Oh jeez, I wonder what Russian actions in Crimea could've possibly been a response to. 🤔

Rumer would contend that Russia’s actions in Crimea were driven by core strategic interests, not merely a response to Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation. He has noted that Russia felt "betrayed" by Western support for regime change in Kyiv and acted to protect its vital interests, which it saw as threatened by Ukraine's potential alignment with the West. Even if Ukraine had declared neutrality, Russia would likely have pursued annexation to secure its Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol and assert dominance over what it considers its historical sphere of influence. Neutrality would not have addressed Russia's perception of vulnerability or its ambition to reshape the regional order.

Rumer has highlighted that NATO enlargement, while not explicitly intended to threaten Russia, created a dynamic of hedging against Russian resurgence. Russia was never integrated into European security structures like Germany was after World War II, leading to a sense of exclusion and mistrust. He argues that the West lacked a coherent strategy for Russia after the Cold War, relying on hope rather than a realistic framework for engagement. Thus, Crimea’s annexation was a culmination of long-standing grievances, not a reaction to short-term provocations.

The author's analysis suggests that Russia views Ukraine as a critical buffer zone and a symbol of its great-power status. He notes that the competition between the EU and Russia over Ukraine’s economic alignment became a zero-sum game, with Russia willing to use force to prevent Ukraine’s Western integration. Even neutrality would likely have been insufficient unless it explicitly guaranteed Russia’s dominance, which would contradict Ukrainian sovereignty and popular aspirations.