I’m pretty confident that a large part of NATO (and all other military alliances) is the accession of new members. Candidate members have to want to accede, which goes back to my question: why are we talking about what the US and Russia want, when Ukraine’s wants are just as if not more important?
replyLook, the point is not what one wants. Everyone is free to make its own choices. The point is that choices have consequences, and when the consequences are very clear in advance and you still make that choice, you also take responsibility for the consequences. This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
replyThe point appears to be changing. And again: it’s not clear why we’re talking about the US or NATO as primary drivers when Ukraine is a sovereign state that can litigate its affairs as it pleases. If you want to claim that the US meddles in Ukraine’s affairs that seems defensible, but no less defensible than the claim that Russia also meddles in their affairs (including kinetically, at the moment).
replyEdit: I’ll also note that arrogance usually means something closer to “discounting the consequences of your actions,” which is not evidenced here.
> This attitude that "this is my will and I will pursue it, and I don't care about how others feel about it (because anyway I'm stronger)" is called arrogance.
replySo literally Russia invading Ukraine.
> NATO is a military alliance, the only ones who get a say about who is in it and who isn't are its current members.
replyAnd they repeatedly rejected Ukraine and are still doing it? What's your point?