>First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO So what? That's what hindsight is. The t

>First off, it's essentially just cherry picking people over history who have made the argument against expanding NATO So what? That's what hindsight is. The title is accurate. >Secondly, this conflict hasn't coincided with a particular push for Ukraine to join NATO. Perhaps Russia saw the right timing of geopolitical forces to do something (invade Ukraine to prevent NATO ascention) now despite it not being imminent. Winter, Nord Stream 2, war-weary Americans, etc. >it wouldn't have changed the fundamental view that Russia has that it should control Ukraine, nor would it have changed the economic factors that make Ukraine a target for Russia Isn't that the argument of some in the linked thread you criticize? John Mearsheimer says "Make Ukraine neutral, make it strong and independent". The argument of these people isn't that Ukraine should have become a puppet state of Russia, but that there was a reality where NATO didn't expand and these eastern states would have grown anyway. In other words, to your point, they do seem to think Russia would have been less aggressive about the reunification of Ukraine if they didn't see it as "cheating" on it with the West. --- Now, that was mostly devil's advocate. I am no expert on NATO or eastern Europe. Invading a peaceful country because you don't like who they talk to isn't ethical. Thousands are already dead, hundreds of billions of dollars in economic costs worldwide, and a new threat of armed conflict seemingly as a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Russian hardliner-in-chief.