After years of reluctance to give up its large post-Soviet nuclear arsenal in 1994 Ukraine agreed to give it up and signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on condition that its national security was guaranteed by Russia and the United States.
When Zelensky decided to endorse the growing demand from extreme nationalists to procure nuclear weapons it represented the abandonment of that position by Ukraine. At the same time Russia felt it was no longer compelled to abide by its 1994 security guarantee.
There was no protest or dissent from the US, the west or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This stands in marked contrast to the treatment of Iran by that same community despite the fact that Iran continues to comply with its obligations under that treaty.
In effect the absence of any protest or dissent from this community to Zelensky’s stated ambition represented a level of a quiescence that convinced Russia it had no other choice than ensure Zelensky’s ambitions were frustrated.
This is the context that is missing from the current narrative constructed by the west.
From the John Helmer site today:
“The US has been installing American-directed military bases in the Ukraine for stockpiling advanced weapons to strike Russia by land, sea, and air.
In these plans for attack deep across the Russian frontier, Ukraine was already a platform with the potential for nuclear battlefield operations without formal admission to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO); without acceptance by the NATO member states; without comprehension or vote of approval by the Ukrainians themselves.