Oh, well, if you say so, I guess that settles it, eh?

Ukraine had NATO bases and NATO troops stationed in the country. NATO was training one battalion per month from 2014 to 2022 on NATO standards and tactics.

The US has specifically refused to rule out NATO membership until Hegseth said so a few weeks ago, and even that is completely non-binding.

One thing we have taught the Russians is that promises - such as no NATO enlargement farther East than former East Germany - are no good if they are not put into a treaty. Our word is most definitely NOT our bond.

Ukraine's independence from the USSR was legally predicated on Ukraine remaining neutral and NOT trying to join NATO. I'm not an international lawyer, but that makes the case for Ukraine much weaker, as Ukraine has changed their constitution to no longer be neutral.

As a related aside: the country where I live, Austria, is constitutionally neutral since 1955 when the allies (USSR included) ended occupation. One of the stipulations for Austria being allowed to be sovereign country again was - VERY similar to Ukraine - that Austria would remain neutral.

Again, I'm not an international lawyer, but Russia's pullout of troops from Austria - and Ukraine - was based on the contracts that those countries would remain neutral.

Re fortifications: This isn't the 15th century where a fortification is castle wall. Your argument is facile. Weapons systems - for example the Aegis missile system in Romania - can be armed with defensive missiles or offensive missiles.

The same systems used for targeting attacking forces can be used for targeting defensive forces.

This doesn't make Russia "the good guy." There are no good guys here. The only innocents are the Ukrainian civilians and conscripts on both sides.