Russia attempted to wage a 19th century style conquest: brutal and open territorial grab including the subjugation and repression of the local population.
Any attempt to legitimize their attack by pointing to threats they imagine other countries pose to Russia, is easily countered by the very obvious and direct threat that Russia eagerly poses to other countries.
Temporary neutrality is not going to fix this; in 8 years, they're going to try again. All neighbours of Russia would be wise to join a defensive alliance.
No one wants direct nuclear war, but they do want to skirt around the edges and expand their power. The US has been in multiple hot proxy wars with Russia, the biggest being the attempted overthrow of Syria.
US leadership from both parties have publicly described Ukraine as a proxy war between the US and Russia. If you're still in the early days of the propaganda where Russia invaded Ukraine totally out of the blue with zero provocation from anyone and the US is just doing their best to protect the innocents, you're way behind.
Regarding the role of the US and NATO in the conflict: "The interim Yatseniuk Government which came to power initially said, with reference to the country's non-aligned status, that it had no plans to join NATO. However, following the Russian military invasion in Ukraine and parliamentary elections in October 2014, the new government made joining NATO a priority." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
You ramble something incoherent about the RAND paper from 2019. Just to clarify this: yes, it is precisely where the defense research should have spent the money following the Russia's aggression.
Because if you're trying to say that US is to blame for this war, here's the newsflash: causal relationships and moral responsibility are not the same thing. Even if you knowingly provoke a criminal to do a crime (for example, by leaving your home unlocked, or by going around a bad neighbourhood in very sexy clothing), it does not in any way absolve him of decision to do the crime.
NATO/US is a far greater risk to the world than Russia, even if you might think Putin the person is more evil than Biden the person.
If we're talking about moral side of thins, then this word should be read as "unjustifiably invaded, violating international law" and US haven't actually done it once in the last 25 years.
> NATO/US is a far greater risk to the world
Only if you invade your neighbours that have defence treaties with US or partake in genocide. Not something that I, or anyone else, minds.