The main problem I see in this guy's view is that he's trying to sell it all as a package; an all-or-nothing false dichotomy permeates his argument. This is dangerously mistaken. There are by all means valid reasons not to trust Russia, especially Putin who is a vestige of the old world Soviet regime. I have little to no doubt that he would love to reconstitute as much of the Soviet Onion as possible. Hungary, Poland, and the rest of the eastern Euro bloc, having come under NATO influence is now outside of his reach, assuming he is not willing to risk nuclear war for the sake of having them back. I don't think he is, as that would be raving insanity.
On the other hand, I also see his point regarding Ukraine in that Russia was promised no NATO expansions, for which NATO has failed to keep its word. How would any of us here in America feel about China establishing missile bases in Mexico and Canada? We'd shit the shit of all shits and work to drive them out, sans equivocation. So why is it OK to put NATO even more solidly on Russia's front porch?
As to Putin's assertions of Russia's claims to Ukraine, I think he is full of shit.
So the point here is that this guy speaks some truths, but so does Shapiro. They each make the same mistake of subsuming disparate, independent considerations under a single umbrella and peddle it as an all-or-nothing package. Grave and dangerous error that, if taken up by those in material power, will likely lead to nothing good, which of course should surprise nobody.