Modern Ukraine: What's just and democratic - a people's right to self-determination in the face of authoritarian dictates or a post-Soviet state's insistence on immutable territorial integrity?

 

Modern Ukraine: What's just and democratic - a people's right to self-determination in the face of authoritarian dictates or a post-Soviet state's insistence on immutable territorial integrity?

Gregory Krasovsky

February 24, 2022

  

I don't often cite or share articles from CounterPunch (see below), but when I do...it's just food for thought.
 
BTW, the American in me has always favored a people's right to self-determination -- which, IMHO should be applied honestly, fairly, without bias and consistently -- over a country's government-protected right to territorial integrity.
 
So does the Ukrainian in me who spent the first four years of his life living in a coal-mining village near the city of Luhansk in the Donetsk Coal Basin (Donbas) of Eastern Ukraine.
   
But throughout history, Monarchs, Emperors, Kings & Queens, Kaisers, Caesars, Tsars, Sultans, Khans, Pharaohs and many a Supreme Leader or just a local Feudal Lord cringed at the concept of a people's right to self-determination and tried to nip in the bud or chop off that pesky thought whenever it started to rear its democracy-oriented head.

What? You people think that you can just hold a people's referendum and leave my/or country, kingdom, empire, republic, or union?
 
Without my/our permission?

How dare you?

Who gave you the right?
 
What makes you people think that you can make this decision locally without getting the approval of the rest of us (who don't live in your land) and our government/sovereign?
 
How ungrateful can you be for all that I/we have done for you?
 
How can you betray my/our rule and state?
 
Would you leave our state and then plot or ally against us with our enemies?

   
Doesn't this sound like some dialogue right out of the Game of Thrones?
 
Forget about Hollywood!
 
Remember when the African slaves rebelled in Haiti against France back around 1802?

And France instituted a naval blockade of Haiti -- with the support of newly founded democratic U.SA., whose Southern states (full of plantations & African Slaves) got a little worried that the Haitian revolt might become contagious?

And then demanded that the Haitian slaves pay France in reparations the market cost for each slave?

And milked Haiti until the 20th century without any U.S. objections even after slavery ended in the U.S. after the Civil War in 1865?
 
What happened to the Haitian slaves' right to freedom and self-determination?
 
The Vietnamese learned that as well when they had to fight against their French colonial masters after WWII.
 
What about Native/Indigenous Americans ("American Indians")?

Would today's America, after the Civil Rights Movement (50+ years have already passed!), BLM, Critical Race Theory (CRT) and WOKE-ism, ever permit a Native American tribe to exercise their right to self-determination, become truly sovereign from the U.S. and live independently of our country?
 
Remember when during President Obama's term in office (Hilary Clinton was the Secretary of State), a Native American tribe from Upstate New York and Canada wanted to travel to England for the World Lacrosse championship (a Native American game, by the way) with their Native American Passports?
 
And even though the British were willing to let them enter the UK with those passports, the post-9/11/01 U.S. would not provide written guarantees that it would permit these Native Americans to re-enter the U.S. (presumably at JFK airport) with these non-U.S. passports ("What if they're Al Qaeda?") in transit to their reservations (tribal lands)?
 
After all, America
 

- supported Taiwan in its independence & refusal to rejoin communist China,
 
- encouraged & facilitated the break-up of the Soviet Union,

- Supported the Tibetan people's struggle for independence from Communist China,
 
- encouraged the break-up of former communist/socialist Serbian-ruled Yugoslavia (into Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and [North] Macedonia) and then helped Kosovo separate from Serbia (Pro-Russian) with a massive bombing campaign & war that killed thousands of civilians,
 
- Encouraged the Chechen war for the Republic of Ichkeria's independence against Russia (even though it was funded and partially fought by Islamists, Wahhabis, and some of those who survived went on later to join Al Qaeda and ISIS)

- Eventually supported East Timur's independence from Indonesia,
 
- helped South Sudan (with oil deposits) separate from the North.

