If Putin’s concern is the west arming and moving missiles into Ukraine, what is the difference between NATO membership and “defacto” NATO membership?
They wanted them to be neutral so they wouldn’t do the things that would lead to either membership or defacto membership such as building up militarily and hosting missiles.
Q - Why was that something that we couldn’t live with?
A - Because the globalist oligarchs don’t get wealthy and powerful off of that.
That's exactly why Putin pointing to NATO membership as a red line doesn't make sense -- if that is truly his concern. I mean, why wouldn't he just say "If you move nuclear weapons into Ukraine, or hold large-scale exercises east of the Dnieper, it will mean war."
Why didn't he just demand that?
I'll tell you why -- because that really wasn't his concern. I mean, it likely was "a" concern, but he already knew he could get that guarantee if he pushed. More importantly, he also knew that Russia's own nuclear weapons were an absolute deterrent to Russia itself being attacked. We all still know today that invading a nuclear armed-country is the single act most likely to trigger a nuclear response.
utin's real concern was never that Russia might be attacked by NATO. He knew that wasn't going to happen anyway. His real concern was that he sees Russia as having a right to dominate the countries around it, either through military force or intimidation based on the the threat to use military force. He wanted the reestablishment of a "Great Russian" bloc, and Ukraine drawing loser to the West economically, etc., threatened that ambition. And he knew that dream of restoring a "Greater Russia" would be dead forever if Ukraine ever joined NATO.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine because he perceived either Ukraine or NATO as an actual military threat to Russia. He invaded it because he thought time was running out on his dream to be the great restorer of Russia's rightful destiny.