From a Russian perspective, it is them doing the defending. Think Russian sovereignty and NATO for a bit, from the Russian viewpoint.
NATO was the enemy for the Warsaw Pact; opposing military alliances. The Warsaw Pact dissolves with the USSR in 1991 but NATO remains on an assurance; NATO would not expand "one inch Eastwards". Without that assurance, the Warsaw Pact would not have been dissolved which means that Germany would have never reunified. This is all verifiable historic record.
NATO expands and bombs Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. They have eyes for Ukraine and Georgia.
A civil war broke out in Ukraine in 2014. The coup backers turned to NATO.
Those who wanted their democratically elected leader back were shelled with NATO logistical support and training. They happened to be very close to Russia eg family ties, spoken language and culture. They put enormous pressure on Russia, on Putin, to intervene. Not to mention their relations in Russia putting pressure on their officials, as well as the general population who had witnessed since 2014, that Ukraine was attempting to erase everything Russian including worship, language and art.

So Russians view themselves as defending themselves here.
You may not agree, but that is what they think. I do not think they are the aggressors here either, instead they responded to an already threatening situation eg from 2014 until Russia invaded in 2022, 12,000 Ukrainians were dead, killed by a government they didn't elect.

A select few make a lot of money from misery and death.

What get's me is NATO is a defense pact of independent nations eg you attack one, you attack all. Good idea. But when a defense pact expands ie aims to acquire more members, I ask "Hang on a sec? Is not "expansionist defense" an oxymoron?"
When it is know the expansion will almost certainly cause conflict, how can it still be thought of as a "defense" organisation?
All I am certain of is NATO expanding is not an organisation for defense and certainly not maintaining peace.
What was wrong with military alliance neutrality for Ukraine, which is pretty well all Russia wanted? Without the 2014 coup and subsequent civil war that ensured, Crimea would still be Ukranian.
Don't like the NATO alliance one bit as it stands.

Was a spin out him dying, re jabs just a very recent conversation we all had. Most were glad they were in Thailand and not in their own countries during Covid.
Re NATO we all have different views and we had a robust group discussion which was good.

You say "It’s not in any developed western democracy’s interests to allow Ukraine to fall to Putin, if you think it is you are just plain wrong.".
I totally agree but can you concede that when Ukraine falls to Russia, which it basically has already, that a major reason this will have occurred is because there was a refusal to allow Ukraine to remain neutral by NATO nations? A rejected peace in April 2022 that if accepted, would have ensured Ukranian sovereignty from Russia?

@puff. No…I don’t agree, Ukraine is an independent country and has the right to aspire to NATO membership and to apply to join the EU if they so wish. If in fact they’d been admitted to both at an earlier date and had membership protection Putin would never have dared start his expansionist agenda and invasion of Ukraine.

@Marionville Ukraine has been trying to join the EU for ever and have always been rejected due to corruption. No I'm not from that part of the world but am well aware how Europe views the former USSR republics now "Westernised" ie poor second cousins. for Ukraine, NATO provided a back door into the EU. And hasn't Zelenskyy loved being on the Western world stage. Pity it has cost him the nation he was elected to protect, ironically running on a desire to improve relations with Russia (as soon as elected, shelling increased in the Donbass area).
I totally disagree Putin has an expansionist agenda excepting BRICS. He negotiated for neutrality not takeover. NATO may have more members, but does that make them "stronger"?
Never forget NATO is an organisation to keep peace in Europe not only from outsiders, but to stop them fighting each other. Whereas Ukraine and Russia are not organisations, they are nation states.
I will never forgive NATO, a defense organisation, sabotaging a peace between two nation states. All concerned knew absorbing Ukraine into NATO would, without a doubt, would cause conflict with Russia. But Western hubris desired that conflict as a means to weaken Russia. Zelenskyy bought NATO assurances Ukraine could beat Russia. It has now cost him his country.
As the famous philosopher Homer Simpson would say; DOH!!!!

I respect your opinion and what we are engaging in is diplomatic discourse. A pity more off our leaders do not engage with those with opposing views as well as it benefits both parties.