Awesome post and welcome to the discussion!
Your maps illustrate Russian aggression over the centuries... whether seeking warm water ports or simply territorial aggression... Finland, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia know all about Russian intentions.
You mentioned Belarus, Uzbekistan, or Tajikistan... none of these countries are trying to exit the Russian sphere of influence. All of those countries have dictators sympathetic to Russia... they are not comparable to Ukraine.
Regarding NATO provocation... if provocation includes accepting countries into the NATO protected umbrella then I agree... Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia and later Finland and Sweden are provocateurs.
You fail to mention the security assurance from the West in exchange for returning nuclear warheads, missiles, tanks, warships to Russia in exchange for security from Russian aggression. In 1991... Ukraine was in possession of the THIRD LARGEST NUCLEAR ARSENAL ON EARTH.
The gave them up for peace and security... this very simply a country that wants to escape the Russian sphere of influence.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trilateral-process-the-united-states-ukraine-russia-and-nuclear-weapons/
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal on its territory. When Ukrainian-Russian negotiations on removing these weapons from Ukraine appeared to break down in September 1993, the U.S. government engaged in a trilateral process with Ukraine and Russia. The result was the Trilateral Statement, signed in January 1994, under which Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear warheads to Russia for elimination. In return, Ukraine received security assurances from the United States, Russia and Britain; compensation for the economic value of the highly-enriched uranium in the warheads (which could be blended down and converted into fuel for nuclear reactors); and assistance from the United States in dismantling the missiles, missile silos, bombers and nuclear infrastructure on its territory.
Haha, I like my European History, and lived in the Nordic countries for a period of time.
Right my point with those 3 countries is that we are certainly “okay” with leaving some countries to be. I’m not sure the same could have been said in 1950. I think the states has declined, maybe minimally, as the world police. It feels much more late cold war, in that there are clearly “sides” now.
From the Russian perspective, the nuclear agreement with Ukraine is irrelevant. The only reason Ukraine, Kazakstan, and other former USSR countries have nukes was because of the Russians. They also have this same perspective with many of their old USSR “assets” if you will. As I’m sure it doesn’t need to be repeated, but when the USSR fell, things weren’t organized. Things did not happen maybe how they should have. (AKA WW1). Germany was forced to disarm their naval fleet, which was arguably the second most powerful fleet at the time. We all know how that story ends, and I think Russia has a very similar juxtaposition now. They feel as though they got the short end of things, and are looking to “make things right.”
I completely disagree with that stance, and I understand the USA’s willingness to intervene. However, the issue is very fundamental to Russia. Yes they have of course been territorial aggressors in the past, but Russia/USSR/Tsar have all been focused on power, and that power (for the last 500 years) has been measured through your navy/trade network. Russia has been a joke with that stuff, up until the Cold War. They’ll never relinquish what took their country hundreds of years to achieve.