 
But then again, America did NOT help and opposed (either actively or tacitly/surreptitiously)
 

- Southern Nigeria (with recently discovered oil deposits) gain its independence from the predominantly Muslim Northern Nigeria and supported the federal Nigerian government in the brutal Biafran War (over 1 million civilians killed in the South) only 7 years after Nigeria won its independence from the U.K.    
 
- The Palestinians establish their own state next door to Israel,
 
- Abkhazians (Pro-Russian Muslim folks) and Southern Ossetians (Pro-Russian with most of their ethnos living in Russian Ossetia next door) gain their autonomy and independence from Post-Soviet Georgia in the early 1990s.

   
Forget about America, just look at all the recent conflicts about a people's right to self-determination and their own country (or desire to join another country), such as

• Northern Ireland,
• Scottish referendum to leave the U.K.,
• Catalonia in Spain, 
• Basque country in Spain,
• The French Canadian's struggle for autonomy in Quebec, 
• Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, 
• The Kurds' struggle for statehood/autonomy in Turkey, Syria and Iraq 
• Western Sahara struggle for independence from Morocco,  
• East Timur's recently won independence from Indonesia, 
• The Shiite Houthi struggle for power and autonomy in Yemen against the Saudi Arabia backed  
• The Muslim Rohingya people's struggle for equal rights in Burma/Myanmar, 
• The Sikh people’s desire to create an independent state from India in Punjab called Khalistan, 
• The Tamil Tigers' struggle to create an independent state, Eelam, in Sri Lanka,   

and etc.    

By now, you probably get the picture.

The U.S. and its allies, including many European countries, who publicly profess to be the staunchest defenders of freedom, human rights & democracy world-wide, end up being very selective -- depending on geopolitics and money from natural resources -- when it comes to supporting a people's right to self-determination of statehood.
 
Western Democracies will support independence movements world-wide only when it fits their geopolitical objectives and/or profitable.

Otherwise, Western Democracies, like most other states, will support territorial integrity (i.e. government/state power over people).  
 
Just imagine Texans voting to leave the U.S.!

Even if the residents of Texas voted 99% to leave the Union, you'd see the full power of the U.S. military remind them how the Confederate States were brought back during the American Civil War in 1861-1865, even though modern Texas doesn't have slaves but just more conservative Republicans than most "Northern" States!
 
The recent situations in East and Central Europe since 1991 are not different, including Ukraine since 2014.

As an example of double-standards, I'd bet my bottom dollar that America and its NATO/EU allies would have supported a pro-Western Anti-Russian L’viv or Carpathian People's Republic if in 2014 "Pro-Russian" Ukrainian President Yanukovich managed to hold on to power and Western Ukraine tried to declare "governmental sovereignty" (i.e. autonomy) against the Ukrainian government.

Which is what the Pro-Russian Luhansk & Donetsk People's Republics did in 2014 (citing the illegal overthrow of lawfully & democratically elected President Yanukovich).

So did the Pro-Russian population of Crimea, who wasn't happy with being transferred to Ukraine by Soviet leader Khrushchev in 1954 and did not want to stay in post-Yanukovich Ukraine governed by Pro-American and Anti-Russian Ukrainian Nationalists.

They exercised the people's right to self-determination.  

Should the people of regions that were un-democratically and forcefully incorporated into modern Ukraine by totalitarian Soviet communist / Bolshevik regimes & leaders (like Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev) be allowed to hold referendums on what country they want their regions to re-join (if not create their own mini-state), like Poland (1939), Slovakia (1945), Hungary (1945), Romania (1945) and/or Russia (1922 and 1954)?
      
So in light of all that, what's the solution?
 
For Ukraine and for any other independence/autonomy/self-governance movement mentioned above?
    
Just as important, how should the United States, its people and allies consistently treat the people's right to self-determination, both at home and abroad, with respect to democratic principles and inalienable human rights?

What do you think?
 
As always, please don't forget to comment and share for thought & discussion!
 
***
 
The Territorial Integrity of States vs. the Self-Determination of Peoples.
by John Whitbeck
CounterPunch
February 24, 2022
 
Two often-cited principles, each with established roots in international law, are frequently in conflict — the territorial integrity of states and the self-determination of peoples.
 
https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/24/the-territorial-integrity-of-states-vs-the-self-determination-of-peoples/
 
*** 

Dethroning Ukraine’s Oligarchs: A How-To Guide...

