whYNOT

The Rand statement - inapplicable. Russia is not a "dictatorship". Autocratic, yes.
"The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches".
Wiki:
The politics of Russia take place in the framework of the federal semi-presidential republic of Russia. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament's approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Russia has seen serious challenges in its efforts to forge a political system to follow nearly seventy-five years of Soviet governance. For instance, leading figures in the legislative and executive branches have put forth opposing views of Russia's political direction and the governmental instruments that should be used to follow it. That conflict reached a climax in September and October 1993, when President Boris Yeltsin used military force to dissolve the parliament and called for new legislative elections (see Russian constitutional crisis of 1993). This event marked the end of Russia's first constitutional period, which was defined by the much-amended constitution adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in 1978. A new constitution, creating a strong presidency, was approved by referendum in December 1993.

I'd like you to argue this "fact".
Merkel confirmed the suspicions first admitted by Poroshenko, but she is much more credible than he. The total facade exposed, that was Minsk, was conducted in order for Ukraine "to buy time", militarize its army with NATO and UK assistance, with the aim of eradicating the Donbas people, they who were honest signatories to the insincere accords, looking to cease hostilities and gain some autonomy. 
By Ukraine's continuing aggression assaulting the towns, and certain, future aggression, the West got the war they wanted and could have avoided; or does anyone think NATO believed that Putin would have held off and sat on his hands, while Russian-Ukrainians in Donetsk and Luhansk were being wiped out? 
NATO (MI6, CIA, etc.) aren't stupid people.
So Merkel inadvertently (or maybe deliberately) has vindicated Putin completely. Ukraine together with NATO, indeed posed "an existential threat": first to the Ukraine-Russians and second to Russia.
Since they could not have acted independently of the EU, UK and USA, she and Hollande would have been quietly told to carry on the fake negotiations as if in good faith.
"Unprovoked and unjustified invasion"? Premeditated, media/PR fluff to delegitimize Putin from the outset. Putin had every moral right to invade -- in self-defense. That he held off until this stage, was clearly because he was tricked, he seemingly still counted upon Kyiv to implement Minsk, perhaps waiting to see if the new guy Zelensky would fullfil his election promises. While in the interim Kyiv were using the time preparing for war.
So the cynical warmongers got the war you wished for, applauding Ukrainians (to their destruction)--but it's not working out as planned to defeat Russia, the saving-face and recriminations and self-justifications will be rampant.

Note the demand to rush to judgment. While evidence is still coming in - against the backdrop of major deception, obfuscation and disinformation - this is a complex evaluation to make, while early estimates and suspicions are now being confirmed. I have gone further than the simplistic, preconceptual, moralizing I hear from you.
I have categorically criticized NATO's irrational expansion and plans to expand further and the outside meddling in Ukraine politics to establish a regime change and foreign efforts to enlarge and strengthen the military in several recent years (for an unstated, but self-evident reason)-- and presently.
I ventured this war was premeditated by the West, a trap set for Russia, to be fought and suffered by Ukrainians - sacrificially of them. Confirmation is emerging of this.
I've shown repeatedly that Ukraine's social and legalized ill-treatment of the 'untermensch' Russian-Ukrainians, was tribalist-racist (apartheid, in practice); and then Kyiv's lengthy military attack on the Eastern breakaway civilians, flouted the ceasefire agreement and political solution, is absolutely immoral - and illegal. By their aggressive acts and from reports of brutality, Kyiv fully deserved to lose the loyalty of the Donbas, and will deserve to lose those territories . 
The interventions in and sabotages by western politicians of peace negotiations and prior Minsk accords, were viciously immoral.
I have maintained that Putin appeared alone in seeking a peaceful resolution, pre-invasion and after.
As for the West self-sacrificing for many years to come its economies, etc., etc., "in solidarity" or whatever 'with Ukraine' by their intention of weakening Russia's economy at all costs, no Objectivist needs to be told how immoral that is. Those governments and leaders deserve whatever they get, but as usual it's their (compliant)  people who will pay.
The entire episode has been sacrificial, of physical lives and human thriving, it seems you lot cannot grasp that altruism has been the ruling doctrine.
On balance Putin comes out much more rational, valuing and protective of his country than the aggregate of irrational Western leaders 'selflessly' willing to damage their own nations, and possibly have their citizens killed. For a conflict they could have averted.
As for those military experts who promised a glorious victory over Russia, I don't know if they are inept or corrupt. They and the pet media and Zelensky's regime who enhanced that folly and gave Ukrainian soldiers false encouragement to be killed in droves, have blood on their hands.
All this was coming down the road, foreseeable by many thinkers pre-2022, (even to a non-expert like me in Feb) which is why the first action (by a moral western leadership) -should- have been concerted efforts to diplomatically, ease tensions, sort out differences and find a peaceful outcome within the Minsk format. They didn't - that tells critical thinkers all they need to know about Western motives and moral character.
Where is your moral evaluation? Try to leave aside your feelings and avoid your normal nit picks.
 

