Apologist Ad Hominem

Birds fly
In the eye of the faithless daughter
Broken at the bitter end
--Icicle Works

It has become popular to accuse anyone connecting the Ukraine conflict to NATO expansion as being a 'Putin apologist.' This is what an ad hominem counter looks like.

A more constructive approach would be to leave the playground and develop a well-reasoned argument as to why NATO expansion has NOT been a driver of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That seems an uphill battle. It would involve refuting arguments in pieces like this point-by-point. For example, the NATO expansion position has been taken by statesmen and analysts for many years, some dating back to NATO's founding, preceding the current conflict. Were all of these people Kremlin stooges?

What about past evidence of NATO enlargement itself? The geographic evidence is compelling. And of enlargement activities that have involved Ukraine? Or of the ongoing meddling of Western forces (as well as Russian forces) in the geopolitical trajectory of Ukraine?

Then, of course, is Putin's explicit mention of NATO expansion in his February 22 speech discussing his motivations for invading Ukraine. If the counter is that his words cannot be trusted, then that would rule out using any of Putin's words to build a defense against the NATO expansion argument.

If these points can't be adequately countered, then just scream insults.