Greg Krasovsky's comments on Foreign Policy's "Dethroning Ukraine’s Oligarchs: A How-To Guide":

- I agree, It's bad news when an oligarchy controls the government and even the fourth estate (journalists and news media) in a country where opposition groups can be persecuted under the guise of fighting terrorism, separatism and foreign aggression.

- How can you talk about dethroning oligarchs when an oligarch is the president of Ukraine?

- the recent anti-offshore media coverage, including that on the Panama Papers, already has demonstrated the selective nature of Western "deoffshorization" anti-money laundering and anti-corruption efforts,

- For decades, if not centuries, America and its allies have supported friendly oligarchs and dictators throughout the world -- oligarchs who opposed American policy have been vilified and undermined.

If the current anti-corruption/oligarch drive is aimed primarily or exclusively at pro-Russian or anti-US/EU/NATO oligarchs, then the Ukrainian people may end up with a truly untouchable new class of oligarchs who will enjoy Western protection and indulgences.

   

- If the present breed of Ukrainian oligarchs is replaced by transnational financial groups who will benefit from privatization and government contracts (to spend moneys borrowed from foreign creditors like the IMF, World Bank and etc.) while avoiding domestic taxation by using formally legal tax avoidance schemes, then the Ukrainian people -- who at the end will be end up repaying those foreign loans from their taxes and social benefits just like the citizens of Greece -- will have jumped from the frying pan into the fire. 

- As long as Ukrainian oligarchs have a "get out of jail card," refuge and a place to stash their wealth either in the West (US/Europe), North (Russia) or even the rising East, any Ukrainian domestic anti-corruption/tax evasion/money laundering efforts will have very limited effect, especially when foreign money is allowed to seep into Ukraine's political system and buy corrupt politicians and civil servants. 

  

- Given to the reality of today's geopolitics concerning Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens, voters and taxpayers are forced to choose the lesser of two evils: supporting either pro-US/EU/NATO oligarchs and their pocket politicians or the pro-Russian variety. 

  

What is the true lesser evil is not something that Ukrainians should expect to learn from domestic and foreign establishment media or so-called think-tanks -- including Foreign Policy (a self-proclaimed "Trusted Advisor for Global Leaders When the Stakes are Highest") -- sources of information that are controlled by their own transnational oligarchs and financial-industrial groups who have their own agenda and ulterior motives for Ukraine and whatever wealth it still has.

         

Selected Excerpts:

"None of the country’s reforms can succeed while the oligarchs still rule. Here’s how to take them out.

  

Ukraine’s oligarchs are its biggest problem. If there is a single obstacle to establishing a functioning state, a sound economy, and true democratic accountability, it is the tycoons who control the country.

The oligarchs first emerged in the years following Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. They grew rich by gaining privileged access to the gas market, expropriating companies from private owners, trading with state enterprises on advantageous terms, and privatizing those same firms at pennies on the dollar. The crooked dealings that lie at the root of their fortunes give them a vital interest in keeping state officials corruptible, the economy rigged, and the rule of law weak. A world in which regulators abide by the rules, prosecutors and judges behave scrupulously, democratic procedures hold leaders accountable, and market competition works as intended is one in which the oligarchs cannot live and work.

Calls to finally stamp out their influence are growing ever louder and more numerous. But few observers have offered workable plans for doing so. With that in mind, we present a roadmap for how it can be done.

...

Western countries can help. First, they can deny Ukraine’s reprobate political class access to the billions in aid that enable it to stay in power. Far from supporting reforms, Western aid has propped up the country’s rulers and freed them from the need to build a functioning state and market economy. Continued aid will only prolong the elite’s hold on power. Assistance that bypasses the government and supports civil society should continue. And all aid could resume once genuine reformers come to power and install a government free of oligarchs and their hirelings.

