Ukraine never even submitted any formal application to join nato until after russia invaded. The original interest to join the west was itself fuelled by russian intervention in ukrainian politics (including an attempted assassination of a presidential candidate) and the tacit support of rebels in 2014 (where suddenly 'civilian rebels' had armoured vehicles).

The pro-russian narrative of what's happening is really convoluted - "eu and us wants eastern europe to be pawns, but they want them to join nato, but then always say no, but....". Even by itself it doesn't make sense - russia invaded ukraine to stop ukraine from joining nato which ukraine wasn't able to join anyway.

The truth is much simpler: russia is a horrible neighbour to have and the only security you have against having a pro-kremlin leadership installed is looking west. The west doesn't want to piss off russia because nato never had any plans to invade russia (again, in spite of russian propaganda on the matter). So they help these eastern european countries as best they can while pretty much maintaining pre-war status quo.

Tldr: if your neighbours hate you, maybe its just you.

NATO without US cant win ruszia. Allfather Putin will just laugh

kek, i bet you if us don't support ukraine, terus they join nato.

if your main weapons supplier no longer wants to supply you weapons, you will look for a new weapons supplier. you won't suddenly start listening to the demands of your weapon supplier.

in the four years of this conflict, we had russian supporters on /k arguing up and down the river that the war was about geopolitics. suddenly, 'geopolitics doesnt work in this way'.

look at it this way: even before the war russia already bordered nato and even have a kalininigrad enclave that's surrounded by nato. literally surrounded by the sea, poland and lithuania. no major issue between both sides for decades, and putin even pulled troops off this very, very vulnerable border to put into ukraine.

'geopolitics'?

if you read thru my previous comments that Ukraine constitution stated that they are a neutral state which was one of the requirement of when they declare independence. 
According to the 2001 census, 77% of Crimean inhabitants named Russian as their native language, 11.4% – Crimean Tatar, and 10.1% – Ukrainian, so it is not strange that majority of them supported russian government.  You are the one who cant accept that crimea majority supported russian government. that is why i mentioned that a UK media, actually went to did a survey themselves to know the actual consensus of the people 5 years after the annexation, which a huge majority supported the annexation. I think UK media are not holding a gun point at them during the survey.  Russian government poured in huge amount of money into crimea for the people after annexation.

US mentioned that they will station troops if russia invade, so this in a way further embolded ukraine to ignore russia warning. But what is the reality? Not one US troops is on the ground. Which country loses the most in this invasion? reality hits hard, if you choose to ignore geopolitics. During the start of the invasion, a peace deal was nearly stuck between Ukraine and Russia, but ukraine finally choose to not come to the table. Ask yourself would it be better if Ukraine agree to a peace deal before the invasion/ during the start of the invasion or the situation now which they are forced to follow US 28 points deal?

So what you reckon Ukraine should do? continue fighting? US already gave warning, and ask Ukraine to accept the 28 point deal.

You mean like how puting simps still don't want to ask themselves why russia did not attack sweden and finland yet after they join NATO? Lol!

Ukraine in red square?
What weed are you smoking here?