Of course, that is why the most common pro-NATO shilling narrative is that it is merely "defensive".
NATO is just another military organization, whose business is war. And just as any other military, it will be (and has been https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_Operations ) used as a political tool.
NATO and Russia aren't allies (at best), which makes NATO a threat for Russia, simply by definition. Pinky-promising that NATO won't be used as a threat or a political tool obviously doesn't count, since there are quite enough precedents of the contrary. These are just boringly objective risk-management calculations and conclusions that any manager would reach.
> I don't observe anybody joining a military alliance with the goal of protecting themselves from Panama or Luxembourg.
Do you really feel like Panama or Luxembourg are fair examples, instead of countries like the US, that actually has military capability?
You wouldn't deny that there are quite a lot of instances of people trying to protect themselves from the US and NATO, would you? How come?
Really, it all boils down to a dangerous supremacist idea that there is only one culture enlightened and wise enough to use its military capabilities, and it is widely accepted in the western bubble. This concept is just so desired, that it erases any kind of reflection on how one can pave the road to hell with good intentions.
The conflict in Ukraine, for example, was born out of a public push (by the US, mostly) for it to join NATO, even before all the bad stuff started. Ironic, really, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.