> People talking about how NATO "shouldn't expand" (why not, if the nations involved want to join a voluntary pact?)

Ok, I have no "pro-Russia" bent at all, I think they are to blame in this whole story as their concerns could've been addressed by diplomacy like most European leaders have been trying to say... but do you really not know why Russia doesn't want NATO to expand to Ukraine and how it might think war is a justifiable way to stop that from happening? And if that's the case, how it might be prudent of NATO to avoid expanding or insinuating it might do so, to avoid making things even worse than they've already been (with Krimea and Eastern Ukraine in a war situation for several years)?

It's hard to do so, but try to imagine yourself being a decision maker on the Russian side. Seeing an extremely important, historically aligned neighbour that has a very large, geographically un-obstructed border with you, and who can block your access to extremely important maritime routes, trying to join a military alliance who sees you as one of their main enemies.

While I may not agree with the Russians, I can absolutely understand why they think war is justifiable and I can totally see how NATO nations should do everything it can to avoid this war, they have nothing to lose, while Russia has a lot at stake... sometimes, it's a wise move to back off your expansion to avoid loss of life and making the situation much, much worse (imagine a world with Russian-occupied Ukraine for years to come)... when it all could've been avoided by a mostly symbolic back off as the Russians demand (symbolic because there was very little hope for Ukraine to actually join NATO in the near future, to my knowledge).

I highly recommend the Caspian Report channel on YT and its series on this conflict to understand the motivations on each side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNIU6TRsRzk

> HackerNews has a weirdly pro-Russia bent

Maybe US corporate media, owned and controlled by 1% heirs, has a particularly imperial bent, wanting to expand the American empire even farther, in this case US tanks and missiles alongside Ukraine's long border with Russia (which incidentally is filled with Russian speaking ethnic Russians who do not want this). US media is also filled with beneficiaries and think-tankers from the military industrial complex president Eisenhower talked about. The interferers in European affairs George Washington warned about. Anne Applebaum, quoted in this thread, is an un-American, anti-American who wants confrontation with Russia for whatever psychological or political reasons. With the average inflation-adjusted US hourly wage below what it was a half century ago (even before Covid), with a country racked with Covid, the US should not get dragged into a military adventure on Russia's border. Let the Europeans deal with the diplomatic niceties, the US should stay out.

I mean part of it could be that lots of us have actually been to Russia (I fit in that category) or are Russian. We don’t need to rely on third party sources to tell us how to think. I’ve also been to China and it’s so much worse but the US propaganda machine loves China, in fact we’re watching them trivialize a country that places minorities in concentration camps on primetime TV.

Doesn’t seem odd to me at all. The media has lost credibility and our government is morally bankrupt.

do you agree that Cuba should be able to join a voluntary pact with USSR and US shouldn't do anything about it?

You don’t have to be pro-Russian or pro-Putin (two different things!) to be critical of the current US and NATO policy. When Germany was cautious about reacting to Russian military deployment on Ukrainian border, Americans started calling its important NATO partner as unreliable. Europe may have different perspective on what is going on and how to resolve the crisis. In an equal partnership everyone has the right to speak and and common policy is developed through consensus rather than by one partner dictating to others what to do. Russian government did a lot of wrong things, by fueling a civil war in a neighboring state and covering up war criminals that have shot a civil airplane. It does not mean they are going to go to war that will not help them to achieve anything meaningful. Also, it is a fallacy to assume that anyone calling US government statements a warmongering and wrongdoing is repeating pro-Russian propaganda (after all, those statements are simply opinions and interpretations - current administration never presented Russian invasion as a matter of fact). The very same facts presented by US intelligence can be interpreted in different ways, and even Ukrainian government sees them differently than United States. The US interpretation is doing more harm than good: stocks are falling, flights are being cancelled and brain drain from Ukraine is accelerating. Should we blindly trust them or at least try to do some homework to verify their claims and approaches?