You mean the ones that held access to a Russian Navy base and threatened to hand it over to NATO? It was wrong for the Russians to invade, but it would not have happened without NATO provocation.
Even if the events are exactly as you describe, that is not "NATO provocation". That's Ukrainian provocation, using NATO as a threat. But you seem to want to paint NATO as bad regardless of actual facts...
1. NATO expanded by various countries voluntarily asking to join. It's not like NATO conquered a bunch of countries, or even threatened them. The countries joined because they felt threatened, all right, but not threatened by NATO.
2. NATO is a defensive alliance. A defensive alliance is only a "provocation" if one regards the ability to invade other countries as an inalienable right.
Oh, and look, we got here by way of talking about Ukraine. Who was the invader there? Not NATO.
Given what happened to the Ukraine (and Georgia), are you going to heap blame on NATO? Blame belongs on the ones who actually invaded.
We're not going to agree on the "choices" that led to expansion, so I won't try to change your mind.
Imagine another country in the Americas willingly became a defensive ally of Russia, allowing them to place arms and troops there. Do you think the US would consider that a provocation and be willing to invade that country?
We've done that before, and we've even overthrown governments we thought might make that decision. So when the US does the exact same thing, it's still a provocation. Any "Russia is more of a threat" or "spreading democracy" justifications are simple American exceptionalism.
>Blame belongs on the ones who actually invaded.
I did blame Russia, that doesn't mean NATO isn't also to blame.
