For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2].

Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adjacent to its
borders, as any other country would be and the United States always has
been. It has signaled repeatedly that it will stop at nothing to prevent
NATO membership for Ukraine. Nevertheless, eventual Ukrainian
membership in NATO has been an avowed objective of U.S. and NATO
policy since the Bush-Cheney administration. This makes absolutely no
sense. It is also dangerous to confront a nuclear-armed power with
military threats on its border.

When I hear comments now such as, “Russia has no right to claim a
‘sphere of influence,’” I am puzzled. It is not a question of legal
“rights” but of probable consequences. It is as if someone announces,
“We never passed a law of gravity so we can ignore it.” No one is saying
that Ukraine does not have a “right” to apply for NATO membership. Of
course it does. The question is whether the members of the alliance
would serve their own interest if they agreed. In fact they would assume a
very dangerous liability.

I point this out as a veteran of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. At that
time I was assigned to the American embassy in Moscow and it fell to my
lot to translate some of Khrushchev’s messages to President John
Kennedy. Why is it relevant? Just this: in terms of international law, the
Soviet Union had a “right” to place nuclear weapons on Cuba when the
Cuban government requested them, the more so since the United States
had deployed nuclear missiles of comparable range that could strike the
USSR from Turkey. But it was an exceedingly dangerous move since
the United States had total military dominance of the Caribbean and under
no circumstances would tolerate the deployment of nuclear missiles in its
backyard. Fortunately for both countries and the rest of the world,
Kennedy and Khrushchev were able to defuse the situation. Only later
did we learn how close we came to a nuclear exchange.

As for the future, the only thing that will convince Moscow to withdraw
its military support from the separatist regimes in the Donbas will be
Kyiv’s willingness to implement the Minsk agreement. As for the Crimea,
it is likely to be a de facto part of Russia for the foreseeable future,
whether or not the West recognizes that as “legal.” For decades, the U.S.
and most of its Western allies refused to recognize the incorporation of the
three Baltic countries in the Soviet Union. This eventually was an
important factor in their liberation. However, the Crimea is quite different
in one key respect: most of its people, being Russian, prefer to be in
Russia. In fact, one can argue that it is in the political interest of
Ukrainian nationalists to have Crimea in Russia. Without the votes from
Crimea, Viktor Yanukovich would never have been elected president.

One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be
restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in
which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for
Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in
accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand
ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain
valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same).

When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan
to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990
that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to
Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic
situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed.

Furthermore, Russians would argue that the U.S. is interested in
territorial integrity only when its interests are served. American
governments have a record of ignoring it when convenient, as when it and
its NATO allies violated Serbian territorial integrity by creating and then
recognizing an independent Kosovo. Also, the United Sates violated the
principle when it supported the separation of South Sudan from Sudan,
Eritrea from Ethiopia, and East Timor from Indonesia.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Matlock_Jr.

[2] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...