The Romanian Revolution 25 Years Later - Nicolae Ceauşescu Is Still Dead

There I was - a brand new 1Lt at Beale AFB.  I joined the Air Force because of those damn Communists, and then something happened. Freedom was breaking out everywhere in Eastern Europe.  1989 was the beginning of the end for Communism in Eastern Europe.  In June of that year, Poland held open elections, resulting in its first non-Communist government in 40 years.  In October, Hungary made many changes.  It ceased to be a “people’s republic,” and passed legislation that guaranteed human and civil rights, made provisions for free, fair and multi-party elections, and established separate executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.  On November 9^th the Berlin Wall fell, effectively ending the German Democratic Republic.  A week later the Velvet Revolution commenced in Czechoslovakia.  Vaclav Havel became the first non-Communist president of Czechoslovakia since 1948 in December.  In Bulgaria, longtime Communist leader Todor Zhivkov was replaced by a more liberal Communist government.  The new government repealed restrictions on free speech and assembly.  In December the Bulgarian Communists renounced their monopoly on power, which led to free and fair elections in 1990.  All of these events were relatively peaceful.  The exception to this non-violence was Romania.

It started in a place called Timoşoara.  There was a Hungarian Reformed church pastor named László Tőkés.  He was at the center of a protest movement against Romania’s Systemization policy.  In short, this was a policy of rural resettlement.  Villages were to become urban industrial centers, the result of which was the demolition of small villages, churches and many older buildings which would be replaced with “modern” apartment buildings.  People were evicted from their homes and relocated to these apartment buildings.  The peasant way of life disappeared under concrete.  To say the least, the huddled masses weren’t pleased.  Tőkés made his critiques about the systemization policy on Hungarian TV.  This got the attention of Romania’s secret state police, the Securitate.  The Securitate tried to evict Tőkés from his home, but his parishioners wouldn’t have it.  On December 16, 1989 they intervened to stop the Securitate from executing Tőkés’ eviction.  As the day wore on, more protesters against the Securitate gathered, and soon the protest against Tőkés’ eviction became an anti-Communist protest.  The Securitate tear gassed the protesters, and they used water cannons to disperse them.  The next day the protests resumed, but this day the protesters broke into the local Party headquarters and ransacked the place.  They tried to burn the place down, but the military stopped them.  The unrest in Timoşoara continued for five days.  According to the Library of Congress Federal Research Division, Nicolae Ceauşescu ordered the minister of national defense to fire on the crowd in order to end the demonstrations. Gunfire by the Securitate killed and wounded scores of demonstrators.

What caused this discontent in Romania?  For most of the 1980s Romania was living under an austerity program.  Wanting to be free of foreign debt, Nicolae Ceauşescu decided to ration practically everything – food, gas, heating – in order to export everything else to pay down the debt.  Wages were low, and there were massive shortages of everything.  The infant mortality rate in Romania was the highest in Europe.  The Romanian standard of living for the great unwashed was low.  The Securitate and its huge network of informants was everywhere, enabling Ceauşescu to rule Romania with an iron fist.  Widespread poverty made Ceauşescu and the Communist party unpopular.  Ceauşescu and his cronies lived in palatial mansions while the huddled masses suffered.  On top of all of this was the aforementioned systemization program.

On December 20th, Ceauşescu returned from a trip to Iran.  Events were spinning out of control, so Ceauşescu decided to give a nationally-televised speech to a mass meeting staged in Bucharest.  It started out as an ordinary speech, with Ceauşescu bloviating the usual Communist bilge about his regime’s accomplishments.  The hired party hacks were up front.  They clapped and cheered at his every pronouncement.  But after about eight minutes things changed drastically.  The crowd started to chant "Ti-mi-șoa-ra! Ti-mi-șoa-ra!"  Ceauşescu froze – he didn’t know what to do.  Twenty years of a cult of personality left Ceauşescu without a clue how to deal with masses of people who disagreed with him.  He was dumbfounded, and even worse, was seen by many to be dumbfounded.  The people were no longer afraid of him.  Then there was what sounded like fireworks and gunshots, and word spread that the Securitate was firing on the crowd.  The crowds began to storm the building from which he gave his speech.  The army kept them out.  Ceauşescu was hustled inside, as rioting continued throughout the night.  The following day the army withdrew their support from Ceauşescu and went over to the other side.  Ceauşescu and his wife fled Bucharest by helicopter.