What moral justice here boils down to: who wanted the confrontation more?
Who actually plotted and anticipated this war the most?
Who ¬needed¬ it most? Who stood to gain the most (long term)? Only superficially, it looked like and the world was assured, it was Russia, taken by all as "the given". But logically things didn't add up.
For one, who was constantly open to talks the most, from February on? Who most valued the preservation of lives?
As evidence that contradicts the gargantuan propaganda machine designed to conceal it, and motives and intentions are unashamedly confessed by the prime actors and revealed by whistleblowers, honest reporters and the like, that balance will shift. 
Right now it is weighing against the Western-plus -Ukraine consortium since anyone can deduce that the internal and external Ukraine situation was being engineered for one purpose - to leave Putin few options but to wage war.
Committed to one, by his own publicized "red lines".
The strengthened and enlarged UAF would do the rest, presumably, and then 'victory over Russia and defeat of Putin' -- alternately, both Armies, countries, economies and governments being badly weakened in a prolonged conflict and stalemate--either outcome apparently, equally acceptable...
We will soon see plainly whose were the immoral actions. 
 

Et tu, Angela.
And to think I had doubts about the sincerity of Putin's motives at Minsk.
Merkel admits her involvement in the Minsk agreements were only meant to gain time for Kyiv to militarize for a confrontation with Donbass and Russia. Ex President Poroshenko boasted the identical ploy some months ago.
Which leaves no one except the Donbass leaders and Putin as good faith actors in Minsk. Another piece in the jigsaw puzzle falls into place. Wait long enough, these duplicitous masquerades are exposed by the virtue-signalers themselves, looking for public appreciation. (I'm losing any regard I had for Merkel. Another one playing with empty promises while people's lives were at stake) .
Note: This was 2014, they were already worried about an invasion back then. That settles the lie about the "unexpected, shocking invasion" this year.
https://www.rt.com/russia/567873-zakharova-merkel-minsk-agreements/

Quite right. I can't imagine any of this without NATO's dominant presence. It takes two to tango. Rather than risk a face to face confrontation that would be highly dangerous, Ukraine provided the perfect foil, the place where Putin drew his 'red line' and could be counted on to react.
Where NATO could fight it out at second-hand, by (conventional) proxy warfare. I estimate NATO miscalculated, over-escalated and have dug themselves in too deep and are finding it hard to back out now, without the 'victory' they predicted. 
You only have to read the 'play book' provided by the RandCorp think tank in 2015. Essential reading, you can look it up. Their premise: Russia is a "US peer competitor"...
"Over-extending and Unbalancing Russia"
Foreword:
"Despite these vulnerabilities and anxieties, Russia
remains a powerful country that still manages to
be a U.S. peer competitor in a few key domains.
Recognizing that some level of competition with
Russia is inevitable, RAND researchers conducted
a qualitative assessment of “cost-imposing options”
that could unbalance and overextend Russia".

