Can you say how its been hostile?

NATO border expansion was agreed to be frozen - This is because NATO's foundation is basically "The anti-Russia/anti-Commie alliance", and that should be historically obvious too.

And before you bring up that incredibly lame counterpoint that I see retarded Americans throwing around left and right "HURF NOT NATO FAULT IF OTHER COUNTRY WANT JOIN", NATO can reject any and every applicant they want. There is no real gain, in fact, of allowing eastern European countries to enter - their armies are outdated and unkept, and they offer extremely little, if any, tangible benefit to the alliance. It's just another "mouth to feed" so to say, or just another country to defend. NATO is not in the business of, and has never been in the business of, being a guardian angel to countries that need a helping hand. If you honestly believe that, ask yourself why there hasn't been NATO intervention in countries like Rwanda, or the current ongoing conflicts across Africa - like the Congo.

NATO's historical and stated goal is the containment of any power that might be able to challenge U.S. and western hegemony. You can understand why this might make Russia uncomfortable, right? The only country capable of actually going toe-to-toe with the military might of the United States, being surrounded by anti-missile stations with absolutely zero possible fucking purpose except for disarming Russia's ability to retaliate (or strike at, I will agree) against any hostile actor?

Really, it cannot be hard for you to see why Russia might - no, should - consider NATO hostile toward them. Whether we agree with Russia or not, considering and understanding their point of view is important if we want to engage with them in dialogue. And if we don't want to engage with them in dialogue... doesn't that just prove Russia's point even further that NATO is hostile toward them?