Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky

4th Quarter 2023

The minimum you must know

President Zelensky enjoys the support of peace makers. His government demonstrated exemplary integrity, met with NATO, and signaled to the media that the alliance is carefully considering China’s peace plan. Perhaps a resolution is therefore possible. According to CNBC in January 2024, “Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff Andriy Yermak said it was important that Russian ally China was at the table when Kyiv convenes further meetings on its peace formula.”

These optimistic comments follow last year’s enthusiastically attended and beautifully created peace talks hosted by Saudi Arabia for Ukraine and Russia. And they were covered by the media whose participation and encouragement were important components to their success. This follows successful peace talks organized by African heads of state. Governments and media around the world are making an exemplary - even heroic - effort for Ukraine-Russia peace. People feel much more peaceful in Ukraine, Russia and even globally as a result. President Zelensky may be close to a peace agreement. He is one of the most talented diplomats at the head of state level. Everyone may well become astonished that a real and lasting peace deal results from his diplomacy. Of course, he can influence but not control his alliance countries that may or may not be real prospective partners in peace with Russia.

China encouraged broad participation in the various peace talks by persistently supporting President Zelensky’s calls for peace. President Zelensky said that, “We Ukrainians are a peaceful nation.” That is what a greater leader on peace would say. President Putin also published a statement saying, “If they want to see a negotiated [peaceful] solution to the conflict, it’s enough for them to stop weapons supplies.” That’s a very peaceful position from President Putin, too. So the matter could be resolved soon. China’s proposal is for Ukraine to regain control of the entire country. The only ask is for a normalization of NATO-Russian relations. Everyone involved on the Ukrainian and Russian sides would clearly love a peaceful compromise.

Probably Ukraine can become weapons-free from both sides - if NATO is a real prospective partner in peace with Russia. That is the basic position of the Russian government. Russia is concerned that decades of NATO news patterning may prompt people to use any weapons allowed to remain there, and wants them removed as a matter of safety for everyone involved. Russia furthermore is concerned that the country may be held accountable for public safety incidences in NATO states that Russia is innocent of and had no part whatsoever in creating. And Russia doesn’t want the word frequency in previous decades of NATO news reports to prompt conflict unnecessarily. So Russia really wants Ukraine to become weapons-free. And the reasons are valid.

But NATO’s position is understandable, too! Ukraine is an absolutely exemplary alliance for NATO - perhaps one of the best NATO has ever had. President Zelensky is a capable leader of a stellar government. And NATO heads of state want their commitment to Ukraine to seem unwavering to Ukrainians as a result. They don’t want to diminish the appearance to Ukraine of the NATO-Ukrainian relationship in any way. That’s probably why President Biden said on CNN the same thing that other NATO leaders have said - that he absolutely wants Ukraine-Russia peace but envisions a partnership with Ukraine that’s similar to the U.S. partnership with Israel. President Biden wants a presence in Ukraine so that NATO can continue to have the best relationship the alliance can have with Ukraine. This writer believes NATO can support President Zelensky the best by partnering in peace with Russia in a weapons free Ukraine. There is growing U.S. media support for this possibility. That may benefit all of the populations in the region the most.

Any peace deal (temporary or lasting) will probably/hopefully produce a very desirable natural improvement in media word frequency. This may benefit Ukraine and Russia the most, because the influence globally can become much more peaceful toward the two countries when patterning persistently improves towards them. But it will benefit the rest of the world consuming that news, too. Patterns affect everywhere they’re experienced and consequently in this instance globally. Peace for Ukraine and Russia can contribute to more peaceful influences being felt everywhere as a result.

The conflict has seemed out of control at times in 2022 and early 2023. There were more than just incursions into Ukraine. There were incursions into Russia as well. Ukraine received televised orders from NATO and the United States for cross border missions that Ukrainians followed out of loyalty to the Biden administration. Military leadership on both CNN and Fox in 2022 and early 2023 called military targets in Russia “legitimate.” There were even news reports that NATO used cluster munitions - a departure by NATO from international regulations on conflict. And some may wonder if NATO ordered the Wagner mission led by General Prigozhin as well. But that past doesn’t seem to be the future.

