> 1. NATO is largely an anti-Russian coalition
Factually incorrect, the word 'Russia' doesn't appear in NATO's charter, it is first and foremost a security pact. That Russia ends up in the position of the main party to worry about is in principle unrelated to that, but obviously it is the reality, as Russia has proven beyond any doubt now.
> You can google the map and you will see the strategic position of those countries.
Those countries were and are where they always were, and they were happy to join NATO precisely because they feel threatened by Russia, which is not without reason, they were under Russian occupation for decades.
> In the West, only Belarus and Ukraine have not been added to this list of Russian neighboring countries.
You missed Sweden and Finland.
Belarus is a vassal state of Russia, and does not have a functioning democracy. Ukraine has asked to join but this has to date not happened. The fact that it just so happened to be Ukraine that is attacked seems to lend credence to the fact that being a NATO member has its advantages and that those countries made the right decision.
> The USA & EU has been running military drills at those locations for many decades in an act of intimidation.
No, you run military drills to ensure that if and when you ever need them they will work, if you need to figure that stuff out - especially with multiple nations operating together - when you need it then you have already lost.
FWIW Russia does exactly the same thing.
> 2. Sanctions are effecting mostly the everyday people of Russia.
Yes.
> This is gathering more support internally for Putin’s aggression.
You have cause and effect reversed.
> 3. The Ukraine has a major movement toward the west in the last decade.
Which they were entirely free to make. Russia needs to 'stay in its lane'.
> Making Ukraine NATO would be another enemy at the boarder and this would be unfavorable for the Russian’s.
Note that you want to see NATO as 'the enemy'.
> 4. There has been no attempt by the USA to work with Putin or the Russian officials.
The USA is not involved in this conflict. China hasn't attempted to work with Putin or Russian officials either. And FWIW those Russian officials that were worked with were lying through their teeth, which is on the record.
> Even using Russia as a scapegoat for the Wikileaks dump in 2016.
Which has nothing to do with Ukraine.
> And of course so, so much more anti Russian sentiment in our media ahead of this.
'our'?
> 5. Biden and his sons involvement in the Ukraine (as reported on in 2020 by some of the US media) shows the constant strain that the Ukrainians are under.
Not relevant.
> A pawn between the USA and Russia.
In your mind, perhaps, but not in the mind of Europeans or Ukrainians for that matter, who mostly just want to get on with their lives, which a deranged dictator has now made impossible. This confrontation is on Russia and Russia alone, and any kind of attempts to whitewash it or to paint some alternative story is so much bs.
> Open to thoughts and opinions by everyone!
If anything the EU and the US should have done more, not less to arm the Ukraine, but they were under the mistaken impression that that would trigger a Russian response, if they had known then what we know now I'm fairly sure the situation would be completely different. But we're on to it now, and those that still aren't will wake up soon enough.