> The thing is, there's no such perception.

Since I know you don't like like non-western sources, here's one from a "credible" western source that asserts what I said too - How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine ( https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nat... ):

> "You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," Putin said at a news conference in December ... Early in the effort to reunify Germany, U.S. officials wrestled with the question of Soviet control of the east: What could entice Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to withdraw? "The Americans guess that maybe what Gorbachev wants in exchange for letting Germany unify is a promise that NATO will not expand eastward," Sarotte said. "And so Secretary of State [James] Baker, in a speculative way in an early stage of negotiations, says to Gorbachev, 'How about this idea: How about you let your half of Germany go, and we agree to move that one piece forward?'" But President George H.W. Bush rejected the idea, and when more formal negotiations began later in 1990, a ban on NATO expansion was never actually offered, Sarotte said. There is some disagreement about what took place during the Baker-Gorbachev talks in February 1990 ... Seemingly conflicting comments from U.S. officials and Gorbachev made years later do not help clear this up ... The historical record shows otherwise, according to Sarotte. Contemporaneous notes, letters, speeches and interviews show that Western leaders were, in fact, already contemplating NATO enlargement by the time the February 1990 talks took place, she says ... From the beginning, Russia strongly objected to NATO's borders creeping closer to its territory. In 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin tried to secure a guarantee from President Bill Clinton that NATO would not add any former Soviet republics. Clinton refused.

Do we have the shared understanding, that we are discussing Putin(+regime)'s own perception or what they state it to be? I thought that's what this discussion/thread is about.

> The thing is, there's no such perception.

What do you mean, Putin doesn't have a perception on what happened in the last 50 years, concerning the territory of the USSR?

> Putin's propaganda machine is fabricating a "foreign perception of Russian perception" to enable extorting concessions. It's the same tactic street thugs use when they accuse you of bumping into them or hitting them with a car and demand something in return.

Well I think it IS what Putin* wants his public perception to be. Whether he actually believes that, is of course also a worthy question. But his stated perception does strongly fit his actions, while the supposed hidden actual perception does not and invokes contradictions.

> They are not actually offended nor hurt, but they play that role to get something out of you.

Well, he was imprisoned in Germany once for trying to overthrow the government to reestablish the regime he has been working for before. You can of course claim, that he wasn't offended by that and has indeed accepted the demise of the USSR as unrevocable history. I believe that his actions and stated thoughts indicate otherwise.

> The proper response is to punch them in the face and ask if they want more of it.

I didn't make a statement, about what the response of the "West" should be.

    Putin* = including his administration, not just he personally.