Second, the West is home to the world’s two biggest offshore tax and secrecy jurisdictions, the United Kingdom and the United States. These and a slew of other tax havens in Western Europe shelter the fortunes of oligarchs and kleptocrats from Ukraine and elsewhere. If the plea-bargain strategy is to work, Ukrainian prosecutors must gain access to information about the oligarchs’ offshore holdings.Ukrainian prosecutors must gain access to information about the oligarchs’ offshore holdings. Western law enforcement agencies can assist their Ukrainian counterparts in this task.

But the first step is for the people of Ukraine to eject their political masters and replace them with competent outsiders and professional technocrats. Without this, none of the other measures we propose can succeed. It won’t happen this year. But Ukrainians are seeing as never before the necessity of replacing rather than just reshuffling their rulers. With the right leaders, a few good policies, and a little help from the West, Ukraine’s interminable reign of rot may yet come to an end."

  

Please read rest of the article at: 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/13/dethroning-ukraines-oligarchs-a-how-to-guide/

Don't forget to check out URA Observer's Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/

What borders mean for democracy, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

What borders mean for democracy, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and the United States, 

a commentary on

What Borders Mean to Europe
By George Friedman, founder of Stratfor
Geopolitical Weekly
June 23, 2015
 https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/what-borders-mean-europe
 
********
   
When it comes to the age-old argument of a state (a country's) right to territorial integrity vs. a local people's right to self-determination, I've always been a supporter of genuine democracy, that is a local population's inalienable right to determine -- through a local democratic election or referendum -- what state (country) they want to join, stay in or leave.

So if the local people of Scotland or Northern Ireland hold a referendum and decide to leave the UK, then we should respect their right and the rest of the UK's population should be able to prevent them from leaving, even on the typical grounds of territorial integrity and national security.

The same democratic standard should be applicable to
- Quebec in Canada,
- Basque country in Spain,
- Kurdistan in Turkey, Iraq & Iran,
- Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt, 
- Tyroleans in Italy,
- Darfur in Sudan,
- Igboland in Nigeria,

and countless other populations world-wide who'd like their own state (country) or genuine autonomy based on ethnicity, race, religion, language or other local cultural traits.

Holding a local population hostage in a country where they perceive discrimination, persecution or any other form of second-class citizen status is not democratic, but a vestige of past imperial and colonialist traditions.

When politicians and/or people from other parts of a country in question believe that they're entitled to dictate to a local population where it belongs, that's a perversion, if not an outright denial, of true democracy. 
 
Such a litmus test can have scary repercussions.
What if Alaskans decided in a genuine democratic people's referendum that the government in Washington didn't represent their interests and they wanted to leave the Union?

What if a majority of Texans, residents of an independent republic (country) before it joined the U.S.A. decided to leave the U.S., should the residents of California, Vermont or Florida have the right to prevent them from leaving?

What if residents of a conservative state like Utah, decide that they don't want to accept gay marriage and leave the Union?

Sound familiar? It should, because I bet that any state which tries to leave the U.S. will find out (even at the receiving end of a gun barrel) what territorial integrity means and how even the self-proclaimed cradle of democracy just pays lip service to a people's right to self-determination.

Movements for governmental self-determination through  autonomy or the creation of a separate independent state usually encounter resistance through the following:
 
1. Constitutional requirements or other state laws that prohibit any challenges to the country's territorial integrity by

- outlawing separatism or any individual or organized efforts that challenge the current governmental or constitutional regime through demands for autonomy or independence.
- demanding that any autonomy or independence be decided not just by the local population (true democracy) but by the majority of an entire country's electorate and parliament.  
 
2. Prohibitions against local referendums on autonomy or independence.

- these can be constitutional or based on other laws. Regardless, even if the local population, through local political parties or acts of local (municipal) legislatures, decides overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, it will be prohibited by law.
 
As a result, the only alternative is to hold an unofficial people's referendum with all ensuing consequences -- legal invalidity, criminal prosecution of organizers & participants and, if necessary, military (national guard) intervention to prevent or stop the vote.

- some past movements for autonomy or independence, when confronted with a prohibition against a referendum and the bigger country's ability to enforce it, elected to first secure their local territory's borders with insurgents and then hold a referendum to affirm the local population's democratic choice for autonomy.

