> And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion.

Mainstream Western press like the Guardian and CNBC, both of which are fiercely pro-Ukraine now. In 2014, before the Crimea invasion:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/ukrain...

Nato's eastward expansion was halted by the Georgian war of 2008 and Yanukovych's later election on a platform of non-alignment. But any doubt that the EU's effort to woo Ukraine is closely connected with western military strategy was dispelled today by Nato's secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared that the abortive pact with Ukraine would have been "a major boost to Euro-Atlantic security".

Notice that the Guardian's mention of "fascists" is also Russian propaganda now (given the propensity of the Western media to call anyone and anything "fascist" I do not attach too much value to that part, but it is there.)

Before the 2022 invasion, from CNBC:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/08/biden-didnt-accept-putins-re...

President Biden didn’t accept Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s “red lines” on Ukraine during their high-stakes video call that came as Russia’s military builds its presence on the Ukrainian border.

Namely, that means the U.S. isn’t accepting Putin’s demand that Ukraine be denied entrance into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is the world’s most powerful military alliance.

> Why is that?

Because they are standard mainstream sources. You seem to think that only a concrete and signed membership plan is a red line, whereas even CNBC cites Putin's red lines.

I agree by the way that the invasions by Russia are horrible, but please let's not rewrite history.