Yes, there is a legitimate point to be had. It has become rather retrospective now, but it isn't a fantasy or an apology. Prominent people in prominent positions were wary of NATO expansion post-Soviet collapse. Many predicted this scenario. That doesn't justify a Russian invasion of Ukraine, however. Friedman, in the article above, is no pro-Russian hack, but even he understands the rather simple point made by Kennan and co. Again, it matters less today than it did a month ago, but that is the contextual depth to this event. Putin has used it as a casus belli but the cause should never have been presented to him as justification. All academic now, anyway.