Fault for the Russian invasion of Ukraine lies exclusively with Putin's clique, in a way which is honestly pretty rare in international conflict, because it was such a stupid, self-destructing move that it could only be explained as the result of human choice.
What I'm saying is that the American stance towards Russia made confrontation inevitable, not that Putin had to make the specific series of choices he did that would lead to the confrontation taking this form. The two states simply have incompatible ambitions in Eastern Europe, and what Obama characterised as Romney's Cold War hawkish posture was an honest and accurate reflection of those incompatible ambitions, while Obama's doveish posture was for the same reasons dishonest and inaccurate. It's not really good enough to say that if only Russia was a different country, run by different people, then Obama wouldn't have been misrepresenting his policy intentions- or, more charitably, his policy options, because Russia is the country it is, and it is run by the people who run it.
No, I'm simply saying that as long as the United States refused to recognise a Russian sphere of influence, a confrontational stance towards Russia is inevitable. It is of course entirely up to Russia to obtain recognition of whatever sphere of influence it asserts, and no other country has any obligation to humour it because it was a big deal in the seventies, but my contention here is that the United States is unwilling to recognise a Russian sphere of influence even in principle, and that Obama's doveish posture in the election was consequently dishonest, or at best unrealistic, because there was no rapprochement with Russia without that concession.
I think I understand, at least part of the argument you are making and to the extent that I do, I'm thinking that I disagree. However, I am also pretty confident that I am missing or misunderstanding at least
some part of your argument so I'm going to have to read it again and think more about it, or talk with you some more about it. I do find your argument very interesting, and I admit that I had not really thought about the issue in quite those terms before.
So here is part of my disagreement with the position you seem to be taking. You seem to be starting from a premise that Russia
must become a "superpower" again, in the same way that it once was. I reject that premise. Many nations were once world superpowers and no longer are. Maybe one day the US will no longer be a superpower and some other nation will be, China for example. The TV show
Firefly implies (or states outright this scenario IIRC). The point is that once a nation is no longer a superpower, for whatever reason, they, specifically their leaders, can accept it, and move on to the country having a new/different role on the world stage. If Putin refuses to do that, that's not Obama's fault. In fact, one of the underlying (if unsaid) purposes of NATO is precisely to prevent Russia from expanding their power, such that they become a major threat to Europe, (or the US) again. But that does not make armed conflict inevitable. Only if Russia's leaders insist that Russia will become a threat to Europe will there be armed conflict.
So for a very oversimplified example... If an Italian Prime Minister announced that they longed for the days when they essentially controlled the entire Mediterranean coastal area, plus what is France, Spain, Turkey, etc... and they wanted to go back to that... ie "restore their sphere of influence" as you put it.. and the US, or any nation FTM, said
"Yeah no, we're not cooperating with you restoring the Roman Empire, that's not going to be a thing", that wouldn't be "making conflict with Italy inevitable". It would take the Italian Prime Minister making the decision that he was going to restore the Roman Empire,
no matter what anyone else says. If the Italian Prime Minister accepts that he simply cannot restore the Roman Empire through conquest, there will be no armed conflict
. That is what makes conflict inevitable, Putin's
desire for conflict. You can't pin that on the US.
Another oversimplified example... If you and I are playing a game of RISK with say 5 players. You and I don't have to attack each other at all. in fact we could play the entire game without ever attacking each other. Moreover, we could play the entire game without ever attacking anyone. Now of course you can not
win the game this way. But trying to "win" the game is your choice as a player. You can always just defend your territory and have peasant conversation with the other players and enjoy some food and drink. You don't have to "win" the game or "finish" the game. How many times have you played a board game that was never actually finished? We don't want anyone to finish conquering the world IRL. Using my RISK analogy... Putin wants to win, or at least, for starters, to capture Asia and Europe so he can get the bonus armies each turn.
That is what is making conflict inevitable,
because he can't capture Europe and Asia without attacking other players. The player controlling part of North America refusing to help him and convincing others to help stop him is not the one who is making conflict inevitable. If Putin would just relax, have some beers and enjoy the ballgame on the TV, we would hardly have to roll any dice
, but if Putin wants to conquer the world,
that makes conflict inevitable.
... Jeez... we suck 