They first flew to his villa at Snagov, where Ceauşescu tried to contact local party leaders [he failed].  They found themselves in Boteni, near a military base.  The helicopter pilot told Ceauşescu that they’d been spotted on radar and would be blown out of the sky at any minute.  After landing they hijacked a car at gunpoint to try to get away.  He told the scared driver that there was a coup in Bucharest, and that he intended to organize resistance at Tȃrgovişte.  The driver took Ceauşescu to a cooperative farm.  It was here that the police finally caught up with the Ceauşescus, three hours after they fled Bucharest.  They were driven around in an armored car until a decision about their future was made.  As long as the Ceauşescus were alive, his supporters would continue the fighting and killing.  A short trial was arranged, during which Ceauşescu refused to recognize the court’s authority.  It didn’t take long before the court reached its pre-determined decision – execution.  After the Ceauşescus’ sentence was pronounced [even their defense “lawyer” asked for the death penalty], they suddenly realized their sentences were going to be carried out immediately.  They were taken outside and shot.  For every bullet the hit Nicolae Ceauşescu, ten hit his wife Elena.  She was even more-hated than he was.  The execution was on Christmas Day.  They were buried in simple graves in different parts of a Bucharest cemetery.

And there was much rejoicing...

November 9th - a date in German History

Wow.  It’s been 25 years since the Berlin Wall came down.  Where has the time gone?  I was still a 2Lt at Beale AFB, CA, getting ready to turn 27 the next day.  It was just another day for Carol and I and our two dogs.  As is my wont I was channel surfing on TV when I saw this strange image on CNN.  There were people standing on top of the Berlin Wall.  Ever since I could remember, I knew that whoever came close to the Wall from the East German side usually ended up dead, and yet here were all these people standing on it.  What the hell happened?

In the summer of 1989, Hungary [still a Warsaw Pact country at the time] pretty much dismantled their armed border with Austria.  East Germans vacationing in Hungary found this out and began to flee to Austria by the thousands.  After a while the Hungarians refused to let more East Germans cross into Austria.  Instead of returning to East Germany, these Germans flooded the West German embassy in Budapest.  The same thing happened in Czechoslovakia.  East Germans flooded the West German embassy in Prague and refused to leave.  This situation gained international attention.  Ultimately, Erich Honecker allowed these “refugees” to go to the West, but only by sealed trains via East Germany. 

While many East Germans squatted in the West German embassies, many East Germans in Leipzig began peaceful protests after each Monday’s “prayer for peace.”  Their demands were to be given the freedom to travel anywhere and the right to elect a democratic government.  The backdrop of all these activities was Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost [“openness”] and perestroika [“restructuring”]. The peaceful protests from Leipzig spread across the country that culminated in the Alexanderplatz demonstration in Berlin on November 4^th.  Prior to the Alexanderplatz demonstration, Erich Honecker [who built the Wall in 1961 and who had ruled the East German Communists since 1971] “resigned” on October 18^th.  He had dispatched troops to deal with the protests spreading across the country, but local Communist party bosses prevented them from firing on their own people.  The situation was getting out of hand, and Honecker was also very ill at the time.  So on October 18^th, the East German Politburo removed Honecker [saying he “requested to be released” from his posts] and replaced him with Egon Krenz.  Apparently these actions were taken with Mikhail Gorbachev’s blessing. 

As wave of East Germans leaving their country by whatever means increased, Egon Krenz decided on November 9^th to allow East Germans to go to the West directly through East German-West German checkpoints, including Berlin.  The word got out and spread quickly.  So many East Berliners descended upon the Wall that the guards were overwhelmed- they didn’t know what to do.  They couldn’t find anybody to take responsibility for using lethal force against those who wished to go west.  As East Berliners came pouring through the Wall with no guards to stop them, West Berliners started to jump on top of the Wall.  They were soon joined by many of their East Berlin brethren.  It was all so surreal and seemed to happen so quickly.  I had the sense that Cold Warriors everywhere would have the same question that Wiley E. Coyote had when he finally caught the Roadrunner – now what?

There must be something weird in Germany that allows strange, albeit historic events to happen on November 9^th.  In October 1918, World War I was still raging, but the writing was on the wall [no pun intended] as to the outcome.  The German High Seas Fleet had been inactive in port since the Battle of Jutland in 1916.  But the Naval High Command decided it would launch one last “glory ride” against the Royal Navy.  Sailors in Wilhelmshaven and Kiel saw this as a suicide mission and mutinied, thus sparking the November Revolution.  The sailors began to elect worker and soldier councils like the Soviets from the Bolshevik Revolution.  These councils took over military and civil powers in many cities, including Munich.  Rebellion spread across Germany which led to the proclamation of a republic on November 9^th.  On that date, German Chancellor Prince Max of Baden announced Kaiser Wilhelm II’s abdication from the German and Prussian thrones. He handed the German government over to Freidrich Ebert, thus beginning Germany’s road to become a democratic nation.

