Would you prefer it the other way around? Let's say hypothetically Russia puts their bases and ICBM in Canada and assures everyone, it's only to target Mexico, in case a large narco or terrorist threat appears there.
i would prefer Russia to not interfere with internal political processes. like giving Yanukovich $15bn loan on the eve of signing EU association which ultimately led to tens of thousands of people being killed.
But meddling into internal political processes seems like bread and butter for any would be superpower. Or are Iraq and Afghanistan invasion somehow not interference with political processes?
your question poses a false dichotomy. the choice is not between russia occupying ukraine versus russia behaving differently somewhere else, the choice is between russia occupying ukraine and russia not occupying ukraine. i prefer russia not occupying ukraine.
funny, please read more about current relationship between Ukraine and Poland, Hungary, Romania (all NATO members). they supported the revolution at first, but now they treat them to acquire Ukrainian territories https://www.unian.info/politics/2184929-certain-statements-i...
do tell which territories have Poland, Hungary and Romania have occupied? because russia is already occupying crimea and parts of some eastern regions via puppet governments funded and armed by russia.
It's not a invalid point per se, but I think everyone knows NATO's recent moves against Russia are a direct consequence of Russia invading and annexing Crimea.
It probably won't end well if everyone decides to "one-up" each other, though, similar to how WW1 started.
This is one of few times I've seen "invade" used to describe Russia's actions in Crimea. I find it strange that even western media talks about "annexation" when they usually employ exaggerated terminology for all kinds of trivial events.
edit: I'm not saying the invasion was trivial, I'm saying the media response was/is understated compared to non-events they exaggerate
And why is NATO getting closer to your borders? It's not because NATO is expansionistic, seeking bases to launch an invasion of Russia. No, it's because countries like Poland fear Russia invading them, and so they seek protection via NATO.
What should NATO do, when Poland asks to become a member? Say no, because Russia has the right to meddle in Poland? Say no, because not upsetting Russia is more important than Poland's future? Say no, because defending the western half of Europe is all we should care about?
If Russia doesn't like everyone wanting to join NATO, it's really easy for them to fix: Stop making everyone feel threatened by Russia.
(Now, in the real world, that may not work, because Russia is paranoid, because of a couple of guys named Napoleon and Hitler who, starting from further west than the eastern edge of Poland, got all the way to Moscow - or within 15 miles of it, in Hitler's case. So Russia has some grounds for concern based on history. Nevertheless, NATO has exactly zero interest in invading Russia. My main point, however, stands - it's Russia's fault that NATO is expanding, not NATO's fault.)
oh wait, that wasn't NATO, was it?