I'm not entirely clear on what you're proposing, but the idea that in order to have a stable, secure nation they must reach some kind of overwhelming consensus is strange. Real democracies don't typically do that. Fake democracies like Russia do.
People must unite in their determination to be free from oppression as their first priority. And they need to hold onto that determination as they establish their methods of governing after they remove the oppressors. Until they do this, they are not likely to succeed, and our meddling doesn't change that. Because even if the oppressors are removed from power, a new batch will immediately rise up from within to take their place, if they can.
You can't just want freedom, and expect it to show up automatically after the overthrow. You have to KEEP fighting for it, to establish it in the gap left behind by the overthrow, and keep fighting thereafter to keep the would-be dictators from arising and taking over, again.
My point is that freedom, justice and opportunity require constant effort because the 'enemy' of these is all around us. And always AMONG us.
The United States keeps getting caught up in these useless struggles in other nations because we're forever trying to establish a freedom that they aren't really willing to fight to establish and keep. And ultimately, no one else can do it for them.
If the people of the Ukraine want freedom and democracy, they need to unite in that cause, FIRST. And then they need to keep that priority when it comes time to set of a new government. It's not rocket science. Freedom requires sacrifice. If they aren't willing to pay the price, they aren't going to have it, or keep it. That's just the way it is.
And we'd better relearn that lesson, ourselves, very soon, or we aren't going to have it anymore, either.
They are demanding it already, in large numbers.
If they really want it, nothing will stop them. Because the oppressors will always be outnumbered.
I'm not sure that's true, but I think he has larger responsibilities than that if he wants to be seen as a world leader, which he clearly has in the past. He's already gotten Russia booted from the G8. I don't think it's appropriate to look at the actions of nations as some sort of amoral power game where they are fully justified in any actions they take by appealing to what is good for their countries.
The question is, is he representing the people of Russia, or not? If he is, then he's doing his job.