Hello All.

On 02/24/2022 I wrote a piece about the Russian incursion into
Ukraine. One statement therein that received some blow back was,
“Putin may have bitten off more than he can chew.” That was not an
anti-Russian statement, it was an observation of the resiliency of the
Ukrainian fighters and the people who support them. That is true
whether they act as an organized military force or as a partisan force
behind the battle lines.

There are other reasons for Ukrainian resiliency and they should be
examined. Ukraine as a strong nation predates Russia. From the 4th to
the 13th Century the capital of this region was in Kyiv. From the 13th
to the 18th Century the area was dominated by various political units
such as the Mongols, Lithuania, Poland and Russia. Toward the later
part of the 18th C. most of today’s Ukraine was under Russian control.
In 1917 most of Ukraine fell into the hands of the Soviet
revolutionaries. Large portions of Ukraine were occupied by Germany
from 1941 to 1945. In 1945 the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR were
established. This is exquisitely brief, but it is essentially
accurate.

The lineage of political control is always vital. As we are all aware
most of the world has undergone changes to leadership as a result of
foreign conquests and subjugations. That only complicates the peace
process. That will have to be addressed in the days ahead. The problem
for Ukraine is that it has similarities to the problems of Israel in
establishing an unbroken chain of occupation and control.

The Ukrainian people have suffered under the hands of foreigners. For
example the Mongols conquered the Kiev capital of Kievan Rus in
12/06/1240 after a nine day battle. The city was sacked and most of
the population massacred. Events of that nature tend to linger in the
minds of citizens for a long time, often centuries.

The leadership of the USSR used starvation as a tool of submission and
genocide against the Ukrainian people from 1931 to 1934, most
prominently in 1932-1933. This action against a people is called
Holodomor, meaning man-made famine. Farms, villages, and towns were
black listed. It is estimated that 3.9 million people (> 13% of the
population) in Ukraine perished from hunger. In addition, it was
during this period that use of the Ukrainian language was forbidden.

Other Soviet Republics also experienced food shortages, but it was by
far the most severe in Ukraine. News of this action was suppressed
until 1986. It is easy to see how this event plays a large role in
Ukrainian public memory. By 2019, sixteen countries, including the
USofA and The Vatican recognize Holodomor as genocide.

The final historical point that must be made as peace talks appear
imminent is WWII. When Germany entered Ukraine, in most communities,
the German army was greeted as liberators. They were met along the
roads with garlands of flowers. Ukrainians viewed the Germans as
allies in overthrowing Russian occupation. Shortly after Germany
occupied most of Ukraine there was a dust up in one community and the
entire ruling body was taken to the central square and publicly
executed. That act, in a moment, turned the entire population of
Ukraine against the Germans.

This battleground was known as the Eastern Front and almost all of the
supplies and troops necessary for Germany to fight Russia crossed
Ukraine. With Germany having turned the Ukrainian people against them,
they found that the Ukrainians then formed thousands of small partisan
cells with the sole purpose of disrupting the flow of supplies and
German troops to the front lines. This was devastating to the German
war effort and their attack on Russia stalled and eventually failed.
At one time the attacks on German supply trains were so heavy the
Germans had to divert 7 divisions to protect the railroad tracks and
the trains. Generally speaking that means 70,000 to 100,000 troops
were diverted from the front lines. In a combat situation that is
significant. Had that diversion not been necessary the outcome of the
war may have been different. Let us now address the current conundrum.

Ukraine, as did the fourteen other Soviet republics, asserted their
independence with the collapse of the Soviet Union on 12/26/1991.
Ukraine formally withdrew from the Soviet Union on 12/08/1991 after
nearly three years of agitation which commenced on 01/22/1989. This
date was to commemorate the proclamation of independence from the
Russian Czar by the Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1918.

The Budapest Memorandum, signed 12/05/1994, is a critical document.
Ukraine, US, UK and Russia agreed that Ukraine would give up its
nuclear arsenal in return for certain assurances. At that time Ukraine
had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Ukraine agreed to
ship the arsenal to Russia to be dismantled. In return the US and
Russia would respect Ukrainian independence. sovereignty, territorial
integrity, and use no force or threat of force against Ukraine. As a
side note, Ukraine gave up its nukes and was invaded twice. Gadhafi in
Libya, gave up his nukes and was killed and his government destroyed.
This raises serious, global questions about security assurances. What
should North Korea, Iran and Pakistan think as they are pressured
regarding their nuclear programs?

Finally, a quick review of the Crimea Grab by Russia which set the
table for the 2022 invasion. Crimea was a key piece of the former
Soviet Union. It bordered the Black Sea which gave the Soviets a warm
water port. It was a prized vacation destination and because of its
access to a warm water port was heavily industrialized. Putin annexed
Crimea in a bloodless coup on 03/18/2014. This was very shortly after
the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine was ousted from his presidency.
Ukraine was weak at this time so with the Minsk Agreement in 2015,
Kyiv was forced to allow separatist regions with broad authority and
their own police. In addition to Crimea there are two Oblasts
(political subdivisions) Dontsk and Luhansk that have large Russian
speaking populations.

Did Ukraine goad Russia? Did Russia have expansionist objectives? The
answer is Yes! First Ukraine – Both Poroshenko and Zelenskyy pursued a
pro-West foreign policy. In 2016 NATO approved aid packages for
Ukraine. There were occasions when the US and NATO conducted training
exercises in Ukraine. Negotiations to bring Ukraine into NATO were
on-going. Ukraine was asserting its legitimacy. Couple all of this
with the toxic relationship the people of Ukraine have had with Russia
within the lifetime of people still alive and their position is clear.

