There are several other NATO nations closer to Moscow than Ukraine. Even a bordering nation. (And now there are two.)
And Putin's invasion essentially forced Sweden and Finland to join as well. Effectively making the NATO "threat" even worse.

And he seemed fine with that.

Despite Finland sharing a gigantic border with Russia.
This is not about a supposed threat from a defensive alliance, because they've never been the agressor.

A ton of countries were invaded by Germany in WW2. That's not going to happen again, unless the agressor wants to invoke Article 5.

So I don't see how Russia could see Ukraine as a threat by joining a defensive alliance.
Rather, Russia could no longer invade them if they do. So they had to do it before that happened.

I didn't say Russia wants to take over all of Europe. But Ukraine and Russia are of the same people. That's part of why he wants to unite them back into Russia "where they belong".

Russia does not see NATO as a threat. They say it as an official position, but considering all the facts, it's obviously a pretense.

There was no formal agreement that former Soviet states would not be joining NATO, although it was a subject that was being discussed repeatedly. What gets forgotten in the big picture all too often is that it's not just about the security of NATO and Russia, but also the security of the former Soviet states and former satellite states of the Soviet Union which became their own sovereign nations after the Soviet Union fell apart. They all have the right to join a defensive alliance of their own choice. That so many of these states applied for NATO membership has to do with how Russia had treated them in the past and their expectations that Russia's stance of peace might not last long (which turned out to be correct as we know today). By getting under the NATO umbrella, they got the assurance that they would maintain their sovereignity and not end up like Belarus did.

How this relates to Ukraine, their wish for sovereignity and the USA's president is that there are only two possible options since Russia, as we know today, was and is willing to make great sacrifices to prevent Ukraine from slipping away of their influence:

1. The American president stands by and lets Russia do its own thing. America standing by would have invited other dictators to seize land, because it would have made the USA look weak. In other words, it would have invited more wars.

2. The American president opposes Russia and supports Ukraine. This prolongs the war in Ukraine, but it puts other countries' ambitions, such as China's to seize Taiwan, on hold for the time being.

Any way you look at it, a war was unavoidable because Ukraine wasn't willing to be absorbed by Russia and willing to fight, doesn't matter who's POTUS. Now a competent POTUS, unlike Biden, would make Russia lose the war in Ukraine to make the statement that the USA, and by extent the alliance of Western democracies, is not weak.

This leads us to the all too common conclusion for the USA's two-party system: It's not about choosing the good one, it's about choosing the less bad one to prevent worse. Certainly, this leads to apathy when it comes to casting a vote for anyone, but no vote isn't a good option either. As the saying goes, evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

This is why I am seriously thinking about participating in an election for the first time in my life, because the far-right is on the rise in Europe as well; it's not like my vote is going to tip the scale, but at least I'll be able to tell myself that I did what I could instead of having regrets. I'd say the decades of prosperity and easy life in Western democracies are over. In the 2020s and onwards we'll have to accept the challenges and tackle them instead of living make-believe and expecting that the big picture will be fine without making any effort. Democracy doesn't necessarily give us competent leaders, but at least it gives us the choice to change the people in charge every few years; we can't afford to lose this.

Except they don't, Lol. At least, not those in charge, they use the NATO excuse as propaganda for their domestic audience and to poison the well in the West but Putin and his lackies know full well that NATO was never a legitimate threat to Russia's existence. In fact I'd argue that Putin is more scared of European values and the like than NATO if anything, a dictator like Putin wouldn't want so many democracies close to his country, might start giving his own citizens ideas.

At the end of the cold war when soviet union was disbanded there was an agreement that former soviet states would not be joining NATO

Except there wasn't, at best there was maybe a vague statement from a politician who didn't have any authority to promise such things but there was never anything in writing, actually official in the actual documents, signed by NATO countries and Russia, about an agreement to not expand NATO into former Soviet States.

The idea of NATO enlargement beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed until 1991. Mikhail Gorbachev said in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either."

Individual Allies cannot make agreements on NATO’s behalf. President Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer to commit that no former Soviet Republics would join NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so… NATO operates by consensus," he said.

There is however, an agreement that Russia signed, to give Ukraine security assurances.

volume-3007-I-52241.pdf (un.org)

Whereas nothing about NATO was ever formalized in signed agreements and now most people from that time are dead, but only now has it suddenly became an issue for Russia, Lol. Cause they need to keep their population hating the outside world so that they don't start looking closer to home. Countries are free to choose who they sign defence treaties with, Russia has no right to a "buffer state" nor does anyone, Russia has no right to tell any country what their foreign policy has to be. NATO in its entire existence has been a defensive organisation.

Even if any of this true, fact is, Ukraine isn't in NATO and if Russia has an issue with NATO then maybe take it up with NATO?

And is worth WW3 to them.  If that is fair or not does not matter. This is the situation we are in.

If Russia wanted to go to WW3 then that is also their decision to make and their grave to lie in. All we're doing is helping the victim defend itself from a imperialist, fascist country. The only way WW3 starts is if Russia attacks a NATO country and I would be proud for UK to stand by that NATO country and defend them from Russia.

Lol. Lmao.

How I completely forgot about that statement from Putin but I'll forgive myself considering Russia spits out shit on a constant basis. Yeah, really no more has to be said, Russia is fine with Finland/Sweden joining which puts their entire Northern Fleet at risk but not okay with Ukraine joining because it's a "territorial dispute" despite the fact that other NATO countries border Russia.

Also if they took Ukraine, they'd expand the NATO countries bordering them to Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, Lol.