In November 1923, a group of approximately 2,000 men marched in the streets of Munich to seize power in that city.  Once secure in Munich, this band of brawlers planned to march on the Weimar Republic [inspired by Mussolini’s March on Rome].  Their grievance –these nationalists claimed the German army of World War I was undefeated on the battlefield, only to be “stabbed in the back” by Marxists on the home front.  They dubbed the people who did the stabbing as the November Criminals.  Between 1920 and 1923, the Bürgerbräukeller [one of the largest beer halls in Munich] served as a meeting place for a small group called the German Workers Party, later to be known as the National Socialist German Workers Party – Nazis for short.  Their leader was an ex-corporal from the German Army named Adolf Hitler.  Hitler saw an opportunity to seize power when the Bavarian State Commissioner was giving a speech at the Bürgerbräukeller on November 8^th.  The state commissioner [Gustav von Kahr], head of the Bavarian State Police [Hans Ritter von Seisser] and a Reichswehr general [Otto von Lossow] ruled Bavaria under a state of emergency.  They were all present at the Bürgerbräukeller on November 8^th.  Hitler’s men surrounded the Bürgerbräukeller, rounded up the three men and “persuaded” them to support what became the Beer Hall Putsch.  Hitler made a mistake, though.  He left the beer hall to attend to another matter, and while he was away Erich Ludendorff released Kahr and the others.  When Hitler realized his crass mistake, he and his men marched on the Bavarian Defense Ministry on November 9^th, but the putsch was easily put down in a hail of gunfire.  Hitler was arrested for treason and sent to jail, where he decided he would use legal means to gain power.

Fifteen years later in 1938, another historic event occurred on November 9^th.  This occasion is remembered as Kristallnacht – the Night of Broken Glass.  On November 7^th, a German diplomat in Paris named Ernst vom Rath was shot by a Polish Jew named Herschel Grynszpan.  His grievance was the deportation of Polish Jews from Germany back to Poland.  No one knows why Grynszpan picked vom Rath as his target, but vom Rath died from his injuries on November 9^th.  The Nazis used this as a pretext to organize a pogrom against Germany’s Jews.  On that evening, troops from both the SA and the SS [wearing civilian clothes] went about destroying Jewish property, to include stores, businesses, homes, cemeteries and synagogues.  Jews were rounded up – some thrown into jails, others sent to concentration camps.  Others were murdered.  Police all over Germany let it happen.  Kristallnacht has been cited by some as the beginning of the Holocaust.

November 9^th has brought many things to Germany – the end of the German Empire, the rise to prominence of the Nazi Party, the beginning of the Holocaust, and the beginning of the end of the Cold War.  That’s a lot of history packed into a single date, but there it is.

Iraq and the Objective Principle

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. It allows armchair strategists to second-guess those who make decisions that set the course of history. It isn't predictive, doesn't require a lot of insight, and there are no consequences if your second-guessing is wrong. With that said, allow me sit in my own easy chair, safely out of range to use my own hindsight to look at how we got to the sad state of affairs that is Iraq.

Harry Summers was an instructor at the Army War College. During his tenure there, he wrote critical analyses of two conflicts: Vietnam and the Gulf War. In each book, he used Clausewitz's tenets of war to analyze where decision-makers in each conflict got things right, and where they got them wrong. In both of works, Summers put the principle of the Objective ahead of all others. His reasoning was that if one doesn't have a clear objective (why are we here and what is our goal), and then all the other principles don't matter. The objective is a clear, decisive and attainable target. The objective also must be based on a larger political goal that may be tough to define.

In looking back at the current situation in Iraq, we need to go back to the not so distant past - the Gulf War. In this conflict, the objective was a simple one - the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq. To put a finer point on it, Colin Powell said we were going to do two things to Saddam Hussein's army - "we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it." That very brief statement is great in its simplicity. The objective was crystal clear, and it gave both the troops in 'the sandbox' and the American people a benchmark, something to tell us whether we won or lost. It gave all of us an endpoint, not an amorphous, open ended commitment. Once the Iraqis were out of Kuwait, our job was done. This last point is especially important. Once we cut off and killed Saddam's army, the road to Baghdad was open. Iraq was ours for the taking if we wanted it. As tempting as that thought was, George Bush didn't go for it. His advisors (Brent Scowcroft chief among them) advised against it, for they saw that if we took Baghdad, we'd have to occupy it for years. The occupation of Baghdad (and the rest of Iraq) was something George Bush didn't want to do, so he didn't. Then it was better to keep Saddam Hussein in box, all the better to keep an eye on him and to maintain some stability in the Middle East. To summarize, the objective was brief, clear and concise – get the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Once the objective was achieved, we went no further.

