me_irl

There were many agreements for NATO not to expand.

Oh were there?

That's interesting, considering how controversial it still is whether oral agreements ever existed in the first place. What isn't controversial is of course that being oral-only, they can hardly be binding or transactionary. That is to say, the failure was to never transfer these agreements - if they even existed - into writing, bilaterally as that's how you'd have to do it.

Please educate me. Which countries had pro-western politicians "Installed"

And if you're already typing Ukraine, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

With maybe the exception of Serbia, Russia has been antagonistic and Imperialistic towards Europe for CENTURIES. Theres a reason Russia finds itself fighting against most/all of Europe every century. You need only ask the butchered populations of Eastern Europe who found themselves as Russian subjects at any point in history. The only reason they were ever friendly with Serbia, was because the Serbs are like a microchasm of the same thing the Russians did. Mini-mes, if you will.

you want to scream America bad, NATO bad, fine. but remove both of them from the equation, it wouldnt change the fact that the continent distrusts Russia for a reason.