While this practical approach ensured the holding of a referendum unfettered, it also provided the bigger country's government and its allies with justification to fight the local separatist movement since the local separatists first staged an armed revolt, any subsequent local referendum should be considered null and void.
 
3. Refusal to recognize and deal with the results of a local referendum.
 
- if the referendum takes place anyway (even a verifiable democratic people's referendum with more than sufficient voter turnout), the the country's government, media and its foreign allies will refuse to recognize it, not only from a formal legal perspective, but also as a valid democratic expression of a people's will. 

4. Police, military and economic crackdown on separatists

If, based on the results of a local referendum, the local population decides to declare autonomy or independence and refuse to accept the bigger country's government authority in the local -- now autonomous or independent -- territory, then the state will enforce its territorial integrity through the use of police and military power, no matter how brutal its application or consequences for the local civilian population.

Police and military measures are supplanted by an economic blockade of the insurgent territory, even it results in civilian deaths from starvation, disease, loss of shelter and utilities.
The above measures are always justified by a country's sovereign (almost holy) right to territorial integrity and self-defense on national security grounds, true or not, as the separatists could collude with the bigger country's enemies.
Now add economics into the mix. As they say, always follow the money trail, since money don't lie. What if the region that wants autonomy is wealthier than the rest of the country due to industry or valuable natural resources?

What are the chances that the bigger country would allow its population to have genuine economic & political autonomy or independence and take away the contributions to the country's economy -- often so substantial or irreplaceable that their loss could cripple the bigger country's economy or result in default before its foreign creditors?
 
So what does this all mean in the 21st century for countries (not just in Europe), their borders and a people's right to democratic self determination?

If you're a people living in a small and poor region without any strategic value (political, economic, military or cultural), then you may have a chance at securing greater autonomy or outright independence from your country, since it's probably tired of supporting your population without any clear returns in the present or future.

If you're a people living in a strategically  important or wealthy region and you insist on autonomy or independence, then get ready to learn the true value of democracy in a brutal civil war -- a war that you're likely to lose militarily without substantial foreign military, economic and political assistance.

And that type of assistance, given its political and economic costs for the sponsor country, will only come from  your former country's competitors (enemies) and/or countries where the local population will support you (and, if necessary, fight for you) as one of their own on ethnic, religious and/or political ideological grounds.  

Now take the the above premises and apply them to any current civil conflict and movement for greater autonomy or independence.
So what do you think the future holds for those movements?

Do you think
- Iraq will just give up oil-rich Kurdistan in the name of democracy and historical justice for the Kurds?
- Nigeria will give up oil-rich Igboland?
- Ukraine will give up industrial & coal-rich Donestk Coal basin?
- The United States will ever give up Alaska or Texas if the residents of those states chose to leave?

Now, if you're a true supported of democracy and, consequently, a people's right to political and governmental self-determination, what do you think is the right thing to do, regardless of the economic consequences for you or the bigger country in question?

Will you act and vote with or democratic hearts & souls for self-determination or with our wallets and/or pride (committed to ethnic, religious or cultural allegiances) for territorial integrity?
 
Actually, many ordinary folks, especially those who know the horrors of war, will support the status quo and forfeit democracy just to avoid the prospect of bloodshed in a civil war. 

Regardless of your position, the Strafor article is food for thought, including its discussion of Ukraine.

Contributor: Greg Krasovsky
 
See The Ukrainian-Russian-American Observer's Facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/URA.Observer/posts/1143739658973505
******

Selected quotes from "What Borders Mean to Europe"
    "The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need. The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states.
...
Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved. The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.
It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered.
...
The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self." 

A simple 12 month recipe for peace and reconcilliation in Ukraine, Russia and America.

It's sad to see civil unrest spread throughout Ukraine during this past holiday season.

 
It's also scarry to see the Ukrainian armed forces' plans to mobilize at least 100 thousdand troops this year. See

 http://www.nsn-ua.info/index.php/en/vojna/item/1532-the-minister-of-defence-of-ukraine-stepan-poltorak-reports-that-in-2015-should-be-mobilized-about-104-000-people-to-ukrainian-army
  
I hope that 2015 brings the end of hostilities, foreign interference & aggression, hate, xenophobia, nationalism, political repression and corruption to Ukraine.

