I think you’re grossly misrepresenting what the NATO does, how it expands, Ukraines own interest, and Russias views.
NATO is a voluntary and self determined collection of states, a collection of states. States have an inherent interest in their own safety. For that reason the NATO expanded passively.
How can you say Russia needs buffer zones and NATO not “getting closer” while denying any countries closer or next to Russia any form of safety net like the NATO? It’s plainly obvious what the bigger threat is. Russia is invading neighboring countries. Not the other way around.
Can you cite regarding your claims of pressure on Ukraine to decline a peace deal - where Ukraine would have even went for it? I assume the claim that the reason is monetary profit is pure speculation?
Ukraine has had a clear position on peace talks. It’s a country that is being invaded. Even when losses increased that didn’t change much. Out of their own interest, stance, and necessity. (I don’t know if that changed more recently, I’m not up-to-date on that specifically.) Accepting loss of land and people amongst Russias atrocities and treaty violations is a hard ask when it’s your people and home.
Back to the main point and opener of your comment:
The “expansion” of NATO is a Russian narrative that Russia uses as smoke and mirrors. Like it does in any and all of their communication. Is it actually part of their reason for invasions? Maybe. But it’s not the only one, and unverifiable. Claiming that NATOs “expansion” justifies Russias activities is actively supporting Russia, and frankly, insulting to the invaded and violated people - that have a right to live without invasion and atrocities.
Russia was safe. Europe and the EU were actively connecting and supporting Russia and its people. NATOs “expansion” is a Russian narrative to mislead.