Territorial dispute simply = We believe Ukraine is ours by right and Ukraine doesn't exist as a country.

Bold is also true, NATO isn't the reason for the invasion but it's the one thing that would stop the invasion.

Its complicated for sure. When it goes to former Soviet Union nations joining NATO it followed the same patch.

1) Join the EU

2) Join NATO

This happened with the Baltic states, Poland and such. I'm not arguing if this is wright or wrong. But there is no denying that Russia sees this as a threat to their sphere of influence.

With Ukraine changing their alliance this is where the buck stopped for the Russians. Rightly or not, this is where we are.

Threat to "sphere of influence"? Maybe. Threat to their sovereignty? No.

They have no right to a sphere of influence over other sovereign nations. What you are describing is just imperialism, and that is all that is happening. Putin had imperialist dreams of a more influential Russia and he decided to make his move.

Look, you seem to be arguing in good faith, unlike the other guy, but you're being unbelievably naive. Putin is not 'doing what he thinks is right for Russia & the Russian people'. Please give one example that shows Putin gives one ounce of a shit what happens to his people? Did you see all those protestors of the invasion disappear? Or the scores thoughtlessly sent to their deaths throughout this conflict? Or really, any Russian who doesn't tow his line, what happens to those folks?

I guess Kim Jong Un really cares about his people too right? Your thinking seems to be the guy at the top of any government must really value the welfare of their citizens, despots included - again, incredibly naive. Putin has installed himself as a forever leader & somehow you conclude that he cares about the concerns of his people - like what planet are you living on?

You know what's different about Russia now compared to the Napoleon/Hiter eras? How about 6K nuclear warheads. As deterants go, I'd say they don't come much better. Who in their right mind is going to try to invade the world's biggest nuclear power? There's zero chance that an invasion was going to happen, Putin & everyone else knows that - you're making the mistake of believing anything that comes out of the guy's mouth.

There are many things in this world that are shades of grey (Isarael/Gaza for instance), but Russia/Ukraine isn't one of them. There's a clear bad guy - it's really not that complicated in this instance.

And before you say, it doesn't matter who is right & wrong, it kinda does. If this type of 'bad' behaviour is not met with consequences then it'll just encourage more of it, from Russia as well as other bad actors.

Others on this thread are very knowledgeable on this topic & I hope that you allow yourself to absorb some of what they're saying.

I consider myself somewhat of a world traveler. Been all over the place from the Americas, Africa, Asia and yes parts of Russia. Russia is incredibly big and diverse with cultures and languages. We see Russia as merrily the Euro part of it as depicted in most media, but the truth is that it is a federation where most states are pretty autonomous. Perhaps Putin is a dictator, but to me it is hard to believe a dictatorship would work in a nation of this size. This is not to defend Putin. I have no bets in this.

Perhaps I am naive, but then I consider myself informed naive. I don't get my info just by listening to talking heads on TV. I met people across the world, spoke to them, got to know them. I'm trying to speak nuance in this threat. In the end it's about economic power. This fuels any governments policies abroad and yes this includes war. If it's the "West", China, Russia or who ever, it's all the same. Economic arm wrestling, bribery, government toppling or bombing people. Just means to the same end.

Obviously I do not condone Putin's actions in Ukraine, I just argue that this is not caused by a madman waking up one morning and thinking I want to make a statue for myself.

I’m glad you’ve spoken to people first hand. Honestly those perspectives are lost in the mainstream media.

But I do condone Putin for his actions, inciting a war, killing tens of thousands (his own and others), and not conceding when he failed to push the line, are not actions of a great leader.

Either way, this thread has gone down a hate spiral. Let’s get back on topic.

Why is President Biden’s campaign good?

Why is President Trump’s campaign good?

Why are they bad?

'Russia is incredibly big and diverse with cultures and languages. We see Russia as merrily the Euro part of it as depicted in most media, but the truth is that it is a federation where most states are pretty autonomous. Perhaps Putin is a dictator, but to me it is hard to believe a dictatorship would work in a nation of this size'

I'm really not sure what to make of your view here... Which parts of Russia are you asserting Putin is not in charge of?

Ethnic minorities within Russia have actually suffered the most from the the drafts;

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/10/25/russia-putin-is-using-ethnic-minorities-to-fight-in-ukraine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/23/russia-partial-military-mobilization-ethnic-minorities/

How could he be sending these minorities to their deaths if he wasn't ruling over their territories?

As I mentioned before, I do think you're arguing in good faith, but some of your takes are straight-up bizarre. The jury isn't out on this one, Putin is a dictator and all of Russia is his, he's eliminated all political challengers and adversaries.

When the invasion was at its most catastrophic for Russia and there was speculation that Putin could be taken out, there was actually an anxiety across the West as to which direction Russia would lurch in his absence, such is the vacuum that he'd leave behind.

He may not be a madman but he's certainly psychopath. It reminds me of a Game of Thrones quote 'He would see the world burn if only to be king of the ashes.' (or something like that) It's all about his legacy - pure ego & self-regard.

It's good to have a healthy dose of skepticism about mainstream media, but there are plenty of other sources that you can get your news from... Using your gut or assuming all governments are roughly the same is lazy (and incorrect). 

You seem to want to flatten geopolitics out to the point that every government, democratic or otherwise will do what they can to further their agendas, morality be damned. This just ain't true. The Western democracies aren't perfect by any means and self-interest & corruption play a part, but what Putin is doing is beyond the pale. 

These differences and distinctions matter.