We need tolerance, forgiveness, reconciliation and peace. If South Africa could do it to end apartheid, then so can Ukraine.

For this to happen, we need to drop hateful slogans and stereotypes as well as get rid of warmongering politicians (on both sides!) and vulture investors (both foreign and domestic) so that we can start the painful but necessary process of reconciliation in order to save Ukraine as an independent nonaligned democratic country.

I hope to see Ukraine as country where all its citizens, regardless of whether they are
 
- from West or East Ukraine
- Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan or atheist (sorry, Satanists not included)
- Ethnic Russian, Rusyn, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Romanian, Polish, Hungarian, German or Crimean Tartar
- European, Asian or African
- Pro EU or pro Russian Customs Union
- Rich or poor
- capitalist, communist, socialist, anarchist, democrat, republican or monarchist (who knows?)

can live with equal rights and equal protections ensured by a state that's accountable to the people.

Nice slogans, right? But what do need to make this happen?

Here are some of my thoughts & ideas:
 
1. Immediate end of military activities against the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR).

2. Immediately end the financial and economic blockade of Donetsk coal basin (Donbass), ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid, pensions, medical care and education to all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of whether they live on territory controlled by the current Ukrainian government or DNR and LNR.

3. Start of political negotiations over autonomy for Donetsk, Lugansk and any other Ukrainian region (oblast) whose population demands it in a democratic referendum and all local elections of all government officials (including governors, mayors, local parliaments/councils, prosecutors and judges -- just like in the United States, the self-declared beacon and cradle of modern democracy)

4. Amnesty for all combatants (including DNR & LNR separatists) except for those who've committed war crimes as well as for all political prisoners. Also, establish an international commission to investigate war crimes and allow both domestic and international prosecution of war criminals.

5. Immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops and advisors (including Russia and NATO) with the exception of peacekeeping troops whose mandate is accepted by all sides and ensured by international organizations (such as the UN, OSCE, International red Cross and etc.).

6. Prohibition on foreign funding of any political parties and politicians as well as prohibition on foreign citizens holding any government post (unless these foreigners are properly granted Ukrainian citizenship and renounce their foreign citizenship to eliminate conflict of interest and foreign control).

7. Make it mandatory for all government employees, elected officials, political candidates, NGOs and all Ukrainian citizens & residents to declare

- all foreign assets, including bank accounts, real estate, securities and etc.
- employment, provision of services and lobbying (direct or indirect) for foreign governments, foreign individuals, NGOs & foreign corporations
- gifts and other material benefits from any domestic or foreign source in excess of 100 USD or EU
 
under penalty of civil & criminal prosecution, dismissal from office, permanent lifetime ban on civil service as well as total forfeiture.

8. Commit to staying out of the geopolitical war between the US and its allies (EU & NATO) and Russia, by restoring Ukraine's non-aligned status and refusing to even consider any military bloc (regardless of whether its NATO or a pro-Russian block).

9. Put on hold joining or associating with any economic block (EU or Russia's Customs Union) until the economic ratifications for Ukraine (all of its citizens and industries and not just some favored financial industrial groups) are fully and independently analyzed.

10. Ensure that both Russian and Ukrainian languages have equal and official government status and that any discrimination in Ukraine on the basis of ethnicity, language, religion and/or political views is punishable under civil and criminal law.

11. In order for Ukrainians and the world to see and understand the truth of what's really happening in Ukraine today, ensure freedom of the press, protection of journalists and end all press censorship, including that against Russian media.

12. Ensure the separation of church and state and make sure that the Ukrainian government does not support, advocate for or favor any religious denomination.

Obviously, there's a lot more that can and should be done, but if Ukraine commits to just these twelve points over the next 12 months of 2015, then it has a chance.

I'd like to hear your comments and suggestions, especially those of you with ties too Ukraine and/or Russia.

In the meantime, let's pray that the remainder of 2015 brings only peace and reconcilliation to Ukraine, Russia and America.