering and loss of life for generations to come.  The shoot down of  MH17 is symptomatic and also predictive of future consequences.  Putin's actions are a repeat of his clandestine and terroristic behavior in Chechnya, Georgia and Crimea  and even in Russia itself-- and if not stopped now, that region of the world will be catapulted toward a truly European war from which the US can't escape. 

    For further information, please contact

    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.
    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)
    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email;
    myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com


  • 09 Apr 2014 10:52 AM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

    The Ukrainian American Bar Association encourages everyone to contact the White House,
    their congressmen and senators to join and support this effort!
    Click here to view in PDF format  --- Натисніть тут
    для перегляду  у форматі PDF

    Press release -- April 9, 2014

    Ukrainian American Bar Association Urges Immediate Defensive Military Assistance to Ukraine

                In 1997, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace opined that “Ukraine will do much to determine whether Europe and the world in the twenty-first century will be as bloody as they were in the twentieth.”  Ukraine is the largest European country.  Red Russia’s conquest and occupation of Ukraine was key to the formation and viability of the Soviet Union.  Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991 made that “Union” no longer possible.  The Cold War was suddenly over.  But Russia has now reinvaded a portion of Ukraine and is threatening to expand its military aggression further into Ukraine, which would in effect reverse the resolution of the Cold War.  The United States and the West should not countenance such a reprise or passively accept all that this would imply for our national security and the security of our European allies.

                Thus, for reasons of geopolitical prudence, the defense of Western values and fundamental morality, the Ukrainian American Bar Association urges our Government and NATO to provide Ukraine with immediate defensive military assistance.  If reports about what Ukraine has requested are accurate, such assistance should include anti-tank and anti-aircraft equipment, border control equipment, communications gear, mine-clearing equipment, vehicles, ammunition, fuel and medical gear.

                Our action or inaction with respect to the crisis in Ukraine does not merely implicate regional interests.  As reported in the world’s media, whether in Eastern Europe, the Far East or the Middle East, both our country’s allies as well as those who have already violated international norms and those who may be tempted to do so in the near future have watched our response to the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea closely.  Our taking the view that the Budapest Memorandum does not obligate us to defend Ukraine has caused concern among our allies such as Japan and, if our passivity is continued, may well embolden our challengers.

                In the now famous words of President Kennedy, if you fool me once, shame on you; if you fool me twice, shame on me.  Russia has already fooled the United States and the rest of the world once when it lied about not having designs on Crimea.  For reasons set forth below, we should not now allow Russia to fool us again with respect to its subornation or invasion of the rest of Ukraine.

                At issue with respect to the Ukraine crisis is not a matter of influence or spheres of interest but unambiguously predatory aggression by Russia in Crimea, piracy of Ukrainian naval assets in and around Crimea, military intimidation with the massing of tens of thousands of troops and tanks on Ukraine’s borders, and now attempts at internal subversion, as reflected by the recent arrest of Russian special operations agents in Kyiv who had plans to detonate the Ukrainian parliament building and the Russian attempts at subversion in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv.

                Ukraine does not seek and the United States is understandably not prepared to put any boots on the ground to defend against further Russian aggression.  That said, it would be highly imprudent to fail to help Ukraine defend itself.  To begin, at the strong urging of the United States and the West, Ukraine in the 1990’s voluntarily gave up its entire nuclear arsenal, then the third largest in the word, and signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.  In return, the United States, Britain and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in which the signatories assured Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.  If the United States now fails even to provide defensive military assistance to Ukraine when it is under immediate threat and after it has already been invaded, our ability to persuade or induce other international actors to give up or foreswear nuclear arms will be fatally compromised. 

                Second, our strong preference for seeking diplomatic resolutions to foreign challenges, while, in light of certain earlier entanglements that cost us much blood, treasure and credibility, is obviously laudable, where such measured and practical rationality does not produce clearly positive solutions, we may understandably be viewed internationally as dithering and, thus, temporarily weak.  As a matter of core national security and national interests, we cannot afford to be viewed in this light, however unfairly or unreasonably.

                Third, if we do not help Ukraine help itself immediately and wait to react until after Russia has further engaged in aggression, we will both lose credibility and find ourselves in the difficult reactive position of having to expend very considerable political and economic resources to mobilize real sanctions against the Putin regime in a Europe that has not yet recovered from the last economic recession and in the face of very strong private business interests that care principally about their bottom line rather than any geopolitical considerations.

                In addition to geopolitical considerations, there is the issue of the defense of Western values and the defense of the post-World War II and the post-Cold War order, both of which were achieved through the expenditure of tremendous human and financial capital.  As David Remnick, the well known observer of Russia has recounted in the April 2 issue of The New Yorker, after the Russian invasion of Crimea followed by president Putin’s triumphant but deeply resentful of the West speech, a leading Moscow columnist wrote in Komsomolskaya Pravda, the most popular daily in Russia, that “the Soviet Union, like the phoenix, has been reborn.”  And, that “it is not Crimea that has returned.  It is we who have returned.  Home.  To the U.S.S.R.”  As uncomfortable as it may be to force ourselves to acknowledge that we are dealing with a regime that has reignited an atavistic, primitive form of nationalism and imperialism, the failure to do so will not make it go away or preclude it from causing ongoing damage both to our interests and those of our allies as well as to what remains of the international order.