The U.S. media subsequently became very supportive of peace. There is currently exemplary patterning of “alive” and “survive” in addition to “peace” in NATO media. CNN patterned “Russia peace” in late 2023 and 2024. The high integrity effort will take time to become broadly influential. But this already has been influencing both U.S. political parties. In fact, many in the Biden administration are already working on peace, and President Biden’s own patterning has been almost exclusively peaceful and de-escalatory. Republicans are supporting peace as well - with “peace in 24 hours” being a republican talking point. And both the Ukrainian and Russian sides say they want peace. So maybe we’re closer to a solid peace agreement than those events would make it seem. Ukraine should be supportive of heroes at CNN, Fox and MSNBC who dramatically evolved communication and are currently making this possible.

Before recent communication progress, Prigozhin led twenty five thousand soldiers in the direction of Moscow before backing down and agreeing to support President Putin again. News reports suggested that Prigozhin and Putin were friends for years and apparently tempers flared. Pigrozhin’s group does not exist in Russia according to the government. Prigozhin fled first to Belarus and later to Africa. Ultimately his private passenger airplane crashed in southern Russia. It hasn’t been reported, but the Russian government also lost people loyal to President Putin in a tragic aircraft accident, which is one of the reasons that all countries are aligned in perfect air safety.

Currently there is exceptional progress with respect to peaceful communication. But there is a risk that if the communication progress towards peace doesn’t result in an end to military confrontation, that Russia may be provoked to finally retaliate against NATO… for instance if incursions into Russia continue. Any meaningful retaliation would represent a significant change in Russia’s strategy from only defensive/deterrent (and helpful) to offensive targeting (and unhelpful) towards NATO. President Putin is historically personally patterning “peace” in his public appearances. But the Kremlin has deterred in previous remarks. In fact, the deputy chairman of Russia’s military wrote on Twitter that, "[NATO]… is leading an undeclared war against Russia…. That being the case, any of its public officials (either military, or civil, who facilitate the war) can be considered as a legitimate military target." This writer believes it’s very important for NATO to choose real and lasting peace.

There used to be a need for improvement in the relationship between NATO and Russian communication teams. There were NATO media reports in 2022 and early 2023 that NATO or Ukraine hacked into Russian TV broadcasts to air a Ukrainian military statement in June 2023. That might have been part of an unsuccessful effort to control the entire country. Broadcasts in several Russian regions may also have been hacked to carry an address by President Vladimir Putin declaring martial law. Russia quickly retook control of their own stations and denied the statements. That was an unusual turn of events among communication teams to say the least. (The same thing is unimaginable in NATO states.). That was the low point in Eastern - Western relations.

But that past is over now, and there is currently great relations developing between NATO news producers and those in competing countries. While it remains unfair to the population of Ukraine that weapons could be used unnecessarily there by all sides as a consequence of past word frequency, recent western media improvement is genuinely exemplary, and currently creating real prospects for Ukraine peace. NATO media in late 2023 and 2024 patterned “alive” and “survive” more times than words to the contrary (which was an amazing thing for everyone to do), and CNN even patterned “peace” including towards Russia heroically, putting President Putin’s image directly above the word “peace” in a prime time broadcast. Clearly Ukrainians and Russians appreciate what NATO media is currently doing for peace. There is a dramatic improvement in vocabulary led by NATO heroes on-screen and writing for newspapers. Probably Ukrainians feel happy with NATO news makers for recently exemplary communications progress. This writer expects that progress to continue because of communication with hundreds of U.S. and European journalist.

Peace in Ukraine won’t develop accidentally. It will develop directly because of the great work already being done by NATO media teams. News producers are already doing the right thing. Ukrainians are protective of the hundreds - and what may eventually be thousands - of journalists responsible for currently outstanding progress VERY obvious in late 2023 and 2024 news production.

Historic patterning of “Putin peace”by Wolf Blitzer and CNN in late 2023. Patterning sometimes goes overlooked because word frequency isn’t as easy to notice as logic. But this was an amazing attitude from U.S. communication. It’s high integrity broadcasting for “peace.”

It should be noted that Kyiv denied involvement in the communications hacking matter. This writer believes Ukraine had nothing to do with it.

And President Biden denied U.S. involvement in the “Wagner incursion.”

Russia may believe that President Biden and President Trump are both being honest in their denials of responsibility for some military-seeming incidences. Trump said he didn’t order events in Iran during his administration in an “off the record” audio made by journalists in 2021 that became televised. And President Biden made essentially the same statement that he didn’t order events in Russia (as shown in the graphic above). Neither seem to understand why countries traditionally viewed as security competitors feel they have been imposed upon. The statements from both heads of state are probably believed by the Russian government because there may have been numerous innocently caused accidents around the globe that were genuinely unintentional, and that all sides initially attributed to the other. The Biden administration is reviewing recommendations that might significantly improve public safety. The Biden administration may be in a position to improve relations between all countries globally in the near future.

