The Kremlin's confusing explanations why NATO might or might not be a reason to start a war. It just depends...

Putinistan did not unleash a war with Finland and Sweden because of joining NATO, since it does not have "territorial problems" with these countries, might follow from the statements of the Kremlin's press parrot Peskov.

Let's see his interview:
Speaking about the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine, Peskov claimed that Moscow had to take such a step, fearing that NATO would approach the russian borders.
When the correspondent pointed out that after the start of the war, Finland and Sweden also joined the military bloc, Peskow immediately retorted: "This is completely different! It is true, but there is a completely different situation."
Then he "explained" that after russia's annexation of Crimea, a territorial dispute arose. "We have no territorial issues or problems with either Finland or Sweden. We do not have a point of tension, we do not have any confrontational reasons with these countries."

BUT
At the same time, he stated that "sooner or later" the military infrastructure will "climb into the territory" of Finland and Sweden. "They are now very cautious about this. It (the expansion of NATO's military infrastructure to the territory of Sweden and Finland – TMT) will lead to consequences for their own security, because this creeping NATO to the east did not add security to the countries of Eastern Europe. Rather, on the contrary," he concluded.

Self-made NATO threat
Putin, announcing the start of the war, claimed that one of the goals of the invasion was allegedly to counter the approach of the "NATO military machine" to russia's borders. However, only his aggression forced two countries bordering russia to join the defense bloc. Finland and Sweden joined the alliance, with the result the length of the NATO border doubled, and the NATO armed forces were replenished with one of the most combat-ready armies in Europe. In addition, Poland, NATO member since 1999, felt threatened enough to ask the US to deploy nuclear weapons on its territory, and also signed a contract for the purchase of US missile defense and air defense systems for $ 15 billion.

Yes, problem/No problem with NATO
After Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO, first came the usual threats, but when is was clear that blackmail didn't work, Putin changed the tune to "Russia does not have such problems" with these countries "that it has with Ukraine." "We have no territorial issues and disputes, nothing that could worry us. If they want, they are welcome."

Contrary to the Kremlin's claims that "Russia started the war fearing NATO expansion," the allegedly "encroaching" West repeatedly stated before the full-scale invasion that it did not plan to accept Ukraine into the alliance. In particular, just a month before the start of hostilities, even ruZZian state-owned media published that.

Bottom line:
Putin stared the war because he was convinced that
1) NATO and western unity was weak enough to break it up,
2) that his efforts to seize full control of Ukraine by other means had failed,
and 3) that installing a pro-russian puppet regime in Kyiv like he had in BelaruZ would be safe and easy.

His aim was to expand russia’s power by regaining its former Soviet influence sphere, eradicate Ukraine’s statehood, and destroy NATO, goals he still pursues.

Read (once again) all reasons why an real end to the current russian war on Ukraine requires forcing Putin to accept defeat, why there is no path to real peace other than helping Ukraine inflict an unequivocal military defeat on russia and then helping to rebuild Ukraine into a military and society strong and resilient enough that no future russian leader sees an opportunity like the ones Putin misperceived in 2014 and 2022.

@freerussia_report
@Ukraine_Report