Russia easily accepted the Estonia's entrance into NATO, because even during the Soviet times the Baltics were considered to be a "Internal abroad" and the majority Balts showed how they wanted independence by means from day-to-day sabotage to the "Forest Brothers" underground. Modern Russia doesn't even share a direct land border with Poland (Kaliningrad region is an exclave).
The height of Russian-PLC conflict was during the first half of the 17th century, when initially the PLC didn't recognize the first Romanov Tsar (because the Boyars previously pledged to the young Wladyslav during the Smuta). After Russia obtained left-bank Ukraine (which had an Orthodox Cossack revolt) the PLC-Russian relations started to improve, which culminated in the anti-Swedish Russo-Polish alliance between Peter the Great and PLC king Augustus the Strong in the initial years of 18th century.
Ok, but why NATO (North Americans and West Europeans) should care so much about East European concerns? Could you please give a NATO document that says that prime NATO goal is to keep Russia's 17th century borders intact?
It may be rational for Baltics (but Russia easily accepted their entrance, because even during the Soviet Era russians considered the Baltic SSRs to be the "internal abroad"), but Russia doesn't even share a direct land border with the majority post-Cold War new NATO members. Ukraine is several times bigger than all Baltic nations altogether, was never considered to be as "dissident" among other SSRs and just to important for Russia in every way to let it be Western-aligned (although, Putin was perfectly fine with formally neutral and independent Ukraine, he is not a pan-Russian nationalist who wants to erase it from map for the sake of it).
Like, as I've said, Russia has 0 problems with Baltics being pro-West because local population expressed such wish for decades. In case of Ukraine, there was no popular support for it in most parts of UkrSSR until Chernobyl. And the modern Ukranian declaration of independecne LITERALLY states the August coup as the main reason for new Ukranian sovereignty.
Because it's populist rhetoric (even among Russian nationalists there are no further claims than Narva and Daugavpils). In Polish media some may threaten to take Kaliningrad, for example.
NATO countries wanted to limit nuclear proliferation. The best way to do this among Eastern European countries that had the industrial capacity and geopolitical reasons to build their own nuclear deterrent was to take them under their own nuclear umbrella. A scenario where Poland and Romania and Czechoslovakia are left out in the cold is a scenario where they build their own bombs, which both makes proliferation in general more likely and makes a nuclear war more likely.
Why does Ukraine’s ‘importance’ to Moscow (an importance that does not extend to the people themselves, if the current war is any indication) outweigh the will of the Ukrainian people?
It's populist rethoric till is not anymore as Georgia and Ukraine showed (or the propaganda war against the EU) and frankly after a certain amount of this rethoric you start to worry because you are not sure if it's part of the show or the real thing expecially if you have not so stellar previous experice.
It seems a mite contradictory to simultaneously argue that
no contradiction, apparently the people in eastern europe need to be happy and gratefull to be under their russian big brother protection (and i use the term in the mafia sense) that have only their best interest in mind
Well that's a bit of a change of tack, so OK NATO is a mutual defence organisation, and so NATO members care about other NATO members but are also OK with having new members join.
With very real consequences.
Putin's preferences are not holy writ in Eastern Europe that must be adhered to, but not only is it telling that you think they are, it also explains why the area gets a bit concerned.
"The Slovak way" - Slovakia was not invited to the first round of expansion, because of less than democratic tendencies of the government. Mečiar was not called the Slovak Lukashenko for nothing, though he (fortunately) failed to rule the mass media and to consolidate his power. And he very much wanted the membership, to legitimize his image. His rhetoric turned pro-Russian only when his government was very explilcitely mentioned as the reason for the exclusion of Slovakia.
