Once again, I don't speak for nor can I mind read
You're being disingenuous. Neither of us can speak for, or mind read leadership of different countries, BUT we can say whether a threat is credible, ie NATO invasion of nuclear Russia.
I am not being disingenuous. Stepping aside from the many points you've ignored when I put them to you, I answer this above.
NATO is expansionist, aggressive and has a military presence in a non-NATO nation. It represents a number of nuclear-armed powers, including the United States, Britain and France. Of course, Russia and China and others also possess nuclear arsenals. So NATO need not "invade" to attack, as it did not "invade" Serbia per se. Bombings from afar is among the options, is it not?
Ergo, when you ask the question AS YOU ASK IT, the fallacy is revealed. Invading Russia? Not the only form of attack. Economic warfare rages now with the many tranches of sanctions, does it not? So, the "credible threat" of a NATO invasion into Russia is only a part of the hypothetical "war games" the world is playing. I'd venture to say that NATO which happily bombed Serbia will never bomb Russia in like manner. So, no is the answer to your question. Russia probably does not see an "invasion" by NATO as a "credible threat." But a nuclear exchange after much heated rhetoric? Yeah, that's a credible danger. And all sides are feeling that very credible danger. Or as Biden said, "two words...."