This is a common Russian propaganda lie, since they always like to blame their victims for their actions. They said the same thing during their invasion of Georgia. Note the exact same pattern, except, the big difference is the Ukrainians are putting up a better fight than the Georgians did:
"NATO would have expanded by now to admit ex-Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia in 2008 to defend a rebel region, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday."
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/idINIndia-60645720111121
Russia builds or tries to build rebel movements in any country with a sufficient population of Russians, most of whom were forcefully colonized during the Soviet years after the native population was cleansed.
A history lesson on "Post"-Soviet aggression even without NATO membership:
"First, a little history is in order. Russia's hostile actions towards neighbors hardly ended with the collapse of Soviet communism. Russia's hostile actions towards neighbors hardly ended with the collapse of Soviet communism. On the contrary, Moscow continued to bully its former republics and satellites throughout the early and mid 1990s, even before the first round of NATO enlargement (to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999). In 1992 and 1993 -- after Russia formally recognized the independence of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania -- Moscow cut off energy supplies to these small, reborn democracies in an attempt to pressure them into keeping Russian military forces and intelligence officers on their sovereign territory. From 1997 to 2000, according to former U.S. Ambassador to Lithuania Keith C. Smith, Russia halted oil shipments to the country no less than nine times after it refused to sell refineries to a Russian state company. To this day, the Russian Foreign Ministry maintains that the Baltic republics -- which Russia militarily conquered, occupied, and subjugated for nearly five decades -- "voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940." The Balts didn't become part of NATO until 2004. Given this history, is it any wonder why these countries -- or any other country victimized by Soviet-imposed tyranny -- would want to join the alliance? Is it NATO's fault for saying OK?"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/08/nato_expansion_didnt_set_off_the_ukrainian_crisis
Though, this guy might have too bright of a view of NATO. From what I understand, while countries have joined NATO, NATO's military capability itself has not properly expanded. Not all of our allies are meeting their obligations.
At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004
This is another common myth, that what is going on in Ukraine is part of a EU-conspiracy to expand itself.
The deal itself isn't really to join the EU, but is the same type of agreement Israel and Turkey have signed with the EU. It was Yanukovych, actually, who built the foundations for this agreement, largely seen as an economic issue in Ukraine, not ideological (people from the left and right support it). By having this agreement, Ukrainians believe it will help their economy, and help deal with corruption, due to the obligations Ukraine would have once they have signed on to it. Yanukovych campaigned on it and pushed it until after the election when he decided to do the exact opposite thing; however, it still wasn't rejection of the EU agreement that he campaigned on that ignited the Maidan. What did so was Yanukovych's assaulting of the small number of protesters that had gathered. It was the visuals of young and old protesters being brutalized that caused Ukrainians to rise up, and the more people who were beaten or kidnapped by the regime, the more people rose.
For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw.
This is quite a mockery, because it makes the crimes of the regime that led to the protests to be a nullity. It also imagines these people conducting a military coup and replacing the government, when this did not happen at all. After the Russian-trained members of the SBU conducted the shootings, this was the real last straw of the Ukrainian parliament. Yanukovych's own party turned on him. Members of his party who had held posts were resigning. Yanukovych declared that he would soon resign, but then fled the country to a foreign enemy, thus abandoning his office. This is like Obama fleeing to Russia, rather than, say, to California, where he might be safer. The Ukrainian Rada voted for his removal after he had already removed himself and then immediately set a date for new elections. This is not a "coup" by any definition of the word.
He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base
It already holds a Russian naval base, which he used to take over the peninsula. The "Referendum" in Crimea was accomplished by Russian special forces marching into the Crimean Rada, where they appointed a new Prime Minister who was a known member of the Russian-Mafia (the Russian mob, however, is an FSB organization), who then proceeded to "democratically" announce a Soviet-style referendum.
Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault - The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin
I am not sure what this person means by "liberal" delusions. Actually, these are anti-NATO arguments pushed by Communists, and only lately by Liberaltarians like Ron Paul, who are traitors anyway.
The whole thesis of this article is flawed too. It is basically saying that Russia is a justified wife beater, and that we should have expected as much since the woman has a big mouth, and we were trying to get her some help.