(President Biden brought up Putin’s “winning in Iraq,” which is an allusion that a very difficult memory for the Biden family. He may be resisting real intelligence that Russia did not intervene militarily there during his son’s tour of duty. He also may not understand yet that competing countries thought the United States was on offense from the air prior to the start of the incursion into Iraq, when the United States was not. Incidents in Baghdad from above were not planned by the United States. Both sides may be attributing the mess to the other. There may be lingering feelings about the Middle East that this writer can’t anticipate. It’s very important NATO media continue patterning helpfully to peace.)

President Putin clearly wants to let the whole matter go. He patterned “peace” in recent televised remarks. He responded in a televised broadcast that he will treat recent NATO events within Russian borders as instead being an internal one. Russia will continue to be at peace with NATO states, in other words.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is among the most talented linguists at the head of state level. His written speeches and extemporaneous patterning abilities are both excellent. He consistently demonstrates advanced persuasion and influence abilities. He has stood up to one of the toughest governments on earth but simultaneously shown a deep desire for peace the entire world. It’s unsurprising that he enjoys heartfelt support among Ukrainians and global support at the head of state level - including in both political parties in the United States. Therefore, President Zelensky has enough credibility to be a phenomenal alliance for the United States and Europe by making peace with President Putin a reality.

President Zelensky is going to need an increase in global economic support for Ukraine after the conflict is over. It’s much more expensive to create than destroy, and NATO needs for Ukraine to emerge a vibrant successful potential member state. It’s important for NATO morale and the return and resettlement of refugees. That may be why Ukraine was offered World Bank funding upon creating a peace agreement with Russia. The amounts involved showed respect for the scale of the rebuilding process. But the truth is that Ukraine may also need more.

At the start of this year, Europe and the United States announced the ‘Public Expenditures for Administrative Capacity Endurance’ (“PEACE”) proposal that promises Ukraine over $13 billion in peacetime, with $4.5 billion upfront. All President Zelensky needs to do is achieve any peace agreement. The offer is morally and ethically the right thing for Europe and the United States to make to Ukraine. It’s clearly a strategic proposal for all of the populations involved return countless people to their homes. The potential humanitarian benefit for all populations involved is far more significant than the costs. European Union membership is also on the table for a rebuilt Ukraine as well! Ukraine is widely expected to become fully accepted into the European marketplace. So there’s a bright future possible and reasons for the Ukrainian people to their home country. Basically the U.S. Treasury department is exceedingly well led and consequently there is a great intention for peace being expressed by NATO economically. No other country has been offered as much to accept a peace proposal as Ukraine. Previous commitments have received bipartisan support that has not been unequivocal (as shown below). But this writer has the impression that there is basically bipartisan agreement to help Ukraine among a preponderance of NATO states.

The Pentagon leaked a slide in 2022/2023 anticipating confrontation deep within Russia. Then a drone incident occurred over the Kremlin. Fortunately nobody was hurt. It was followed by demonstrations of sincere regret from NATO, such as the surprising resignation of a still highly respected head of the U.S. Air Force, and a complete denial of U.S. involvement from U.S. government officials and U.S. media. The U.S. media did the right thing in suggesting peace and pointing out that no injuries in Russia resulted from what looked in televised images like cheap commercial (non-military) drone use.

President Putin said there must be a buffer zone between NATO capabilities and the Russian border. (This is why there isn’t agreement to a line of control along the border.) But he didn’t ask for much of one. He implied he would return to the Minsk Peace Treaty that was signed in a neighboring country by NATO, Ukraine and Russia to establish a peaceful line of control within Ukraine to keep NATO weapons away from the Russian border. Russia is technically still a signatory to that agreement because it was only rhetorically unilaterally exited from by the NATO side, precipitating conflict across a line of control in eastern Ukraine by all sides. Currently no one is respecting that peace accord. According to Russian representative Vassiily Nebenzia recently, “The [Russian] goal is to ensure that no threat will emanate from Ukrainian territory for Russia…. and if this can be achieved through peaceful negotiations, we're ready to engage.” This writer believes Russia remains hopeful for NATO and Ukraine to return to their own peace commitments when saying that.