                There are, in addition, important moral considerations that militate in favor of providing defensive military aid to Ukraine.  To begin, in addition to taking the unique step of giving up its nuclear arsenal, Ukraine has been a very good international citizen.  Since its independence in 1991 and in response to U.N. or NATO requests, Ukraine has sent over 28,000 military and civilian personnel to help participate in numerous international peacekeeping and security operations during which 27 of those personnel were killed.  Ukraine’s soldiers and civilians have, for example, served in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Liberia, Congo and the Transdniestra region of Moldova.

                Further, as George Kennan noted in his diaries in 1944, “The jealous and intolerant eye of the Kremlin can distinguish, in the end, only vassals and enemies, and the neighbors of Russia, if they do not wish to be one, must reconcile themselves to being the other.”  As the University of Alabama at Birmingham historian George Liber has noted in his forthcoming history of Ukraine, over 13 million Ukrainians were killed during the 20th century, most by or at the direction of Stalin and his minions in Moscow, but with his former ally Hitler making a significant contribution in corpses as well.  The Yale historian Timothy Snyder has called Ukraine part of what he has termed the “Bloodlands.”   Russia is now seeking to re-impose vassal status upon Ukraine.  In light of the above-mentioned history, it would be immoral now to fail to help Ukraine help itself to avoid that fate.

                Lastly, whether out of ignorance or indifference on the part of all of those to whom Ukrainians simply didn’t matter enough, the world was silent in 1932-33 as Stalin’s regime ordered and carried out the deliberate starvation of millions of men, women and children in the Ukrainian countryside in order finally to bring Ukrainians to heel in what is today referred to as the Holodomor.  It would be more than indecent if we again did nothing as Russia seeks to devour pieces or all of Ukraine.   

    Ukrainian American Bar Association by all the Officers and Governors of the UABA

    For further information, please contact
    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.
    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)
    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email;
    myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com
  • 23 Mar 2014 9:48 PM | Myroslaw Smorodsky (Administrator)

     March 23, 2014  PDF Version attached

    Ukrainian American Bar Association's Appeal to the Members of the US Congress 

    The Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA) strongly urges each member of Congress to vote for the new bill introduced by House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., and co-sponsored by his ranking member, Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y.,  imposing sanctions on Russia and providing economic aid to Ukraine.

    An expeditious legislative response to the fast-moving international crisis in Ukraine fueled by Russian President Vladimir Putin's illegal forced annexation of Crimea is of the essence. Putin's attempts to destabilize Ukraine with military intimidation, staged political unrest and economic disruption proceed unabated. Without resistance and a concerted response from the United States and the European Union, Putin will continue to flex Russian muscle and mock Western weakness.

    We cannot forget that Ukraine's independence triggered the dissolution of the Soviet Union and allowed the United States to declare that it had won the Cold War.  The Kremlin is now unilaterally reversing that as the world wrings its hands. Not only does Ukraine require immediate assistance to maintain its independence, but the US must provide the assistance for the sake of its own global credibility and national security.

    Now is not the time for bipartisan debate and standstill. The encouraging words of the bipartisan Committee lead by Senator John McCain which visited Kiev earlier this month and the statements by Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama must be followed by action.  Please, therefore, support the new bill to avoid a Congressional deadlock and provide President Obama with the tools needed to counter Putin's aggression.

    As stated by Chairman Royce in introducing the bill:

    “Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and intimidation of Ukraine should be a wakeup call. The U.S. and our European friends should be bolstering the sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. That means aiding Ukraine’s fledgling democracy, with its May elections looming, and bolstering its economy, including by helping [ease] Putin’s energy grip over Eastern Europe. The U.S. should act immediately to increase natural gas exports to Europe, undermining Russia’s monopoly, and creating American jobs. Strong sanctions against those Russians responsible for this aggression against Ukraine are critical.”

    Voicing bipartisan support, Representative Engel concurred:

    “The United States must stand with the people of Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s attack on and occupation of Crimea. This important legislation supplements the President’s efforts to impose sanctions on those responsible for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, looting Ukraine’s economy, and violating human rights in Ukraine. It sends a clear message to President Putin and his corrupt cronies that we will not tolerate Russian aggression. The bill also provides assistance to support the people of Ukraine as they work to rebuild their economy and prepare for democratic elections, and reaffirms our commitment to the security of our NATO partners in East and Central Europe.”

    By swiftly enacting this legislation, President Obama will be placed in a position to not only counter Putin, but to rally international support for Ukraine during meetings with European officials next week in Brussels and The Hague. United States leadership and power in this international crisis must be reinforced through bipartisan legislative action.

    Your affirmative vote is therefore respectfully requested.

    For further information, please contact

    Myroslaw Smorodsky, Esq.

    Communications Director of the Ukrainian American Bar Association (UABA)

    Tel: 201-507-4500; Email; myroslaw@smorodsky.com; Website; www.smorodsky.com

    This appeal was authored by UABA Member Myron Martynetz, J.D.

© Ukrainian American Bar Association                                                                                      Terms of Use

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software