I've never read a sentence that so clearly ignores the meaning of the words it is rejecting. When NATO includes another country, it's expanding. This is the meaning of the word "expand", to grow - adding a new country to your territory makes you grow - or expand!!
As Ukraine (as well as the Baltic states, which are already NATO) borders Russia, "expanding to the Russian borders" describes physically what it is that NATO is doing.
I use words with their current meaning without trying to spin their meaning to express something that's occurring... if you think that's a "deffective world view" then you're way too far into the play of words of politics to be able to have a serious discussion about the topic.
There wouldn't be any Baltic states if they weren't members allready
Tell that to people in Iraq... Or other countries NATO been fucking with for a while now.
During cold war for example NATO-aligned countries happily went around doing coups, sometimes backed with force (for example a US aircraft carrier threatening to bomb Rio de Janeiro in case of Brazil), replacing democratically elected presidents with dictators that would do whatever NATO wanted, how that is NOT unilateral aggression? Libya is a special case even, they were doing everything NATO wanted for most part, trying to make amends and create a good relationship, and got fucked anyway, NATO even gave air cover to people commiting black genocide there, what Tawergha people did to NATO to justify its "defense"?
The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view. Ukraine was considering joining a defensive pact to deter Russian aggression with obvious justification. The usage of "their border" somehow manages to imply ownership and violation. Nobody has a right to tell their neighbor they can't just a defensive pact or indeed any agreement whatsoever because of adjacency. Such deals don't take place by both parties standing on the dividing line and spitting onto Russian territory together. They take place within the respective countries capitals by their respective lawmakers.
The murderer doesn't have a right to stop his victims from conspiring to resist him.