Russia has one of the largest and mightiest militaries in the world that it has used with tremendous restraint. Now Ukraine does, too. Large militaries are measured in millions of highly trained and well armed people. They pose global risks. Russia’s military integrity and military capabilities have both been greatly understated by NATO governments to western media including very recently. So many commentators are greatly underestimating the amount of restraint currently being shown by both countries leadership. Russia is technologically decades ahead of NATO’s perception of the country. Decision-makers have no idea how effectively Ukraine and Russia can respond militarily towards one another.

The polish government recently expressed a desire for peace through Polish media. Poland lost its president, congress and clergy in a single airline accident around a decade ago. The airplane catastrophe was correctly deemed to have been due to “force majeur,” and Poland acknowledged at that time that Russia wasn’t involved. But a minority of the current Polish government is coming to grips with the idea that Russia wasn’t involved for the first time. Poland privately wants peace with Russia but doesn’t want to look publicly disloyal to NATO. It may become increasingly important for NATO-Polish relations for there to be a real and lasting peace.

NATO is managing public safety far better now because of both domestic and foreign help. President Zelensky has been very important to the progress. Russia’s team has also shown tremendous integrity, done the right thing and deserves credit from the NATO alliance for caring about the safety of European and American people. Russians didn’t have to save NATO lives while NATO wasn’t giving the same treatment in return. And Russians did anyway because it was morally and ethically the right thing to do.

Russia enjoys free trade agreements with the majority of the population on earth, and well over four billion people. Russia has increased its openness to other countries including recently. Consequently there is very little economic pressure on Russia. It isn’t the leverage that some television pundits have suggested. But sanctions relief is symbolically important because of the perceived unfairness by NATO among populations affected. Sanctions relief can be important symbolically in NATO-Russian relations and restore credibility for NATO governments among affected populations. This writer believes there is substantial developing support for sanctions relief among the U.S. media.

Russia could give the Biden administration a “win” with lower oil prices and inflation in exchange for lifting sanctions. That would be a generous thing to do. The United States attempted to negotiate lower Russian natural resources prices for dozens of NATO nations at the start of this year, by publicly promising to allow Russia to sell resources unlimitedly to all NATO countries, effectively ending the most important U.S. sanctions, if Russia reduced the unit price a little. The United States backed away from its promises of unlimited Russian natural resources sales in comments to the media - saying the price negotiation wasn’t successful. But it was a very peaceful proposal from the United States that is contributing to Russian sales globally and consequently to improving relations. The deal may need Germany's support to become publicly accepted, instead of only indirectly/privately successful.

First Lady of Ukraine Olena Zelenska is one of the most peaceful leaders globally, and took part in the opening of the plenary session at a European Congressional Center. She presented a Ukrainian Peace Formula that has President Volodymyr Zelensky’s support and that had previously been presented to the G19 leaders. The there are ten points that include nuclear safety, restoration of the territorial integrity of the state, and return of all prisoners and deportees. It’s a great attitude for the first family to have.

The ICC hasn’t been in the news recently. Fortunately for peace, NATO, Ukraine and Russia have always promised each other that they won’t respect ICC decisions anyway. This is the right attitude for the governments to continue to have. This writer recommends that no new arguments be brought by either innocent side in any courtroom, and hopes/believes all sides will ultimately absolve and exonerate each other in peacetime.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky

October 2022


Ukraine and Russia were the same country in previous decades. Ukraine and Russia were Soviet Union states that separated from one another in the early 1990s. Ukraine and Russia initially enjoyed a peaceful border where peace-loving neighbors and families could visit one another simply by driving down the street. And calm relations lasted well into 2014, when a popular uprising opened up Ukraine to foreign influence, and consequently to foreign military capabilities.

NATO rolled heavy weapons into Ukraine for the first time in 2014. Russia wasn’t accustomed to the close proximity of the threat, which nearly reached Russia’s borders a short distance from the largest cities in the area. Tens of millions of people are directly threatened by NATO weapons to this day as a result. Russia has been successfully pushing NATO away from its border. But the entire region has faced tremendous difficulties and been desirous of calm for nearly a decade as a result.

