One of the big differences between the USA and Russia, is that the US doesn't actually need to annex a country to get what it wants. The US historically acts on behalf of US owned businesses so they can extract mineral and fossil fuel wealth which is funnelled colonial era style back into the US economy. There is no need to plant a flag when it is cheaper and more efficient to achieve the same effect with Chevron.

Using diplomacy and business is good because it leads to LESS DEATH. And anyone can use it. Especially Moscow which had a ton of influence in post soviet space. It was free to be nice and negotiate with Ukraine and get policies good for both but it decided it's beneath it.

It's a choice not a "need". It's a revealing choice. Implying Russia "needed" to annex a country is very revealing too. Like if they don't have enough land and or resources already. You know how sparsely populated it is?

"Need" is obviously being used to refer to capability to execute interests here, and not requirement for survival. The US didn't need to have the cia help oust the Australian government in the 80s, nor did it need to install sympathetic governments across south America for the sake of its mineral companies, but it did it anyway. Russia does not have international mineral businesses with the capability to operate in these places in the same way the US does. Ethics of death only comes into it insofar as if the US did claim territory, it suddenly becomes responsible for the well being of the people living there, which it avoids by privatising the exploitation.

This is ridiculous. Someone with an actual, literal boot on their neck will hear your spiel about exploitation and laugh as much as they can manage.

The US is a state, and like all states it's a sociopath. The reason it's better than others is because it resorts to force later and less often than other states.

It is unironically better this way; your argument implies that having robust systems of law, transnational corporations, and global trade are somehow just as bad as a war of conquest.

That's nuts.

They are not in any of those today, but a very recent history suggests they might be only if the government is serious enough to achieve the goals stated by Trump.

Their troops were in fact in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Serbia...

This does not excuse the atrocities and conquest as performed by Russia, while it's true USA does worry about optics much more (i.e. their presence in Serbia was a lot more toned down than in Iraq or Afghanistan, as Serbia is a European "culture" similar to the rest of Europe).

US go-to is "liberating" a territory, which is — interestingly — the same excuse Russia is using in Eastern parts of Ukraine (and which is why it's likely working with most of their own population, obviously helped with media control).

Thing is, when we look at countries that are "liberated" by US in this day and age, they don't look like US puppet states long-term. Look at Iraq for a prime example.

Russia OTOH did indeed use the "liberate" rhetoric wrt Ukraine, but at this point it made it clear that it intends to annex all territory that it can occupy.

It should be noted that the word "liberate" in a military context has a very long history in Russian war propaganda specifically, which is a big reason why they keep using it. It is an immediate call-out to WW2, which has a near-religious status in Russia, but even beyond that, e.g. the 1939 partition of Poland with the Nazis and annexation of West Ukraine and Belarus was also described as "liberation" then.

I think Russia only ever wanted to annex (or really, make into independent states) Eastern parts of Ukraine, even though it attempted to run over all of it (including Kyiv).

Now, Russia has done this already in Georgia: they consider two territories under their occupation independent states, and not part of Russia.

USA does things differently: after establishing military control, it gets local businesses bought out by US companies (investment, right?) while they are struggling, and attempts to influence political landscape.

I'd certainly choose US approach over the other, but ideally, we'd get neither.