It shows that the Bot part of this propaganda campaign was already in place, premeditated and prepared--for when the provoked invasion would happen.
What they'd call in law, circumstantial evidence.

To those who think this war wasn't premeditated. "In that first day of the war..."
"The published data shows that in the first week of the Ukraine-Russia war there was a huge mass of pro-Ukrainian hashtag bot activity. Approximately 3.5 million tweets using the hashtag #IStandWithUkraine were sent by bots in that first week. 
In fact, it was like someone had flicked a switch, when at the start of the war on 24 February, pro-Ukraine bot activity suddenly burst into life. In that first day of the war the #IStandWithUkraine hashtag was used in as many as 38,000 tweets each hour, rising to 50,000 tweets an hour by day three of the war". 
https://declassifiedaus.org/2022/11/03/strongmassive-anti-russian-bot-army-exposed-by-australian-researchers-strong/

I am stating that Russia has the right to self-defense like any nation. A principled thinker and/or nation, will not assert "for me but not for thee".
I surely do not have to repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, that NATO encroachment, the outside militarizing of Ukraine, the outside meddling in its politics, an illegal and continuing Ukraine war against a portion of citizens based upon their ethnicity - a CIVIL war turned a blind eye to by the West - can NEVER have been committed innocently, arbitrarily, nor purposelessly. 
A child could see that Russia was the target all along. Perhaps Putin couldn't see this ...
Like this other dude you want an easy answer, categorically condemning Russia: Objectivists, in line with the self-righteous and warmongering neocons and most (woke) Leftists.
But. This moral judgment is not open and shut, 'revealed knowledge', that intrinsicists yearn for,  it's complex.
The collective West has acted immorally; and Putin has been immoral but not "unprovoked", as proven. 
Such clearly deliberate ¬provocation¬ by the self-same West, is only one reason why its acts were immoral.
In short, they wanted confrontation with Russia. With sanctions and all, this war was to be the final weakening and dismantling of Russia.
More - "a proxy war". To exploit Ukraine's location and Ukrainian Russophobia to the West's ends - using and encouraging Ukrainians to fight on their behalf (and to hell with peace treaties) while their country gets "wrecked", which the West could not legally do themselves or (rightly) have not wished to lose their own soldiers in - is unbelievably callous and cynical and sacrificially immoral. 
You fight your own battles, take your own licks - or else don't take on any non-self-defensive war.
 

Well, this returns to Mearsheimer and others. At that top level of international relations: "Who you gonna call"? 
9-1-1 isn't picking up. 
"I had this signed or verbally agreed upon peace treaty - or trade contract, etc.  - and xyz has broken their side of the deal". What then?
As exists I suggest  ¬a subjective¬ "rules-based order" (as it is called) laid down and enforced by the greatest power/s, you as another and lesser nation and leader may often receive a moral and just dispensation for your problems.
But not always, when there is a conflict of interests, where your beef lies specifically WITH one or more of those great powers themselves, is it not possible they will rule against you to serve their interests?
The previous/present "rules-based order" I suggest was premised on "might is right": the strong are the good, by definition and necessity - our rules and our judgment are final and will be backed by all necessary force. That leaves open the door to the (supposedly) unjustly-treated nation rebelling, to take the 'law into their own hands', to apply and equally enforce their own "might is right".
The replacement being put about is an international "law-based order", as I read it, a positive move to an objective/impartial "order". How, and what form it takes, is beyond me.

I was referring to JL, who you quoted.
But really, the site is mostly dead. You have the stupidity of a Q believer, the drunken ramblings of what resembles an old man who watches too much Newsmax, and the Socratic trolling of a guy who always hits space bar before a question mark. This is probably more than half the posts in the past few months. I just pop in once in a while hoping to see a decent threat on philosophy, but I can't resist sometimes to see how the psych ward is doing.
Get out while you still can!

