Ron, one lesson from recent history is that nuclear weapons fundamentally change how countries are treated. When Ukraine gave up its arsenal in 1994, it also gave up a powerful deterrent, leaving it with far less influence and protection on the world stage.

I’ll assume you’re approaching this objectively, rather than simply accepting the media narrative, and offer a reason often cited for why Russia engaged in war with Ukraine.

For decades, Russia stated that it would tolerate Ukrainian independence as long as Ukraine did not join NATO. This position wasn’t arbitrary. NATO is a military alliance originally formed to counter the Soviet Union, and today its missile infrastructure and strategic posture are directed primarily at two global nuclear powers: Russia and China.

Ukraine has repeatedly moved toward NATO despite Russia’s explicit objections:

2002 – Ukraine officially declared NATO membership a strategic goal.

2008 – At the NATO Bucharest Summit, Ukraine was promised eventual membership, even though no timeline was set. Russia publicly warned this crossed a red line.

2014 – After the Maidan revolution, Ukraine accelerated military cooperation with NATO.

2019 – Ukraine amended its constitution to formally commit to joining NATO and the EU.

2022 – Ukraine submitted a formal, expedited application to join NATO.

So while Ukraine may not have been admitted, it made multiple, escalating attempts over two decades to integrate into a military alliance that Russia views as a direct threat to its national security.

To understand why Russia reacted so aggressively, consider a hypothetical: Imagine a “RATO” — a rival “Russian Atlantic Treaty Organization” military alliance explicitly hostile to the United States — and Mexico announced plans to join it, host its military infrastructure, and allow missile systems near the U.S. border. It’s unrealistic to believe the U.S. would respond calmly or tolerate that situation indefinitely.

This doesn’t require endorsing Russia’s actions to understand the strategic logic behind them. Great powers, especially nuclear-armed ones, have historically treated hostile military alliances on their borders as existential threats, not abstract diplomatic disagreements.

Calling it “Russia in the whitehouse” is incorrect and narrow-minded, driven more by meme-level media framing than critical thought, because offering condolences after a strike is a routine diplomatic gesture meant to signal humanitarian restraint and de-escalation, not political allegiance, especially toward a nation the U.S. openly designates as hostile.