Completely absent in any of the governmental efforts for the last three and a half years to end the war on Ukraine is the issue of self-determination as it relates concretely to where the on-the-ground war and the huge percentage of casualties are primarily happening.

The principle of nations having the right to make decisions about the form and nature of their governments goes back over 100 years and has long been upheld by the United Nations and most of the world’s governments.

When it comes to the Russia/Ukraine war this principle clearly applies to Ukraine’s efforts to defend its territory, economy and form of government from Russia’s 2022 military invasion, intended to extinguish Ukraine as a self-determining country.

But so far, from neither the United Nations nor any other country, has the concept of self-determination been applied to the reality that it is in eastern Ukraine, the four provinces of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, where the path to a just and peaceful end to this terrible war lies. Following a ceasefire and other necessary steps to prepare for them, there should be binding referendums under United Nations supervision so that each of these four provinces can decide whether they want to be part of Russia or part of Ukraine.

It would be essential that these referendums be under the auspices of a neutral entity, which is why the United Nations is the logical choice.

Is this point of view pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian? It seems to me it is neither. Neither side wants to risk losing territory it considers to be its own via a popular vote which would put the stamp of political legitimacy on the results. Of course, the alternative seems to be a continuation for years if not decades of destructive and dangerous military conflict, tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of additional deaths.

Would the implementation of such a deal set a precedent for situations elsewhere in the world where there is conflict over territory between more-or-less distinct peoples? It probably would, but is such a precedent a bad thing? In a world where democracy is under threat by fascists and authoritarians, a successful application of the democratic principle of self-determination would be a ray of light, a hopeful development.

Is there an alternative that is more just, more likely of success, more likely to end this brutal, destructive and dangerous war and allow for positive economic and social rebuilding? That must be the objective.

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21^st Century Revolution, both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.

Ever since Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine I’ve been thinking about the issue of the right of nations to self-determination. I’ve done so because some on the Left, since that war began, have been essentially defending the Putin government’s invasion. They have done so on the grounds that Russia had legitimate fears of the NATO military alliance which, after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, has been steadily growing as East European governments formerly within the USSR orbit have joined it.

I agree that this is a real issue. It is understandable that Russia would fear a Ukraine which joined NATO given that it is right next to Russia. It’s why President John Kennedy took action in 1961 when Soviet missiles were detected by US intelligence agencies in Cuba, 90 miles from the state of Florida.

But what Russia’s military has done to Ukraine since its invasion almost three years ago, with at least 50,000 soldiers killed and upwards of 350,000 wounded, massive damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure and over 12,000 civilians killed, cannot be justified as in any way a proportionate response to NATO’s maneuverings. It has also been devastating for Russian soldiers forced to fight, with roughly twice the number of casualties as Ukraine.

Ukraine has the right to national self-determination. So do Palestinians. So do Panama and Greenland.

There are some who oppose US military support of Ukraine because they are pacifists who oppose all war. This is understandable, though as a person committed to nonviolence but not a pacifist, it is hard to see how pacifist tactics in the face of Russia’s overt attempt three years ago to take over Ukraine could have prevented that takeover.

The others on the Left who have been explicitly or implicitly supportive of Russia’s invasion have generally done so because, for them, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Their enemy, and mine too, is a United States government which has a military budget approaching a trillion dollars a year, with 700 military bases in 100 countries around the world. For comparison, Russia has 35 military bases outside of Russia, most of them in former USSR countries, and China has five.

Since the end of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, that far-flung military has been a key part of US efforts to prevent popular movements from gaining power when those movements are attempting to create governments primarily about the raising up of the living standards of their people, no longer under the thumb of US and European mega-corporations. These movements have in the past and continue today to fight for the right of oppressed nations to throw off that oppression and to determine for themselves what form of government they want.

The Palestine/Israel reality is more complex, but the bottom line is that Israel’s continued and escalating occupation of the West Bank and its dominance over “open air prison” and now devastated Gaza is clearly a blatant and now-genocidal violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination. This is recognized by the vast majority of the world’s nations.

And Panama and Greenland? Would-be dictator Trump’s potentially serious efforts to dominate them on behalf of the economic interests of him and his billionaire oligarch buddies would be laughable if he hadn’t already shown his disregard for anything other than what benefits him and his class.

US imperialism beyond the land which is now the continental United States, the 48 states, began about 125 years ago with the “Spanish-American war.” The US forcibly took control of Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines away from imperial Spain. In response a broadly-based Anti-Imperialist League was formed which included people like Mark Twain and Samuel Gompers. Though it didn’t prevent the beginnings of US imperialism, it is important that it existed if only to remind those of us living today that this is also part of US history.

A progressive, mass-based, growing Left, our movement of movements, must stand with people around the world fighting for justice and their right to decide what form of democratic government they want. Only a worldwide movement for justice, democracy and a healthy natural environment can defeat the corporatists and neo-fascists who will literally devastate human societies and ecosystems worldwide if not removed from power.

Ted Glick has been a progressive activist and organizer since 1968. He is the author of the recently published books, Burglar for Peace and 21^st Century Revolution, both available at https://pmpress.org . More info can be found at https://tedglick.com.