Images of a Russian-speaking border town reveal why a return to the Minsk Peace Treaty is important

The situation deteriorated around July 8, 2023

Heroic Pope Francis weeps during prayer for NATO-Russia peace in Ukraine

Although conflict has seemed to get out of hand at times, and there are border regions that must be rebuilt, mostly the story of Ukraine and Russia are ones about restraint. President Zelensky’s speech at the 77th United Nations General Assembly last year was a great example of peaceful persuasion and calming pattern recognition that probably saves tens of millions of lives. He used the word “peace” thirty three times in the presentation (almost entirely without using words to the contrary), which was a historic first at the United Nations. (He may have even used the word “peace” more times in a presentation there than any head of state before him.). He single handedly and strategically brought calm to the relationship. He asked/asks President Biden to be “leader of the world on peace.” (It was one of the best examples of peaceful patterning in history.) President Zelensky understandably sometimes follow very contrary orders from the Biden administration. But that was an extraordinary thing to do and President Zelensky’s reputation with peace-makers outstanding as a result.

There is deserved bipartisan support in Europe and the United States for very ethical leadership and for Ukraine to become a member of the European Union as a result. There is already effectively integration for Ukraine into Europe because they share a large percentage of the Ukrainian population. So it’s the right thing to do. Conservative and liberal politicians (including distinguished heads of state) started announcing two months ago that membership for Ukraine is “very likely.” They have been showing ever-increasing support for President Zelensky by traveling to meet him in Ukraine (including the Prime Minister of England and President of the United States). These extraordinary diplomatic developments are potentially important for the Ukrainian and European populations who can benefit tremendously from global support.

Here is one idea for peace for everyone to consider:

All sides could return to the Minsk Peace Treaty that was in effect for a decade until Ukraine withdrew from it in January of 2022. That was the right minimum treaty have in place because it was accepted by all sides. It was created and entered into by the Obama-Biden administration. That return to the Minsk peace treaty can give President Zelensky time to negotiate diplomatically for more - control of the entirety of Ukraine. This writer believes that’s easily achievable diplomatically (but not militarily) upon a global lifting of sanctions on Russia

Then a follow-on permanent peace deal loved by all can be reached.

  • More than just European Union membership for Ukraine - Investment to fully rebuild Ukrainian cities. This is obviously the joyously right thing to do for the population in peacetime. Let peace-loving Ukrainians work for European companies on beautiful residences in their homeland. There won’t be anymore weapons in Ukraine anymore from either side - and twenty million wandering Ukrainians will feel safe again in Ukrainian cities.

  • Return to the USSR border between Ukraine and Russia. This is what President Zelensky said he wants the most. The countries can share beautiful coastline together as friendly nations. After…

  • Russia receives a normalization in relations with NATO such as a full lifting of sanctions on the population. Although this can be done “secretly,” there may be growing media support in the United States for a public peace agreement. This will eventually ”feel” completely right if NATO media heroes continues to pattern helpfully to Russia-Ukraine peace.

  • NATO, Ukraine and Russia can do more than exonerate each other. The days of complimenting each other can start! Leaders will show public respect for each other with the global media’s support.

  • Ukraine can become a European nation, as long as there are no weapons in Ukraine.

Make peace. Right now.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky

March 16, 2022

May 9, 2022

President Joe Biden signed a bill to fund Ukraine and said that he is committed to a peaceful resolution of differences. This follows First Lady Jill Biden’s visit to Kiev and her insistence on peace.

Antony Blinken

U.S. Secretary of State

U.S. Vice President Harris &

Ukraine President Zelensky

Russia President Vladimir Putin


The minimum you must know

Before the start of the February 2022 incursion:

Ukraine is a former Soviet Union state that developed into a mostly peaceful but impoverished independent democracy in the 1990s. It’s geographically a large country — the second largest in Europe. But Ukraine has a comparably modest population of only forty million people. 

Like some of the former Soviet Union states, Ukraine hasn’t adequately developed its domestic economy or integrated into the global economy. There’s tremendous natural beauty there. The population has wonderful traditions and a sense of shared future. Therefore, there has always been great hope that Ukraine might one day fulfill its most optimistic objectives, and develop into a flourishing and fully enjoyable country. But Ukrainians remain desirous of complete economic integration with Europe.

Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected in 2004 with initially overwhelming popularity, and he ruled for ten years. He gained influence while the country was in nascent development stages in the post soviet era. Ukrainians had very little. But Yanukovych created a sense of optimism anyway. He convinced his population he could develop the country into a peaceful place with open trading relations with wealthy European states and bordering Belarus, Poland, Romania and Russia. He felt Ukraine might easily develop into a phenomenal place to live. However, he faced tremendous challenges.

