>> 1) The Right Sector, Azov Battallion, Dnipro and others, which were armed and trained by the CIA, as well as NATO members and allies (e.g. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2018-07-09/ty-article/ri...)

The linked article says the opposite. I knew I was in for a treat when I saw the title: "Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine". Representatives of Ukraine's air force met with Israeli military electronics company Elbit to talk about upgrading Ukrainian air defense systems. Some nutjob used that as an example in his petition to argue that "Israel arms Nazis". Amusing.

>> 2) The rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, made up of local militias. They wished Donetsk and Luhansk regions to be absorbed by Russia early on, but Russia refused and told them to deal with Kyiv. The Minsk II agreements had as their aim guaranteeing a degree of autonomy WITHIN Ukraine, and that's what Russia wanted. Strelkov reports being disappointed by that.

Russian invasion of Crimea took Ukraine by surprise and allowed Russia to make fast progress. Russia failed to repeat the same trick in Donbas, because Ukraine recovered from surprise, put up fierce resistance, Russian progress stalled, and it became a frozen conflict until Russia invaded with a much larger force in 2022. They miscalculated again, but nevertheless continued with the official annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk into Russia despite never controlling the full extent of the territory they annexed (eg Zaporizhzhia). The purpose of this step was to declare those territories as "Russia proper" and make nuclear threats prior to Ukraine's 2022 summer offensive. Russian surprise retreat from Kherson (also annexed) undermined those threats and showed how hollow they were.

As to "rebels", there is no reason to speak them of as of an independent entity. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that this was merely a Russian invasion force without proper insignia.

>> In short, non-state actors formed paramilitary groups, one side received support from Russia and the other side received support from US, UK and other NATO members. Do you understand what I'm talking about?

Yes, I understand why you are calling this a proxy war. In your view, this war has two sides, "rebels" (supported by Russia) and "Ukrainian Nazis" (supported by the US). The trouble is that neither is true.

>> By that standard, the Kingdom of Hawaii never joined the USA in the first place

"By that standard" is how all international organizations treat Latvia. After Latvia restored independence, it resumed relations with other countries and organizations from where they were halted by Russians in 1940.

Regarding Hawaii, I am not well enough read to comment on anything really, but as far as I know, the US government has recognized the fact that Hawaii was illegally occupied and annexed into the US. Russia refuses to admit the illegal occupation of Latvia. From what I've read, native hawaiians can freely work on restoring their independence and no-one is locking them up in labor camps for promoting the idea. Latvians did not have this luxury. The US government is far more open to Hawaiian independence than the USSR ever was to Latvian independence.

The main obstacles to Hawaiian independence seem internal. Latvia had a government in exile holding up state continuity. There was never any doubt who represented the legitimate government of Latvia. Latvia also had clearly defined citizens (all people who held citizenship at the start of occupation in 1940 + their direct descendants), whereas native hawaiians are having hard time agreeing who belongs to native hawaiians and who doesn't.

This highlights why Russians tried to murder every single member of every pre-war Latvian government (few were lucky enough to escape to exile in time), and why they brought in colonists to replace Latvian population, so there would be no Latvian government and no people for them to represent. In Latvia, the process ran for 50 years and was barely reversed. In Hawaii, the process has run for more than twice as long, and it remains to be seen if the situation is salvageable.

>> What makes a government fake? History is written by the winners, but if a government allows people to elect their representatives, then it has some legitimacy.

Elections are indeed a good indicator. Latvian SSR never had free elections (except at the very end, when Latvians immediately voted for candidates who would dissolve it). Throughout its 50 year history, only a single party was allowed, the Communist Party of Latvia, a satellite branch of the Communist Party of the USSR. Elections saw 100% participation and the sole party "won" with 100% of votes. They didn't even bother to make it look convincing.

>> So yes, I understand the wish to be politically sovereign, but the majority of civilians have other priorities and frankly I think being part of the same federation, (USA, USSR, etc.) is far better and more stable and peaceful for them, than all this endless fighting and war.

The Soviet occupation of Latvia was not stable, peaceful nor prosperous. It began to crumble as soon as the USSR stopped shipping dissenters to labor camps, and the well-being of Latvians has skyrocketed since then. By far the largest threat to Latvian culture and the well-being of Latvians is another Russian invasion. Given their history with Russian "security concerns" and how appeasement in 1939-1940 led to 50-year occupation of Latvia and countless crimes against humanity, they have no reason to take seriously your recommendations to repeat the same mistake twice.