I wish this argument would just die - it's all on Russia. No one has forced them to have imaginary "safety guarantees" or influence spheres. What people in the west doesn't seem to understand is that nothing has changed in terms of Russian politics since the WW2 - it's the continuation of the same politics of threats of aggression and playing the imaginary victim card and imperialistic politics.
In which case, only the US gets to have them, as per the Monroe Doctrine, and pursue them anyway they like (including interventions, occupation, and war) all around the world? Or do exactly the same condemnations hold for that case too (after all, much more costlier in deaths and far more wide-reaching in countries and populations affected).
What people (non-elites) dont understand in the west is that geography dictates policy.
Even in spite of that the war probably wouldnt have happened had Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya not placed NATO firmly in the offensive alliance category while it pursued Russian encirclement. Putin started out friendly.
Eastern Europe was fractured and weak following World War One. A huge invasion still came twenty years later. This is a game played out in centuries, not 20 years. The future is unpredictable. Russians leaders plan in that world.
My guess is why Putin hates the "NATO sphere of influence" is that he doesn't like democracy, because democracy means his head will end up on a noose, or in the best case scenario, in prison with his wealth taken from him. But on the flip side, it's not like American or EU democracy is free of thieves and nepotism either. Special greetings to Jean-Claude Juncker and Ursula von der Leyen!
If Russia does get trounced in this war and Ukraine joins NATO I would expect suspiciously well funded independence movements to start popping up in Russia. This conflict wont stop at their borders.
It'll stop and we'll finally lose interest when Russia breaks into 16 different poverty stricken polities.