Even now, if only those pesky Ukrainians would stop shooting back at them, peace could be introduced overnight.
Russian peacekeeping corps WAS attacked in Georgia. The EU fact-finding mission, had blamed Saakashvili:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-rus...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-shattered-dream...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
It's insane how this truth has been erased in the last 14 years, despite being publicly available and easily goolable. This wiki article should provide a good enough context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian%E2%80%93Ossetian_conf...
But hey, why bother with studying facts when you can study propaganda memes, am I right?
In 1994 Chechnya was legally a part of Russia. By that principle, are you considering that Ukraine had invaded Donetsk? Not trolling, just wondering if it is a point of principle or doublethink.
In 1999 Chechnya had invaded Russian Dagestan, which triggered a military response - exactly how does this consitute as "Russia invaded"?
> Georgia once (in 2008)
Georgia attacked Russian peacekeeping corps in 2008:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-report-on-rus...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-shattered-dream...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attack...
I am really puzzled by how people are so reinforced in their ignorance, despite facts being easily available for anyone who cares to spend 5 minutes to learn something.
Like at least four, and if we use the same counting logic you did for Russia, it would be at least 20.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
> naked territorial aggression
Well, that depends on what you consider to be worse: pushing neo-colonial policies by installing puppet governments through war and staged coups on the other part of the world, or resolving local conflicts created by dissolution of the SU along the administrative (instead of historical, ethnical, or national) borders, while granting citizenships, providing social infrastructure, or at least allowing states to gain sovereignty (if Kosovo can be independent under UN's self-determination principle, why can't Ossetia, who had been at odds with Georgia for ages and was only territorially related to it, because at some point the Soviet Union decided that budgeting that way is easier?)
Besides, considering the US geography, it's kinda hard for it to have territorial disputes, even if it really wanted to. On the other hand, you can ask Mexicans what they think of US law enforcement openly operating in Mexico.
What's the source on that claim?
Your argument would be valid, if this was something exclusive to Russia, and not a common mutual thing between Russia and NATO. NATO bombers just as well fly into Russian airspace, NATO deploys military manoeuvres at Russian borders, and NATO states politicians are just as keen to ramble about nukes as anyone else.