ANALYSIS: The West should heed Russian-Ukrainian relations

I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis--Ukraine is geographically and ideologically important, and expediting the membership process of Ukraine to Nato will improve not only the development of a vibrant democracy in Ukraine, but also bring Ukraine closer politically and economically to the West, which is what many Ukrainians strive for. Your discussion of Russian schoolchildren being taught that Kyiv [Ukrainian spelling] is the mother of all Russian cities is very true--and the lingering effects of such an education can be seen in Anne Barnard's article in the New York Times (“Slavic Rivals Embroiled in Church Rift,” The New York Times, 30 July 2008), in which Svetlana Dyomena of Moscow asked, “How can Ukraine not be part of Russia?” continuing, “We have a common faith, a common history…one language, one religion, even one cuisine." Many Russians, and some Ukrainians (especially in the East) feel that Ukraine and Russia are not and should not be separate nations. It's interesting that Kissinger visited Russia and decided that Ukraine's membership process should be postponed--he should think of these two countries separately instead of basing the future of one on the future of the other. Furthermore, it's surprising that Kissinger doesn't know that postponing Ukraine's membership plan most definitely will NOT result in burgeoning democracy in Russia--it will only make Russia feel more and more like the controlling geopolitical Rodyna (motherland) that it has been for centuries and that Russians want their country to continue to be. Russia should not be allowed to control the future of former Soviet republics forever and it's already been 17 years. Enough is enough.