I am stating that Russia has the right to self-defense like any nation. A principled thinker and/or nation, will not assert "for me but not for thee".
I surely do not have to repeat and produce many others' words endlessly, that NATO encroachment, the outside militarizing of Ukraine, the outside meddling in its politics, an illegal and continuing Ukraine war against a portion of citizens based upon their ethnicity - a CIVIL war turned a blind eye to by the West - can NEVER have been committed innocently, arbitrarily, nor purposelessly. 
A child could see that Russia was the target all along. Perhaps Putin couldn't see this ...
Like this other dude you want an easy answer, categorically condemning Russia: Objectivists, in line with the self-righteous and warmongering neocons and most (woke) Leftists.
But. This moral judgment is not open and shut, 'revealed knowledge', that intrinsicists yearn for,  it's complex.
The collective West has acted immorally; and Putin has been immoral but not "unprovoked", as proven. 
Such clearly deliberate ¬provocation¬ by the self-same West, is only one reason why its acts were immoral.
In short, they wanted confrontation with Russia. With sanctions and all, this war was to be the final weakening and dismantling of Russia.
More - "a proxy war". To exploit Ukraine's location and Ukrainian Russophobia to the West's ends - using and encouraging Ukrainians to fight on their behalf (and to hell with peace treaties) while their country gets "wrecked", which the West could not legally do themselves or (rightly) have not wished to lose their own soldiers in - is unbelievably callous and cynical and sacrificially immoral. 
You fight your own battles, take your own licks - or else don't take on any non-self-defensive war.
 

"It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"
Seshadri Kumar
I just found this synopsis.
Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!
Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."
Plausible deniability - as politicians say.
Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.
https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa

"It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"
Seshadri Kumar
I just found this synopsis.
Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!
Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."
Plausible deniability - as politicians say.
Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.
https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa

Nothing but dissembling sophistry--for effect. You are quite the authoritarian, no?
A true representative of your media. The facts are "out there", they require deduction.
Have you even acknowledged the fact of an existing civil war, or not your "choice"? 
I will read what you have to say, in case you come up with a substansive thought, don't expect replies.
 

"It is very clear from this chronology that when Russia finally did attack on 24 February 2022, it could not have been a surprise to any of the US, NATO, or Ukraine, by any stretch of the imagination. There were too many warning signs for anyone to be surprised. So why did the US, NATO, and Ukraine still do nothing to prevent this war?"
Seshadri Kumar
I just found this synopsis.
Is that not what first came to mind - how was everyone, experts in high places and spooks, caught off-guard? OMG, Russia attacked!
Come on, it has become clearer the trap was set for Russia, and the first scheme was to convince the public: there  - was NO TRAP - Ukraine is the innocent victim! Of a brutal, causeless invasion! Therefore, the pretext of shocking news when it happened by 'those in the know'. And, who could predict its timing perhaps months earlier. "How could we have stopped it if we didn't know..."
Plausible deniability - as politicians say.
Very long and well-reasoned essay by S. Kumar dated from March. He seems to know his stuff from every angle. Included a thorough list of the ways the war could have been prevented, some trivial, possibly, but they add up.
https://medium.com/@nayakan88/understanding-the-great-game-in-ukraine-330897142aaa

"Avoiding making your moral judgment..."
I haven't stopped, but stated over and over, the moral culpability has to be spread among all parties concerned.
Not ONE comes off innocent.
Trouble is, everyone expects a neatly wrapped "pure good versus pure evil" pronouncement. I've resisted that intrinsicism. That pre-judging without understanding is the product of willful ignorance, also of emotions and feelings which aren't "tools of cognition" - or of moral judgment.
The Objectivist standard of value, "man's life" - remember?
Contra-"man's life" acts, such as the non-rationality, deceit, evasions, malice, covetousness, sacrifices of others' lives, determinism, power and control, nationalist supremacy, collectivism, false pride --etc.,etc. have been on display by everyone, not least by the advanced and civilised nations, leaders and their institutions. 
 
