I disagree. There are highly respected political scientists that disagree such as John Mearsheimer of University of Chicago. Here's an article from the New York

I disagree. There are highly respected political scientists that disagree such as John Mearsheimer of University of Chicago. Here's an article from the New Yorker; https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-... He explains exactly how nato has made moves to expand, the puts Russia in a position to respond; >"I think all the trouble in this case really started in April, 2008, at the nato Summit in Bucharest, where afterward nato issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of nato. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand. Nevertheless, what has happened with the passage of time is that we have moved forward to include Ukraine in the West to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Of course, this includes more than just nato expansion. nato expansion is the heart of the strategy, but it includes E.U. expansion as well, and it includes turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy, and, from a Russian perspective, this is an existential threat" You say I don't know why Putin is acting, and then baselessly go on to claim a reason with no support. The idea that all it takes is some strong action, without taking into account the valid objections actual experts have, is ridiculous. This isn't propaganda it's valid foreign policy discussion that many others agree with.