Fast forward twelve years to 2003, when the war drums started to beat again. The US and a “coalition if the willing” went to war with Saddam Hussein. What was the objective in the war? I found eight objectives that, if we satisfied them, we could declare victory and leave. The objectives as laid out by Donald Rumsfeld:

1. Regime change;
2. Eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction;
3. Capture or drive out terrorists;
4. Collect intelligence on terrorist networks;
5. Collect intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activity;
6. Secure Iraq's oil fields;
7. Deliver humanitarian relief and end sanctions;
8. Help Iraq achieve representative self-government and insure its territorial integrity.

Whatever happened to the KISS [“Keep It Simple, Stupid”] principle? To complicate matters, in 2007 Congress weighed in with a set of “benchmarks” contained in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act:

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
2. Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification.
3. Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
4. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
5. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.
8. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan.
9. Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
10. Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S. commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
11. Ensuring that the Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
12. Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said ‘‘the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
14. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
15. Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces’ units capable of operating independently.
16. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
18. Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces.

Whew! Did you get all that? In my 51 years, I’ve noted there are two things that our armed forces do well – break things and kill people. They’re not so good at “nation building,” which is what I see in this laundry list. I also see “requirements creep.” Did we have clear, concise objectives in Iraq? Were the objectives achievable?

You have to ask yourself a question – how well did we do? Regime change was the easy part. Saddam took the eternal celestial dirt nap in December 2006. His sons preceded him in July 2003. What about the other objectives? That is a mixed bag at best. We didn’t find any WMDs, and the terrorists we were supposed to eliminate weren’t a player in Iraq until we got there, but now that we’ve departed the scene they are there in abundance. We secured the oil fields, delivered humanitarian aid and ended sanctions. How about that “territorial integrity” thing? Given that the Syrian civil war has spilled over into Iraq and Sunnis have taken roughly 1/3 of the country away from Maliki’s control, I wouldn’t put that into the “mission accomplished” column. Iraq governs itself now, but how representative is that government? The Kurds in the north of Iraq have their act together, but the Sunni-Shiite schism that has existed since the passing of The Prophet is alive and well. Will Joe Biden’s solution of a three-way partition of Iraq become reality? To give the devil his due, it just might.

Our president is considering his options on what to do next. He and his advisors have to ask themselves this – what is the political objective? Once that political objective is defined, should there even be a military objective? Can the political objective be achieved by some means other than by military means? Will the objective be clear, concise, and achievable? Do we choose sides in the present conflict? Do we side with Maliki, who is very cozy with Iran? Do we side with a nation [Iran] that once provided the technical means to those people whose IEDs killed our own troops? Is there a “do nothing” option for us? I think there is. One thing I know is I don’t want to get involved in that Sunni-Shiite schism mess.

Who Really Controlled Ukraine? Meet the Oligarchs

Every day since Ukraine’s president was removed and ran away from Kiev, developments vis-à-vis Russia continue at what seems like an alarming pace. I can’t possible keep up with them. There is a presidential election scheduled for May 25th of this year. But by that time, will there be an independent Ukraine in which to hold an election? Our country’s representatives continue to meet from time to time with their counterparts from Russia, Ukraine and the European Union to discuss what a future Ukraine will look like. What will it look like? Nobody knows yet, but here is glimpse into what shaped Ukrainian politics as they were until three months ago.

As the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, there were many state owned industries that were soon to be without owners. These properties were divvied up among Communist nomenklatura, crooks, and emerging entrepreneurs. What ensued was a Darwinist form of capitalist economy where the rule was “pay to play.” After Ukraine gained independence in 1991, connections between corrupt politicians [who were elected legally] and the entrepreneurs [some of whom started from literally nothing] enabled the new capitalists to gain control of the formally Soviet industries. As the new capitalists began to get rich [many of whom had/have close business ties with Russia], the new capitalists [dubbed the ‘oligarchy’ by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist from the Russian Academy of Sciences] began to funnel their new-found wealth back into the Ukrainian political parties in order to protect their business interests. There is a mutual back-scratching between the politicians and the oligarchs – “you protect my business interests, I’ll spend money to keep you in power.” Some of the oligarchs became politicians themselves. Others chose to remain out of the spotlight but are still politically active behind the scenes. While Ukraine is a nominally democratic society, it is politically unstable as the oligarchs use their political control to grow their businesses; they support whoever can advance their business interests. Ukraine has an economy in which the workers have no pensions and low wages, while the guys with the big bucks hide their fortunes overseas beyond Ukrainian government control.

