As to your other angle, it all comes down to perspectives or frames of reference if you wish. One side tries to frame the conflict in terms of a separate, individual localized incident where Russia out of the blue attacks small Ukraine for a land grab. Very easy to argue for Ukraine as a victim and dismiss Russia with crazy Putin as a big bad aggressor, pretty clear cut whats good and bad.
Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, no, it's not "individual localized", it follows the pattern of Putin attempting to resurrect a totalitarian dictatorship, collapse of which he not-so-subtly called the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.
How does it not "make sense at all" for Ukraine to acquire
defensive capabilities after the aforementioned aggressions? Surely it makes at least some sense if you really want to step back and take a look at the whole picture and not just Putin's "interests".
Now this is where things get very nuanced, not so black and white, and now whats good and whats bad isn't so clear anymore. Just because things are complicated doesn't make Russia right, but people start thinking, and this is not the field mass media and people with agenda, want to play on.
No, it's still actually quite clear, no need to muddy the waters here. If Alice robs Bob's house and Carol's house and Carol buys a baseball bat and Alice comes back to rob Carol 8 years later, no sane person would think that this is complicated or nuanced.