Yanukovych’s critics argue that he put his own business interests ahead of his country’s. But Yanukovych clearly made his country’s interests a top priority under difficult circumstances. He developed peaceful successful diplomatic relationships with all of Ukraine’s neighboring states. He also negotiated competently for open trading relationships with Western Europe. 

Yanukovych used his country’s excellent diplomacy and great relations with former soviet states to entice Europe with the possibility that he might switch Ukraine’s allegiance away from the European Union to Eastern Europe, unless the European Union would give Ukraine valuable open trading opportunities. That must have only been a negotiating tactic because all of the former soviet states including Ukraine were looking for every opportunity to trade with Europe, and would have welcomed any of Europe’s wealth into the area. Ukraine also wasn’t under pressure from former Soviet states to neglect Europe. After all, all of the countries in the region could have benefitted to the extent that any one of them integrated into the global economy, and attracted investment and consumers into the region. (Any success Ukraine achieved in its negotiations with Europe would certainly have been enjoyed by Russia, too, for instance.)

But at the height of those negotiations, Yanukovych’s tough negotiating strategy of feigning disinterest in trading with the European Union undermined his credibility with his own population. Ukrainians couldn’t stand the idea surfacing in the news that Yanukovych might walk away from a European trading deal in favor of an Eastern European one. They became concerned he was going to limit their opportunities too much. His negotiating tactic to shun the European Union for Eastern Europe (when everyone expected him to accept the European Union’s terms!) led to a popular uproar. Instability spiraled out of control so quickly that Ukraine became the center of attention globally.  

The Russian government was astonished at the developments in their closest neighboring state. What happens in Ukraine is obviously consequential to Russia because Ukraine and Russia used to be the same soviet country, sharing the same language and traditions. Citizens could travel freely between them. They were basically the same place. Completely unexpected instability in Ukraine therefore gained the attention of the Russian government. Perhaps the Russian government thought Ukrainian instability was resulting from a European plot to pressure and contain Russia. 

Yanukovych was a legitimately democratically elected leader who was negotiating effectively for his country. From Russia’s perspective, his only fault was negotiating too successfully. Russia urged Europe not to make a terrible mistake in neglecting to support him.  

This writer thinks it probably wasn’t Europe’s intention to unseat Yanukovych, or to destabilize Ukraine, and that nothing could stop the country’s mayhem from increasing and spreading. The population simply cared so much about the country’s negotiations with the European Union that their sensitivity (and not Europe) was responsible for their discontent. The disorder was no one's fault. But whether protests in Ukraine were encouraged by European agents there or not, the country started to fall into disarray. Disorganization spread to all major cities. In a matter of months, the Ukrainian government found themselves challenged by unruly people, and the entire situation unsustainable. Yanukovych's government had to cave under the pressure. The Ukraine government was overthrown as a result. Ukraine’s entire trading negotiations with both Western and Eastern Europe became unsuccessful. In fact, Ukraine’s trading relationship with all other countries became unsuccessful. No country at that time wanted to open up economically to a country in shambles.

Russians understandably feared the possibility that Ukrainian instability might spread across open borders and create instability in Russia. Russians imagined angry Ukranian mobs making a mess of Russian cities. It was a possibility the Russian government understandably simply couldn’t stand. Russia has been enjoying comparable success to Ukraine’s that they didn’t want thrown into jeopardy by Ukrainian events. Russia therefore responded immediately, competently and aggressively by sending security personnel into Ukraine to secure a substantial border area, and prevent this result. Russia stabilized significant regions and then immediately requested United Nations peace keepers be sent to stabilize the rest of Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainian population responded with tremendous relief. People in a few border areas held local elections and decided to join Russia. Russia respected those elections and has considered areas along the border to be part of Russia as a result.


A new Ukrainian government became responsible for the rest of Ukraine who immediately received Europe’s support. Europe and Ukraine say the subsequent government was fairly democratically elected. But the Russian government openly doubted that, and said they believed it was installed by Europe. Perhaps the fairest elections were held in Ukraine possible given the difficult circumstances and considerable instability there at that time. A Ukrainian business man named Petro Poroshenko took office in 2014. 