Here is how Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines an oligarchy -

ol·i·gar·chy
: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people
: the people that control a country, business, etc.
: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also
: a group exercising such control

Imagine if you will the Koch Brothers, Donald Trump, George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and other billionaires occupying positions of political power. Sure, all of these people exert some kind of influence over government policy to a degree, but they aren’t in positions where they can write laws and/or execute them. Some would argue that these people and others of their ilk are already doing that [and they might be right], but that is an argument for another time. This scenario is our country’s nightmare – this scenario is Ukraine’s reality. Big business not only controls the Ukrainian economy, but it also wields vast influence in Ukraine’s governance.

Who are these people, and how do they hold such influence over Ukrainian politics? These are people who control entire sectors of the Ukrainian economy and electronic mass media. Those who control the media control the message. It’s a cliché that these folks adhere to the “Golden Rule” – he who owns the gold makes the rules. And so it goes for Ukraine. There are several big “groups” of oligarchs. Among them are the Akhmetov Group, the RUE Group, and the Privat Group. There are some oligarchs who belong to no ‘group’ but still wield vast influence. As you read these names, get used to them because you’ll probably hear them again from somebody besides me. Up until Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster, Yanukovych’s Party of Regions was the dominant political party. I’ve been trying to find out what passes for a Party of Regions ideology. Some members are pro-Western, others are pro-Russian, but they are all pro-money. And judging by their holdings [see below], they make a lot of it. The Party of Regions is no longer in control, but they haven’t gone away, nor have their sponsors.

Rinat Akhmetov – He’s the richest guy in Ukraine, and as his name would suggest, the head of the Akhmetov Group. He is worth $15 billion and is head of the holdings company System Capital Management (SCM) Holdings. SCM Holdings controls over 100 companies and employs more than 300,000 people. A big piece of SCM is Metinvest, which owns approximately 40 percent of Ukraine’s steel production. Other companies include pipe factories, iron ore and coal mines, banks, real estate firms, mobile phone enterprises and a large media company. He owns the football team Shakhtar Donetsk. He’s not a politician, but he is a “kingmaker.” According to the Ukrainian edition of Forbes, the various businesses in Akhmetov's extensive empire obtained 31 percent of all state contracts in January 2014. He has been a key sponsor of the Party of Regions. He was very close to Viktor Yanukovych. But since Viktor Yanukovych’s ouster from the Ukrainian presidency, he said he supported Ukraine’s territorial unity and would focus on running his company to improve the economy. But as recently as this week, Akhmetov voiced his support for ‘regional autonomy’ from Kiev, negotiations with Ukrainian ‘separatists,’ and opposes the use of force by the current Ukrainian government.

Dmytro Firtash – Like Rinat Akhmetov, Firtash is a key sponsor of the Party of Regions. He has stakes in the energy, media, real estate, banking, and chemical industries, most of which are part of Group DF. He owns 45% of RosUkrEnergo [RUE], the Swiss-registered gas trading company co-owned with Russia’s Gazprom. RUE was once Ukraine’s only importer of Russian natural gas. Through Inter Media Group, Firtash now owns seven television channels. He is currently under arrest in Vienna for fraud.

Viktor Pinchuk– Worth approximately $3.2 billion, he is Ukraine’s second-richest man. He is the son-in-law of ex-president Leonid Kuchma. His core asset is the steel tube company Interpipe. He owns the StarLight Media group, which includes five television stations. He also owns some periodicals, including a Russian-language newspaper and magazine Investgazeta (Investment Newspaper); [Fakty i Kommentarii [circulation – 1.1 million]. He also controls the Dniprovsky Railroad Car Repair and Construction Plant, Kherson Combine Plant, Aerosvit airline and other companies. He actively supports Ukraine’s European integration by holding the annual summit in Yalta and the ‘Ukrainian lunch’ during the Davos forum. On top of that, he’s donated millions to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. On his own Facebook page, he announced his support for the Maidan protesters against Yanukovych.

Igor Kolomoysky – He is Ukraine’s third-wealthiest man [approximately $2.4 billion], and new governor of the Dnepropetrovsk region. He’s a principal supporter of the pro-European UDAR Party. He co-owns Privat [which includes Privatbank], and has holdings in the oil, ferroalloys and food industries, agriculture and transport. He also owns the FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk football team and 1+1, a television station.

