Quite aside from all the injustices, lies and pushes for military action by the U.S. since the end of the Cold War, this article takes a blatantly one-sided view that essentially seems to state "well, you shouldn't have pushed Russia into a corner. The invasion is your fault".

As another reply below says, no mention of Russia's own military aggression with neighbors under Putin's rule or of the fact that if NATO grew closer to the country's borders, it mostly did so with the full willingness of the countries that later joined. Having Russia close to them caused a choice and that choice (fully within their rights as countries) was to become closer with the NATO alliance and western Europe because they found it preferable to possible Russian domination.

The writer describes war and military provocation as a lucrative business and insinuates that western greed motivated the expansion of NATO, but sidesteps that Russia's own military/political moves are often no less motivated by the same things where possible.

> There was a near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end of the Cold War.

Did they put it on some legal paper?

It is interesting in the sense that it fails completely to mention the multiple countries Russia has invaded over the past 25 years. It treats NATO's actions as happening completely in a bubble, ignoring Putin's own provocations. It also assumes the countries that have joined NATO aren't deciding to join, but instead being consumed by NATO.