Russia's aim in Ukraine is preservation of economic and political dominance, and the restoration of Russia's old land empire. The true significance of NATO membership for Ukraine would be placing permanently out of reach restoration of the Russian empire, as this existed from the late seventeenth century into the late twentieth century.
Let's say I agree, for Russia does seem to want to reestablish their old empire.
On the other hand, I do find it interesting that NATO countries were on high alert when Russia massed their troops on the Russian border, to the point where we urgently sought an agreement to pull them back. Look at Obama's comments:
"But these are not what Russia would normally be doing, and it may be simply be an effort to intimidate Ukraine, or it may be that they've got additional plans."
He added: "In either case, what we need right to resolve and de-escalate tensions is for Russia to move back those troops and begin negotiations."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-obama-warns-russia-must-pull-back-troops-from-ukraine-border-9221053.html
If Russia's massing of troops on Ukraine's border is considered either "intimidation" or harmful ulterior motives, why would Russia view NATO's expansion into Ukraine as anything less? Should Russia trust in our good intentions, and the good intentions of all future presidents? I think any reasonable person, were they the leader of Russia, would resist this outcome at all costs because they would see it as Obama and the interim Ukrainian government did. And as Kennedy did in Cuba. And as Kruschev did in Turkey. And as Mao and Zhou Enlai did in Korea. These men weren't stupid. Why do we expect Putin to be naive and stupid? No patriotic leader would accept a hostile power moving on to their border.
= new reply since forum marked as read