Sergei Taruta – Worth approximately $2 billion, he is the new governor of the Donetsk region. He leads the ISD Corporation, one of the biggest mining and smelting companies in the world. According to their website, ISD [the Industrial Union of Donbass] is ranked among top 40 largest international steel producing companies with the annual production capacity amounting to 10 million tons of steel. He owns the football team FC Metalurh Donetsk. Right now his focus is to keep the Donetsk region as part of Ukraine.

Petro Poroshenko – This guy is known as “The Chocolate King” – he owns Ukraine’s largest confectionery manufacturer, Roshen. He also owns 5 Kanal TV, the most popular news channel in Ukraine. He has diversified into car and bus plants, and a shipyard. Forbes estimated his wealth at $1.6 billion in March 2013. He was a strong backer of Viktor Yushchenko during the Orange Revolution. He was one of the early supporters of the Euromaidan protests that are credited with toppling Yanukovych.

He’s running for president of Ukraine and is polling ahead of the rest of the field so far. He has prior political experience. According to the BBC, he helped establish the Party of Regions in 2001, but left the party that same year to lead Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine electoral bloc. He served as foreign minister in Yulia Tymoshenko’s government from 2009 to 2010. He also briefly served as economic and trade minister in 2012. Poroshenko currently has no affiliation with any party. UDAR leader and former heavyweight boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko endorsed Poroshenko for president last month.

Yulia Tymoshenko – Much has been written about Yulia Tymoshenko – allow me to write some more. Before she became a politician, she made a killing in natural gas. She was the general director and co-founder of the Ukrainian Petrol Corporation, a business venture that for a time made her one of the 100 wealthiest Ukrainians. She was known as the “Gas Princess.” She served as the deputy prime minister for fuel and energy under then-prime minister Viktor Yushchenko. In 1999 she formed the Fatherland Party, of which she is still the nominal leader. She was one of the leaders of the 2004 Orange Revolution that was instrumental in overturning the rigged presidential election of that same year. Following the Orange Revolution, she was Ukraine’s Prime Minister twice between 2005 and 2010. While she was Prime Minister and her partner in the Orange Revolution Viktor Yuschenko was President, governing was not easy. They didn’t not often see eye to eye, and the goverments limped from one crisis to another. She ran for President in 2010 against Viktor Yanukovych and lost. In 2011, she was arrested, tried and convicted for overstepping her authority and profiting from a gas deal with Russia. Many considered her incarceration to be politically motivated. It is alleged that the charges were fabricated by Viktor Yanukovych.

After Yanukovych’s removal from office, Yulia was released from prison after serving three years of her seven-year sentence. The appointments of Sergey Taruta and Igor Kolomoysky to their current positions by Ukraine’s acting president Oleksandr Turchynov [he is also a Fatherland Party member] was reportedly Yulia’s idea – though nobody knows that for certain. Apparently she thinks these men can control their respective regions and keep them from leaving Ukraine. Only time will tell if that strategy will work. A polarizing figure who is seen by many as part of Ukraine’s political and economic dysfunction, she’s is also running for president. She is for strengthened ties with Europe and opposes Ukraine entering Russia’s Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan. While she is seen as a political martyr at the hands of Viktor Yanukovych, others see her as part of the problem and wish she would just go away. She is polling a distant third behind Petro Poroshenko.

Serhiy Tihipko – He used to be a member of the Party of Regions, but was expelled from the party on 7 April 2014. He was Minister of Economics from 1997 to 1999. He was the head of the National Bank of Ukraine from 2002 to 2004. His claim to Ukrainian fame lies in banking. He started out as a private banker after Ukraine gained its independence. He move to bigger and better banks in his short career until he got to Privat Bank [see Igor Kolomoysky blurb above] During Tipikho’s tenure as Chairman of the Board at Privat, the bank became one of the biggest and most prosperous banks in Eastern Europe. In past elections he has favored privatizing the transportation of natural gas to Ukraine. He favors making Russian the second official language of Ukraine.

Regardless of who wins the election in May, he/she will ponder and deal with the legacy of the guy who ran away - Viktor Yanukovych. From what I’ve gathered these past few weeks is this – Yanukovych’s legacy is one of kleptocracy, corruption, and wasted opportunity for reform. I have picked up on opinion pieces from around Europe and Ukraine. Assuming Russia doesn’t own Ukraine by the time the election happens [remember, Russia thinks this whole election exercise is illegitimate], these pundits expect to see more of the same in Ukrainian politics. The Ukrainian oligarchy is deeply rooted and will prove difficult to remove from Ukrainian politics. The Euromaidan protests from late year and the first quarter of this year may have been triggered by Yanukovych’s walking away from a big deal with the EU, but it seems the underlying cause of their discontent is the nature of Ukraine’s power structure. As long as these familiar faces remain entrenched in Ukrainian politics, so too shall the frustrations of the Ukrainian body politic.

