But Russian Nukes, ships, submarines, fighters and bombers, and thousands of troops in Kaliningrad is A-OK. Russian nukes inside Europe, threatening all of the surrounding European countries? Maybe we should demand Kaliningrad be demilitarized since it's not just adjacent, but "within our borders" and not contiguous with any Russian territory.
Right now, Putin has nuclear weapons in the Baltics (Kaliningrad). Russia is the ONLY country with nuclear weapons in the Baltics. Imagine for a moment the hysterical fit Putin would throw if NATO announced it was stationing nuclear missiles in Estonia or Latvia? Russia has threatened to station nuclear weapons in Crimea, and suggested they have already done so in reaction to our Aegis Ashore system in Poland (a defensive anti-missile system). If Russia takes Ukraine, is there any doubt they will station nuclear weapons there, as well as air and ground forces that will threaten NATO? Russia talks about NATO, Nazis, corruption and "existential threats", but it's all about the gas, oil and geopolitical influence. Energy, control and power. IMHO, obviously.
It doesn’t seem reasonable or possible for Russia to occupy western Ukraine. They are going for independent ethnic Russian areas (some of which have petroleum and gas) in the east; that was one of their initial demands. Looking at the map every place Russia has boots on the ground is in the east.
The reality of Russian nukes and ships in Kaliningrad does not mean the Russians are not paranoid. There has been talk of this since the days of the Tea Party, and probably much earlier than that:
https://teapartyamerica.blogspot.com/2011/11/russian-paranoia.html
Paranoia may or may not have a logical basis, but it is important to realize it exists.