https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/26/sir-adam-...
Take this part:
"These factors suggest that the 2008 proposal to expand NATO to include Georgia and Ukraine is just one among many developments that have made the current crisis so acute. It is arguable, indeed likely, that the NATO expansion proposal made matters worse, as may some other Western actions, but to assert that “the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis” goes too far."
Or this gem:
"It’s questionable whether Mr Putin was right to say NATO posed a threat to Russia’s sphere of influence. From the start in 2008 there were different interpretations of what was meant by “will become members”. "
Putin made it very very clear where he stood, and yet you still see armchair psychoanalysis being done. It's all pretty shoddy. There is certainly nothing of substance here that even begins to address Mearsheimer's iron-clad arguments.
Mearsheimer's argument boils down to: Russia thinks it has the right to do what it wants in Eastern Europe, and the West caused this problem by not saying "ok."
Putin violated the Bucharest Memorandum by moving into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Russia created this mess.
I see too many people these days being reflexively contrarian, like they're on a next level of understanding, simply by being opposite of the "current thing." Mearsheimer's arguments are widely known, it's not an "aha" moment to name drop him, stick to the arguments. Personally, I prefer info from people that actually predicted the invasion months ago.