Russians Acting Like Russians? How Dare They!

In the last few weeks, Russia [and more specifically Vladimir Putin] has acted in ways that American leaders call a “19^th century country.”  If I was in Vladimir Putin’s shoes, I believe my retort would be “and your point?”  Russia has their interests, we have ours.  Sometimes those interests coincide, most times they do not.  But, is Russia acting like a “19^th century power,” or do the roots of its actions go farther back?  To put it simply, are the Russians just being Russians?  Is this “19^th century” behavior a new phenomenon, or is it a reflex that has been drilled into the Russian psyche over many hundreds of years? 

Kievan Rus – Both Russia and Ukraine trace their roots [cultural and religious] back to this first Eastern Slavic state  .  Founded by Vikings (Varangians) in the 9^th Century AD, the Kievan Rus stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea.  They established their capital in Kiev, a city documented to be about 700 years older than Moscow.  With the conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy in 988, Kiev became the spiritual center of the Rus.  This is considered the official beginning of the Russian Orthodox Church.  After the Mongol conquest, the nexus of this church moved to Moscow.  The Kievan Rus lasted until it was conquered by the Mongols in the 13^th Century.  In the 14^th Century Kiev was captured by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.  In 1569 Lithuania and Poland united in the Lithuania-Polish Commonwealth, with Ukrainian lands going to Poland.  In 1667, Russia acquired Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper River after a long war with Poland.  In 1783, the Russians conquered that part of Ukraine which was part of the Crimean Khanate [along the Black Sea coast].  This land [called ‘New Russia’] was settled by Ukrainians and Russians.  In 1793, the Second partition of Poland [between Russia, the Austria, and Prussia], Russia acquired the rest of what is now Ukraine.  Russians have considered Ukraine as part of their country ever since.

The Russian Experience – Russia has a long history of being surrounded by and being invaded by enemies along its borders.  The Russians have been invaded by the Mongols, Tatars, Swedes, Napoleon, the Germans [twice], fought the English and the French in Crimea, Allied expeditionary armies in the Russian Civil War…you get the idea.  To keep their enemies at arms-length, they expanded their empire.  Ivan IV [‘The Terrible’] annexed Kazan, Astrakhan, and Siberia.  Peter the Great won territory from Sweden to establish a new capital, a Baltic Sea port, and a ‘window to the West’ – St. Petersburg.  They acquired Ukraine [as noted above].  Catherine the Great took part in the Third Partition of Poland.  Alexander I took Finland from Sweden in 1809, and Bessarabia from the Ottomans in 1812.  The Soviets annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940.  After World War II, the Soviets also established satellite regimes in Eastern Europe [the Warsaw Pact] as a buffer zone against further attacks from the West.  Those are just some of the highlights of Russian expansion.  To paraphrase a friend, ‘it’s what they do.’

NATO Offensive Actions

In 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization formed as a defensive alliance to protest countries from Soviet aggression.  Specifically in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack against one of the member state is considered an attack against the entire alliance.  Article 5 has been invoked only once – that was in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.  But strangely enough, this alliance that was formed at the beginning of the Cold War as a defensive alliance has actually initiated hostilities on several separate occasions.  These instances include the following:

1.      Yugoslavia

Operation Deny Flight - 12 April 1993-20 December 1995

-        Enforcement of a UN no-fly zone over Bosnia and Herzegovina

Operation Deliberate Force - August and September 1995

-        Sustained air campaign conducted by NATO, against the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS), to protect UN-designated "safe areas" in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War

Operation Allied Force – 24 March – 10 June 1999

-        An end to all military action and the immediate termination of violence and oppression in Kosovo by Serbia;

-        Withdrawal of all Serbian military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo;

-        Stationing of UN peacekeeping presence in Kosovo;

-        Unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons;

-        Establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo

-        Never was an operation so aptly named, because we acted like big OAFs in a place we didn’t need to be [Editor’s Note]

2.      Libya [involvement in Libyan Civil War]

Operation Odyssey Dawn/Unified Protector – 19 March – 31 October 2011

-        Enforce UN no-fly zone

-        Naval arms embargo against Libya

So what are the Russians to make of a defensive alliance being used for offensive purposes?  From their perspective, NATO used their might [the diplomacy of the gun] to pressure Serbia into a desired outcome [autonomy and ultimately independence for Kosovo].  Why do I point out these facts?  With NATO having participated in offensive [vice defensive] actions, it makes it very easy for Vladimir Putin to say we are being just a tad hypocritical about his actions in the Crimea.

