>>60805998
Ukraine accession doesn't benefit NATO and OP just mentioned one excellent example why.
You might argue that Ukrainians make for cheap cannon fodder. To provide cheap cannon fodder is indeed about the only thing Ukraine is good for. But then the question arises: for what does the US need a large supply of cheap cannon fodder based right on Russia's border, rather than just having a wide neutral buffer zone?
Russia's response was completely predictable. Keep in mind that the only difference between a "defensive alliance" and an "offensive alliance" is one false flag. Putin, if anyone, knows everything about false flags.
Putin did not want this war, and we can see this because he first tried everything else. After Ukraine's 2008 NATO application, first Putin used diplomacy to get Merkel and Sarkozy to temporarily veto Ukraine's accession, but that was only a temporary solution. Then he tried to outbid the US & co, and Yanukovych did accept Russia's 2013 offer, but then Yanukovych was overthrown. Putin then seized a slice of Ukraine to prevent NATO accession. But Ukraine then started development of powerful long-range missiles like Hrim-2 and Korshun which could reach Moscow, scheduled to begin mass production in 2022, which made the status quo untenable for Putin. It was probably not coincidental that early 2022 was when Putin decided to invade.
It would've been better for everyone involved if Ukraine had remained a neutral buffer state so that both sides could. It would have been better for the US too, because the sanctions and proxy war have both failed to destroy Russia and all they've achieved so far is to create hard-to-reverse antagonism and hand the most resource-rich country in the world to China on a silver platter as an ally.