Even if that was true (it's not and there are multiple facts that contradicts that theory, but it's not related), how does following situation: "Don't try get protection or we will attack you" considers protection is attacked makes the attacker reasonable in your eyes? Being submissive to oppressor literally never worked well for any country in the history of the world and only shows clear examples how it only makes things worse (ww2 wasn't even that long ago).

>> So isn't all this pain simply because Ukraine's leader (maybe backed by US?) didn't budge until too late?

Flatly, no, it is not.

> I fear that this conversation will take a drastic turn. But my view is that Russia invaded because Ukraine wouldn't backdown from joining NATO. After Russia invaded, Ukraine said it won't join NATO if Russia stopped the war. So isn't all this pain simply because Ukraine's leader (maybe backed by US?) didn't budge until too late?

Your view is entirely incorrect, we could argue all day about the different thing that Russia has used to justify its genocide of the Ukrainian people but we will never know if any of it's true because Russia will have another brand new reason tomorrow.

I do find it interesting that the initial invasion happened very soon after substantial energy deposits where found in the Donbas, which had a chance to knock out some of Russias dominance of the European energy market.