Because it's not France's perception of Russia's army on NATO's doorstep.
It's the Baltics' and Poland's perception. And they have had a vast range of experience with the Russian army on the doorstep ... then in the living room, kitchen, bedroom, and making sure that the people in the den are shipped back to someplace nasty in Russia.
While Russia briefly flirted with the idea of acknowledging this was perhaps a not-so-nice thing, of late it's taken the opposite view: It's a power only for good, and the ungrateful fools didn't appreciate how wonderful being under their Slavic (or Balto-Slavic) brothers was. The bad things Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev did are ignored (except for Khrushchev's stupidity in giving away proper Russian soil to Ukraine). Gorbachev was evil for allowing the Russian empire--the USSR--to collapse.
And they see Russia meddling with arms, munitions, "activists" and proxies in Ukraine, followed by cross-border shelling and send in support troops, advisors, etc.
So what is the big difference between Ukraine and the Baltics? From the Latvians' and Estonians' point of view, not a heck of a whole lot. Except NATO.
They also see that the presence of NATO troops isn't a big factor in the Russian buildup. There are no more NATO troops near the Ukraine than there were a year ago. Yet Russia's moved ships, air squadrons, nuclear weapons, numerous pieces of artillery, armor, and a lot of men into Crimea. Making Ukraine really wish that it had NATO troops on its soil.
I wouid add an adjective to Hagel's description of Russia as "revisionist." It's also irredentist. It seeks "historical justice" like the worst of the KKK seek "historical justice". Once in charge, it's an injustice not to be in charge. What used to be property must once again be property. That's the proper order of things, and the proper order of things is required for "historical justice." It's a warped view, but one that's easily understood. And beneath contempt.
= new reply since forum marked as read