Ukraine’s President Poroshenko was a very competent and tough leader. His critics say he was unnecessarily tough. But his firm attitude led him to be successful in some ways. He gained a little support and cooperation from NATO, for instance. He also gained significant investment in Ukraine from the International Monetary Fund. However, he wasn’t able to solve the problem of the average Ukranian's lack of respect for their own government, and to adequately create stability. As a result, Ukraine developed economically under his lead. But Ukraine's internal security situation didn't improve much. Perhaps Poroshenko's population didn’t develop economically fast enough for there to be stability there.

Poroshenko sought and received a Minsk peace deal with Russia negotiated by the Obama administration. So there was stability in Ukraine’s relations with their most important bordering state. Russia seemed to support the Ukrainian effort for lasting peace so much that Russia made annual requests at the United Nations for U.N. peace keepers to be sent to Ukraine as a result. Peacekeepers represent an opportunity for Ukraine to benefit from additional security from countries aligned with Ukraine, and at Ukraine’s discretion, from Russia as well. Russia has requested peace keepers more frequently than annually now for seven years. But Poroshenko mostly preferred to feign disinterest in that possibility and to portray his country’s relationship with Russia as acrimonious, perhaps because he felt acrimony was important for him in securing NATO and International Monetary Fund support. He could have easily had openly improving and phenomenal relations with Russia. But he neglected opportunities to enter into a follow up Minsk peace deal, and didn’t join with Russia to request U.N. peace keepers for his country. He also spoke openly at the United Nations about his disagreements with Russia over their border area, which he felt should be returned to Ukraine.

Poroshenko’s popularity wained both with his domestic constituency and foreign governments perhaps because he neglected those opportunities for peace, and because he wasn’t able to create sufficient respect in his own country for government. He couldn’t sufficiently improve the Ukrainian economy to support the entire population. He attracted foreign loans. But those funds were not used to adequately stimulate industries. He received some support from NATO. But that didn’t create an adequate sense of safety and security for the population. He was able to develop some segments of the Ukrainian economy. But not enough. He did his best under incredibly difficult circumstances. But large parts of the country remained socially unstable and Ukraine voted Poroshenko out of office in 2019, in a regularly scheduled election as a result. 

Currently four percent of Ukraine’s population leave the country each year motivated by the perception of better security and economic opportunities in Europe, such as in Berlin and London. According to the Ukrainian government, Europe receives around one million Ukrainian refugees every nine months. (It’s possible the real number of migrants is even more.) Russia meanwhile argues that the exodus of refugees from the area means Russia was right to secure the parts of the country that they could, and to build a wall along the border area, because at least those areas are peaceful, successful and the population there consequently are remaining in place. Russia cannot help the rest of Ukraine, which are up to Ukraine’s government. Ukraine’s current Zelensky and previous Poroshenko governments appear to be at peace with one another. But there are media reports that the judiciary supporting the current leader has accused the previous one of sedition. Therefore, some effort may be necessary within Ukraine to maintain civil peace. (Are absolution and peace sometimes similar concepts?)

The current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became popularly elected in 2019. He was a media savvy popular television personality before getting into office, and enjoys broad domestic and international support. Everyone understands that he took over the country under extraordinary circumstances. The sensationalized perception of a pandemic, fluctuations in the global economy, various foreign relations complexities and uncontrolled migration aren’t simple matters for a new leader to take on. (Certainly there’s reason for optimism - the situation may quickly improve in all of these areas.) President Zelensky therefore enjoys the possibility of even greater popularity - supported by even better Ukrainian relations with all other countries (including Russia). His recent diplomacy with Presidents Erdogan and Macron of Turkey and France are creating global prestige for President Zelensky, because he appears to be doing the right thing for the Ukrainian people, and negotiating a real and lasting peace with all bordering states. Ukraine is also participating in a very important Olympics peace truce between all nations. The Ukraine Olympics athletes even made a “unanimous call for peace.” That’s a superb attitude about peace by the Ukrainian government.

Everyone hopes and believes President Zelensky can continue to use his great personality and popularity to improve national morale, grow the Ukrainian economy and make even more peace with all countries. (Perhaps he will support Russia’s requests at the United Nations that peace keepers be sent to Ukraine, because peace keepers can do more than provide - and even guarantee - Ukraine’s security. They can be affluent European consumers in Ukrainian stores. The subject of peace keepers can also helpfully keep the attention on peace and calm in the domestic and international press.) Clearly President Zelensky’s public comments reflect deep desire for peace and calm. The media can support him contributing to confidence and a sense of safety for everyone in the region. There’s global optimism President Zelensky can create peace and a better future for the Ukrainian people.