On the Russian side Putin is central. He claimed the national
identities of Ukraine and Belarus are artificial, he identifies them
as Russians first. That is not how the folks self-identify. Putin
over-estimated the capabilities of his military, he was assuming a
quick strike and a quicker suit for peace. Putin’s worldview is of
Russia as a powerful player on the international scene and he has
imperialistic ambitions to reconstitute the former USSR. Putin found
it necessary to make a strategic response to Ukraine’s growing
geopolitical alignment. Putin has falsely accused Ukraine of genocide
in the Donbas Region. However, Putin has lost favor with Russian
speakers in the Donbas. When asked about being under Russian control,
one woman responded, “It is like being on a train you can not get
off.”

Putin and Zelenskeyy both now seemed resigned to a war of attrition as
their military supplies and military aged population(s) dwindles
rapidly due to high casualty rates. Accurate numbers are difficult to
obtain but it is estimated that 1.5 million people (both sides) have
been killed or wounded. Another year of war could mean another 500,000
casualties. Both countries are growing short of adequate manpower. The
conscripts of today are less skilled as warriors thus casualties are
higher. There are representatives from 56 nations fighting this war
and 1,278 foreign combatants have been killed. The leaders of both
countries have failed miserably in accepting the agency of their
people! This must be at the very apex of their peace overtures. Trump
must insist on this.

It is clear that peace will not prevail if Ukraine is beaten down and
perceives the settlement as unfair. It is also clear that Ukraine has
a historical, civilizational importance and Ukraine continues to drift
westward amid a dwindling pro-Russian influence. Regional dominance as
a policy is widely shared by Russian policy makers, but that light is
not bright outside of Moscow. Ukraine and Russia share a 1,200 mile
border and Moscow is only 300 miles away. Russia wants to retain easy
access to the Volga-Don region which is a natural shield or a
launching point on the Black Sea.

Over the past 30 years Russia has labored to bring Ukraine into the
Russian sphere of influence: whether it be diplomatic, trade, energy,
finance or intelligence. However, in 2013-2014 the Maiden Revolution
overthrew the pro-Russian government and began coupling Ukraine with
the European Union. The Minsk II Peace Agreement left portions of
Donetsk and Luhansk outside of Ukrainian control. It also mandated
Ukraine undergo constitutional reform, removed control of the Donetsk
and Luhansk territories and prohibited an entry into NATO.

Oddly, both countries have the same concern about security. However,
this may be a pretext for more nefarious schemes. Ukraine wants
security and as it drifts away from past ties with Russia it turns to
NATO. This is a threat to Russian leadership. This is obvious. NATO
has continued to bring more nations into the organization. Having
started in 1949 with 12 nations there are 32 members today.

In fact, three nations now in NATO are former members of the Warsaw
Pact (Soviet Union and its allies) and three are former Soviet
Socialist Republics within the Soviet Union. Russia today must
perceive this as a threat. Ukraine, the sole Eastern European nation
not in NATO, must have feelings of being the sacrificial lamb. This is
further complicated by the failure of the US and the UK not to respond
according to the terms of the Budapest Memorandum when Russia seized
Crimea. The rational was to avoid a nuclear war which Putin
threatened. Under that reasoning there will be no end to Russian
desires and actions to reconstitute the Soviet Union.

There is one way out of this dilemma. In every public utterance there
is one element never mentioned. What do the folks want? In most of
Ukraine some people speak Russian, but that number is in decline; the
native language is Ukrainian. In the Donbas region there are
communities where Russian is the common language and for a large
number of individuals Russian is their native/birth language. The
allegiance of all of these folks is mostly predicated on their native
or birth language.

The United Nations has made an issue out of the right for
self-determination, going so far as to proclaim it to be ‘integral to
basic human rights’. They claim this right is to be expressed without
compulsion or coercion; nor to be stripped of the right by military
intervention. In fact, this is so important to the members of the UN
they have passed two resolutions: Reso 1514 (1960) and RESO 2625
(1970); protecting this basic human right.

The situation in Ukraine is ideal for this process for settling
territorial integrity. This is a three step process: 1) Proclaim a
cease fire (to stop the bloodshed and destruction); 2) Proclaim a date
six months after the cease fire goes into effect to hold a referendum
in all political subdivisions in Ukraine, asking the question: Should
the subject political subdivision be responsible to Ukraine or Russia?

The following six months would allow for national boundaries to be
redrawn. In addition certain areas might be designated a DMZ or a UN
Protectorate or even creating a new nation to be declared unaligned.
For any individual(s) finding themselves residents of a territory in
which they may be considered a minority they will be given a stipend
to relocate to a political subdivision in which they may find fewer
conflicts. A model for this may be seen in India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh in the days following Indian independence.

All national leaders must be cognizant of the people whom they
represent. By God’s will and UN resolutions these individuals are no
longer vassals. They need to be incorporated into decisions affecting
their futures.

Please pray that we continue to thrive in 2025 and pray that the
efforts to end the hostilities in Ukraine and Gaza continue to show
signs of permanently ending.

Love, hank

Hank Hohenstein, OFS
Land Steward
161 Osprey Vista
Shady Cove, OR 97539
Cell: 541-973-5442
hankhohenstein@gmail.com