There is one thing to consider.  In 1939, Britain and France made guarantees to Poland that they would come to their aid in case the Germans attacked.  This arrangement was an informal alliance.  That attack came, and Britain and France honored their commitment to Poland and declared war on Germany two days later.  But that’s as far as it went.  There was no invasion of Germany. Quite the opposite happened.  There was the so-called “Phony War” in which not much happened.  And while there was no action against Germany, the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 Sept to claim ‘their part’ of Poland guaranteed to them by a nonagression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union.  Unknown to everybody except those who negotiated the pact, there was a secret protocol that allowed the Soviets to have free reign in the Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.  Until the end of World War I and the ensuing Russian and Bolsheviks Revolutions, those countries had been a part of the Russian Empire.  With Czar Nicholas gone, and the Russians engaged in their own very bloody civil war [1918-21], those three Baltic countries declared their independence from Russia.  What does that have to do with the secret protocol?   The secret protocol allowed the Soviets [as the Russians became known after the Communists won the Russian Civil War] to occupy the Baltics without German interference.  In 1940, the Soviets exercised their “rights” under the protocol and occupied the Baltics.  What did the US do?  What could the US do?  We sent the Soviets a letter to tell them that we were very cross with them, and we continued to recognize the independence of those Baltic nations under Soviet occupation.   Other than that…

Fast forward 74 years to today – 2014.  To say that things have changed since 1940 would be an understatement.  Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are all now members of NATO.   Each country is also a member of the European Union.  If Vladimir Putin casts his wandering eye in the direction of the Baltics, what happens then?  We’re bound by treaty to fight for them if they are attacked.  The same can be said for Poland.  In 1939 there was an informal agreement between France, England and Poland about support to Poland in case the Germans attacked.  That didn’t work out so well for the Poles then.  But we’re bound by treaty to fight for them as well.  I believe a test for the NATO alliance is coming soon, much sooner than anybody would like to think about.  Another question to ponder – what is the Russian Baltic Fleet doing right now?

Before he left office, George W. Bush made promises to both the Poles and the Czechs to establish missile defenses in their countries.  Barack Obama has since decided against such a course of action.  I’m not going to argue the merits of those decisions – I’m pointing out facts.  In light of what is happening in Ukraine, the Poles are understandably nervous about what happens next.  Vice President Biden was over there trying to re-assure the Poles we have their back.   Whether the Poles believe his reassurances is to be seen.

The fact that NATO has expanded so far eastward annoys the Russians.  Mikhail Gorbachev believes to this day there was an understanding between the US, USSR, UK and France that NATO would go no further east once Germany was reunified.  My understanding is that was Gorbachev’s price for agreeing to German reunification in the first place.  If that is the case, I can imagine the Russians’ surprise and annoyance about Poland, the Baltics, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria [all former Warsaw Pact members] and Romania all becoming part of NATO. 

Why Crimea?  - Simple – because he could.  The Black Sea Fleet is based at Sevastopol.  In light of the chaos and confusion that reigns in Kiev, Putin couldn’t pass up the opportunity.  He saw the shot and he took it.

So Vladimir Putin has the Crimea.  What is next?  Does he invade Ukraine and ‘protect’ the 40% of Ukrainians who claim to be Russians?  If so, how far will he go?  Are there two Ukraines in our future, will other Ukrainian provinces ‘secede’ and join Russia [leaving a ‘rump’ Ukraine’], or will there be one Ukraine under Russian domination?  Or maybe he has other places in mind – Moldova perhaps?  Vladimir Putin has said that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a ‘great tragedy.”  To what lengths will he go to get the band back together?  One has to remember – Putin was a colonel in the KGB.  Old habits die hard with those folks.

Russia's behavior is nothing new. Leaders may change, but the deep-rooted behaviors don't.  Ignore the Russians at your peril.  Just as a reminder, here is a clear example of who we’re dealing with.  These are before and after pictures of Grozny, Chechnya.  When the Chechens decided they wanted to break away from Mother Russia, Russian authorities decided that Interior Ministry troops would be sufficient to keep Chechnya in the fold.  When that proved to be difficult, they called in the Russian Army.  Again, when Russian army tactics proved ineffective, they called back some old senior leadership of the Red Army.  After they worked their magic, Grozny bore more resemblance to Stalingrad than it did a city inhabited by human beings.