First, thanks for replying in so much detail. I think from the looks of it we both have different background information (sources) that would explain our divergence of opinions.
What ongoing NATO expansion?
I think the map is self explanatory; in the geopolitical sphere it is clear that this can be interpreted as a threat to Russia (since a NATO membership also involves increased military activity/weapons).
Objectively? There are literally no treaties signed to that effect. And even verbal promises given or hinted at that are highly doubtful.
That seems to be an incorrect assessment. Here is an archive that shows (with the original documents) how these assurances were given in the 90s.
It's clear that the strategy of sanctioning Russia has not only failed but backfired.
That's false information.
There are quite a lot of media outlets writing about this topic; while sanctions definitely have hurt Russia's economy (as your pointed out), they have not been enough to stifle the war effort (in that sense I shouldn't have used the word "failed"). If anything, Russia's military has become much stronger than previously (that is also evident by being able to produce more ammunition than NATO):
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/may/21/the-west-tightening-russian-sanctions-a-sign-of-failure
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/trying-bankrupt-russia-could-backfire-2023-01-30/
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/6/5/sanctions-on-russia-may-not-be-working-we-now-know-why
Overall I have listened a lot to John Mearsheimer, Colonel Douglas McGregor etc. that have quite a different opinion on the matter and to my knowledge quite accurately predicted the ongoing conflict. Obviously there are a lot of different opinions out there, and I am well aware that there are many that oppose this view. But I have always felt that these voices seem to be motivated by own interests advancing a Russiaphobic narrative overall. I am definitely not pro Russia, just to be clear - just trying to see both sides.