That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it.

Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.

That's...debatable, but it has one particular clear, specific interest in normalizing reconquest of formerly-held territories, irrespective of whether it is “aggressive” or “expansionist“ in any general sense.

> Significantly less than Russia and the US.

While it has integrated as states some territories it already held in that time, the US has been anti-expansionist since 1947, voluntarily relinquishing formerly-held territories and seeking neither to acquire new ones nor to reassert sovereign control over former ones. (The US may exercise strong influence over foreign states, including many that it formerly administered as territories, and may entertain the idea of integrating existing territories as states, but territorial expansion hasn't been on the table for a while.) China, in the same time period, has launched several wars for territorial expansion.

> Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951?

No. Excluding internal (even arguable, like several with the ROC) wars, since 1951 they've fought in the Korean War, several wars with India, the Vietnam War, several wars against Vietnam after the Vietnam War, and some others. Against both India and Vietnam, particularly, their goals in involved territorial expansion.

In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it.

Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2].

All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves.

That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero

What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest.

Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check.

A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion.

Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades.

That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further.

[0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec...

[3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F...

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

So I decided to actually go to the treaty text here to figure out what it was that US/NATO supposedly violated and... I'm not actually seeing it.

This does seem to be a general pattern to me of Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to as an excuse to not do things that Russia explicitly agreed to do. So forgive me if I'm not exactly sympathizing with Russia here.

> In 2007, the United States' plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty.

> NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach.

> However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct US control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior United States official that the facilities were intended to be permanent.

Are you also unable to see the chapter that follow, about the US alleging how countries like Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance?

Do you also consider that an excuse, or is it only an excuse when Russia points out non-compliance?

Particularly, considering how the US would complain about hundreds of former Soviets troops being somewhere where they had been since the Cold War, while at the same time the US was blatantly lying about permanently stationing thousands new troops increasingly closer to Russia in countries like Bulgaria and Romania.

Btw;

> Russia using US non-compliance with something it never agreed to

The US, just like all European NATO countries, are very much party to Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

What you seem to wanting to refer to, is how the US and NATO never ratified the Adapted CFE Treaty [0], which is not the same as the original CFE Treaty.

It's also quite the odd point trying to make; The US complaining about non-compliance of others, who have actually ratified it, while itself did not even ratify the treaty, is just blatantly hypocritical.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_Conventional_Armed_For...

I then turned to read the text of the treaty itself, to find the exact text of the clause of the treaty it violated. The way the Wikipedia article is written, it sounds like there's a clause in the treaty that says "NATO cannot have any [permanent] bases in Romania and Bulgaria." There is no such clause.

If you read the Wikipedia text carefully, you'll notice that it doesn't say that US violated the treaty--it says that Russia alleges that the US violated the treaty. Now that's very arguably bias on the part of the Wikipedia editor, but the fact that there isn't any followup to actually show how Russia's interpretation can be backed up by the treaty itself.

So if you believe that Russia is correct, please point me to where in the treaty itself that the US's actions violated the treaty.

That is by now pretty meaningless pedantry, the point is what impression that left on the Russian side when the US was complaining about Russian troops in Transdniestria, while at the same stationing increasingly more troops in Europe [0].

Particularly as it happened after the US quit the AMB Treaty, something Russia was never shy about signaling how its perceived as a threat [1].

Mind you; The US didn't quit the ABM Treaty over alleged violations by Russia, it simply did because it considered the treaty in the way of its foreign policy ambitions in the Middle East, which directly required ramping up US presence in Europe.

Yet in that history of interactions, it's somehow Russia that's constantly framed as the not trustworthy party, when US foreign policy is dominated by such examples of the US just having it their way, with zero considerations to any other parties.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070927192504/http://www.tirasp...

[1] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/articles/2007-04-26-nrc-...

It doesn't take all that much empathy to see it from a Russian POV - your main geopolitical rival abandons a treaty with you, and begins placing military assets near your borders? Sure, it's definitely threatening, especially if you don't trust them.

It's nothing to do with their war in Ukraine, but is nevertheless real.