I'm skeptical of the idea that anything having to do with NATO is the true motive for Putin in this. It makes little sense to me given his actual statements about NATO with regard to the Russian invasion, and strategically makes little sense in terms of potential costs to their current endeavors. Why would you make 3/4 of your conventional military critically vulnerable to an adversary that you have publicly stated is unquestionably superior, by provoking that adversary, to increase security against said adversary?<p>I've always suspected this is about securing access to Crimea and natural resource rights in eastern Ukraine: water access was cut to Crimea following 2014, and natural resource deposits have been discovered in the east. I suspect NATO is just a rhetorical excuse, to justify it to the world and domestic audiences.<p>It also explains why the western campaign has been so ineffectual, and the Eastern one so relatively brutal. Yes, the east is easier to access by sea and less central to Ukraine, but I suspect a land bridge to Crimea, and securing natural resource rights, was the primary objective all along. Russia might have been accurate all along when they insisted they didn't want to occupy Ukraine per se or change the government, in the sense they just wanted to annex the east, and the west is just a diversionary tactic and/or secondary goal in service of the primary.<p>It's also why I suspect Russia will consider this a win if they extract a land bridge as a "compromise" to obtain peace.<p>All of this I'm saying as someone who'd rather see Russia out of everywhere that was undisputed Ukrainian territory in, say, 2000.<p>All this discussion of NATO expansion is just falling into Russia's rhetorical trap they set.