And, of course Russia would likely not acquiesce if such a demand were placed on them.
I think whether that demand is reasonable or not depends on one's perception. If one is a NATO ally or dependent, then anything that limits or reduces NATO power is a bad thing. If one is not, then demanding a buffer state between the sides seems like a middle-ground compromise from their point of view.
I'm only replying to these comments here to illustrate the importance of looking at a scenario from your opponent's point of view. Using the word "reasonable" requires context and perception. No matter how much one might disagree with the opponent, and how morally-right your side is, it's still important to do. It helps one understand their opponent's motivations and anticipated outcomes.
Every single nation that ever had something to do with them and was fortunate enough to leave their sphere of influence is trying its hardest to join NATO, isn't that a little telling? Perhaps Russia is not only looking for buffer, but wants more?
Your off-topic complaint that distracted from that point, is that eastern imperialism was worse than western imperialism. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not [1], but it's not relevant to the subthread.
[1] It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation on this subject, because every empire of note has a long history of being smeared in shit, and spends a lot of effort indoctrinating its subjects that its brand of imperialism is way better than all the other ones.
https://www.reformer.com/opinion/columnists/usategui-us-poli...
But one thing is to have your own problems, and entirely another thing is to be forced to have Russian problems and to have every hope for change destroyed by Russia because it's threatening their position that they built on sponsoring the corrupt people.
Consider that it was revealed that FSB has/had a massive corruption campaign in Ukraine funded with billions of US dollars per year. Let's wait with judging Ukraine until we can judge fairly.