 

From an essay, an argument I entirely agree with for what (I believe) is the 100% interests of the USA, before we get to the self-interests of any other nations. "Permanent alliances".
(I sometimes say, not interventionist nor never isolationist- independent. I'll chance my arm that's somewhat the vision George Washington had in mind in 1796).
"Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey"
"How NATO Empire-Building Set the Stage for Crisis Over Ukraine"
[Since the Cold War's end, "NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence"]
Brian McGlinchey
Jan 31
"In his farewell address, George Washington said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
What an offensive notion to Pentagon generals, weapon industry execs, DC think tankers and State Department bureaucrats, who, rather than avoiding permanent alliances, have been relentless in their quest to pile on new ones.
That impulse is vividly exemplified by the dangerously provocative post-Cold War expansion of NATO, and its consequences are apparent in today’s Ukraine-centered tensions with Russia.
NATO was created to oppose a Soviet empire that no longer exists. Had American presidents followed Washington’s sage counsel, they’d have spearheaded the dismantling of NATO upon the end of the Cold War. Instead, with America’s encouragement, NATO has nearly doubled its membership—from 16 countries when the Berlin Wall fell to 30 today.
With each new member, the U.S. government and American service members are tied to another far-off tripwire: Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on any member country compels other treaty members to come to its aid. It’s the epitome of what Thomas Jefferson called an “entangling alliance.”
While the growth in the number of NATO countries and U.S. war commitments is unsettling, it’s the direction that’s been most troublesome: NATO expansion has marched the alliance relentlessly eastward, right up to Russia’s border".
[...]

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/03/ukraine-nukes/

Is that concept so hard to entertain?
But I see this difficulty all the time from those who are trapped in 'the bubble'. I observed the indoctrination methods from the media, leaders, intellectuals, think tanks, so-called experts - etc. and can see the effects. 
First task: *to dehumanize* a people (Russians) - and *to demonize* (Putin). Once accomplished, by the steady drip of mass disinformation and omitted information and psy-ops, the reactive feelings of people, "the group mind", take over.
Then, every vile act is possible or likely, even, expected (in their minds) and any decent acts absolutely impossible: by Russians and him. Nothing new, a race or group or whatever, once publicly dehumanized, is the necessary precursor to committing injustice and violence against them. 
Against the deep background (NATO's long, ongoing and apparently meaningless expansion) - and the more recent anti-democratic acts of the assisted coup/Maidan and the Gvt. treatment of Russo-Ukrainians - a little later the militarizing of the Ukraine Army by NATO - now events led to this point, the clear and present danger of the UAF overcoming the "rebels" in a war with their Gvt.
Consider a president across the border who has watched all those irrational and destructive actions unfold, and now, along with the rest to worry about, is faced with the immediacy of the conquest and very likely mass deaths and abuse (by Russian-hating, Nationalist extremists) of this group of embattled people (with a shared ethnicity, etc. - or not) and who now request from him military assistance. And it is feasible - to objective viewers - that he may well be humanely concerned for them--the decisive tipping point -- enough therefore to take "rescue action".
(Additonal and extra to sorting out the over-riding, long term security concerns posed by Ukraine's excessive militarizing to his country).
But to the masses this response is totally unthinkable. Established: Putin is evil. He's irrational/insane. He wants only to conquer and brutalize. He can't have human concerns. He is not permitted to hold values (e.g. in preserving his nation). Cognitive dissonance and denial is their only answer to these plausible alternative suggestions; rather than take independent thought that notion is blocked from their minds.
I see this blocked mindset constantly from people's premises, online and personally.

