NATO was open about the possibility of Ukraine one day being able to join the alliance, while also being clear that being in an active conflict with Russia would prevent them being admitted (as it would drag NATO into an ongoing, pre-established war).
Nothing about that makes this NATO's fault, and if anything will make other countries close to Russia want to join as quickly as possible.
Finish Prime Minister Sanna Marin on Thursday said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will change the debate around NATO membership within her country.”Finland is not currently facing an immed…
thehill.com
Ukraine was not a NATO member, was not close to being a NATO member, had a previously established agreement with Russia, all of which Putin ignored or threw aside to invade Ukraine twice. Maybe if Russia stopped invading other countries, those countries wouldn't be so eager to join NATO.
NATO was founded as protection against countries that didn't want to get absorbed behind the Iron Curtain. It is a defensive pact countries can choose to join, and has a high barrier to entry.
When certain groups consistently spend more time condemning NATO than actually condemning Russia and Putin, as is the case with Yanis Varoudkis, Stop The War, Young Labour et all, then that is going above and beyond in spinning it as the fault of the organisation that didn't just roll every tank brigade it has over the Ukranian border.
There are a million different points to discuss regarding Russia's geopolitical aims in Ukraine and its reasons for invading. Individuals like Yanis Varoudkis and groups like Democracy Now would better spend their efforts actually investigating and discussing those, rather than claiming this is somehow the fault of an international organisation that hasn't accepted a member close to Russia since 2004.