> let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003

That's not a fact. The Yanukovych government obviously didn't pursue NATO membership, and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal prior to the invasion that occurred shortly after that government came to power, reversing course only after the invasion.

> when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq

2003 was before 2008, when Putin succeeded in getting NATO to reject the Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, and it was this caving to Putin by NATO which is why even when a pro-Western government came to power in 2014 after Yanukovych, it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.

> > That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.

> You’re wrong: [wikipedia link to 2006 anti-NATO protests]

You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right? So, your link has no value at all in discussing the post-Maidan government’s actions based in large part on the 2008 MAP denial.

> I'm not sure what you argumnt is

My argument is that Putin acheived his goal of stopping NATO expansion to Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008, by getting NATO to deny Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans, that this denial led to even the next Western-oriented government after the one that was in power at the time of the 2008 attempt fell, was replaced with a pro-Russian one (which, arguably, then executed an autocoup, and, undisputedly, was itself replaced in the Maidan Revolution) being quite clear about not seeking NATO membership until AFTER Russia, who had invaded Georgia in 2008, invaded Ukraine in 2014.

This demonstrates a couple things: first, neither the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 nor the Russo-Ukrainian War was based on the threat of those countries joining NATO, which Russia had successfully averted, leaving aside any questions of whether that threat was a legitimate casus belli in any case, and, second, in the case of Ukraine, its actually the cause of the intent to join NATO, which the government, having previously disclaimed it, adopted as a priority after the invasion.

> You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right?

Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?

You do realize that there was a revolution in 2014 against a Russian-friendly leadership in Ukraine, and also that Russia launched the war shortly after that revolution? So, yes, claimimg the invasion was in response to things pre-2014 is implausible because of the revolution, and claiming it was in response to things after 2014 is implausible because of the arrow of time.