A nice term you are using, "lock horns". Nicely vague, says anything or nothing. Yes, the NATO was founded as a counterpart to the expanding Sovjet Union. Which

A nice term you are using, "lock horns". Nicely vague, says anything or nothing. Yes, the NATO was founded as a counterpart to the expanding Sovjet Union. Which was not a democratic state but had a de-factor dictator in control and prevented independent democracies in the states of the Warshaw Pact. Whereever there were democratic movements in those states, they even sent troups to help swish them. They also had a huge amount (many thousands) of battle tanks ready at the western border of the Warshaw Pact region. Whereas the NATO only had a much smaller tank force ready. So there was never the risk of a conventional attack of the NATO against the Warshaw Pact region. You are right, the NATO didn't support the Ukraine with military equipment or even troups, despite of the treaty, because of the fear of things going nuclear. That is also the reason any allegations about the NATO attacking Russia is pure sillyness. The only "danger" for Russia, or rather Putin, is, that more and more countries want to be independant, especially for improving economic ties to the west, as this brings economic prosperity. It is tragic, how the enourmeous wealth of Russia, thanks to its oil and gas, was wasted for fancy yachts instead of boosting the industrial upbuild of the country.