I'm tired and had a bit to drink so I won't be super in depth here and I apologize for that but I will explain my reasoning as simply as possible.

The 2022 and previous state of NATO member nations economic relationship with Russia was one of opportunism and convenience that does not reflect their long term strategic goals in the region.

Ukraine declared neutrality on the matter because it knew joining NATO would lead to it being invaded. This changed after the highly western backed and financed Maiden "revolution". This occured concurrently with the Russian invasion of Crimea and it is arguable that both influenced each other in turn. Russia recognized the changing political tides towards western powers in Ukraine and responded to it while Ukrainian nationalism swelled in response to Russian invasion. None of these events were beneficial to the working people of Ukraine.

Edit: you can disagree with my reasoning here and I'd kinda understand, I don't expect to convince you, but at least I am consistent.

Stop writing walls of nonsense on shit you clearly have no idea about.

But they said they know the material conditions and stuff, so shut up and let Russia do what they want to civilians.

I used NATO as a shorthand for the economic bloc the countries within it make up and I apologize for any confusion that caused. NATO members are and have been for some time highly economically intertwined and aligned on geostrategic goals. They tend to sanction nations that threaten the economic order they benefit from in order to preserve that system as a group. They often, though not necessarily through the organ of NATO, invade the same nations as a coalition for the same reason. NATO is not the economic organ but its members are part of an economic organ.

You're kidding, right?

I see this claim against Marxist-Leninists frequently, but never anything backing it up. First of all, Marxists don't read theorists like evangelicals read the Bible. We see theory as a guide to adapt to our own conditions, not gospel to worship. Lenin saying Russia needs a newspaper for agitating among the masses does not mean we need literal physical newspapers today (sorry Trots).

I think the broader phenomena is that the Marx non-Marxists know is not the same as the Marxism actually studied and practiced. There is a "liberal Marx," one that people maybe associate with revolutionary socialism, but not one people care to understand the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial aspects of Marxism that were expanded by Lenin.