Is that concept so hard to entertain?
But I see this difficulty all the time from those who are trapped in 'the bubble'. I observed the indoctrination methods from the media, leaders, intellectuals, think tanks, so-called experts - etc. and can see the effects. 
First task: *to dehumanize* a people (Russians) - and *to demonize* (Putin). Once accomplished, by the steady drip of mass disinformation and omitted information and psy-ops, the reactive feelings of people, "the group mind", take over.
Then, every vile act is possible or likely, even, expected (in their minds) and any decent acts absolutely impossible: by Russians and him. Nothing new, a race or group or whatever, once publicly dehumanized, is the necessary precursor to committing injustice and violence against them. 
Against the deep background (NATO's long, ongoing and apparently meaningless expansion) - and the more recent anti-democratic acts of the assisted coup/Maidan and the Gvt. treatment of Russo-Ukrainians - a little later the militarizing of the Ukraine Army by NATO - now events led to this point, the clear and present danger of the UAF overcoming the "rebels" in a war with their Gvt.
Consider a president across the border who has watched all those irrational and destructive actions unfold, and now, along with the rest to worry about, is faced with the immediacy of the conquest and very likely mass deaths and abuse (by Russian-hating, Nationalist extremists) of this group of embattled people (with a shared ethnicity, etc. - or not) and who now request from him military assistance. And it is feasible - to objective viewers - that he may well be humanely concerned for them--the decisive tipping point -- enough therefore to take "rescue action".
(Additonal and extra to sorting out the over-riding, long term security concerns posed by Ukraine's excessive militarizing to his country).
But to the masses this response is totally unthinkable. Established: Putin is evil. He's irrational/insane. He wants only to conquer and brutalize. He can't have human concerns. He is not permitted to hold values (e.g. in preserving his nation). Cognitive dissonance and denial is their only answer to these plausible alternative suggestions; rather than take independent thought that notion is blocked from their minds.
I see this blocked mindset constantly from people's premises, online and personally.

Some individuals need to know and find out for themselves. One upset young Russian woman horrified with the war found that she had no clue of true events in Eastern Ukraine, as stifled and distorted by western propaganda, and modified her moral judgments when she heard and saw for herself. An extraordinary independence in times when most others need to be told what to think. 

You have not answered what you think Putin should have done re: the long civil war on the RF's border -- in which Russian-Ukrainians have been and are yet today being indiscriminately shelled and killed by their own government without end in sight (to be tedious).
Would you, being a president, have ignored it?
A war, not merely being passively ignored by EU and NATO, nor even intervened with to stop hostilities, but actively abetted.
No one asks "why". What was in it for the West?
(Ha! I deliberately gave you "gentle" anticipating a predictable response).

Ah, just that some people and countries do somehow object to a neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals. Silly, I know. You'd find that tolerable over in your country, wouldn't you (?), so why the fuss Putin's been making about Ukraine potentially getting nuke capability presented by that benign, 'defensive' organization?
Cynically called whataboutism, no - it's  a solid principle. Morally principled or unprincipled actions have objective base, regardless of who's involved. Wrong in Cuba, wrong in Ukraine.
Each nation or individual has a right to protect their own safety and well-being. It/he/she can lay down a red line that others cross at their risk.
Goes also for outsiders helping build a great army for your unfriendly neighbor. For what target? Could it be you?
Every nuke-owning nation makes use of their nuclear weapons constantly; the guy who points a gun at someone and demands his cash. He doesn't need to ever fire the weapon. That's an "implicit" threat for illicit gain, goes over the head of some but apparently understood by Putin. 

Ah, just that some people and countries do somehow object to a neighbor plonking nuclear-payload missile bases close by, like 10 minutes flight from their capitals. Silly, I know. You'd find that tolerable over in your country, wouldn't you (?), so why the fuss Putin's been making about Ukraine potentially getting nuke capability presented by that benign, 'defensive' organization?
Cynically called whataboutism, no - it's  a solid principle. Morally principled or unprincipled actions have objective base, regardless of who's involved. Wrong in Cuba, wrong in Ukraine.
Each nation or individual has a right to protect their own safety and well-being. It/he/she can lay down a red line that others cross at their risk.
Goes also for outsiders helping build a great army for your unfriendly neighbor. For what target? Could it be you?
Every nuke-owning nation makes use of their nuclear weapons constantly; the guy who points a gun at someone and demands his cash. He doesn't need to ever fire the weapon. That's an "implicit" threat for illicit gain, goes over the head of some but apparently understood by Putin.