[082349872349872]

Sure, we've all studied the Mexican-American war (1846-1848), but still, in this century it seems like an appropriate response would've been counter-regime change by supporting protestors, not, you know, actually mounting an invasion? (sorry, "special military operation")

If the goal is to go around recovering former territories, there's a "Russian River" in California just waiting for its own SMO: Славянка наша?

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Рашен-Ривер

  Ne valyay duraka, ax, Rossiya!
  Za moryami skuchayesh, podi...
  Shto Sibir', shto Alyaska – dva berega:
  Baby, koni, razdol'ye v puti. (2x)

[shufflerofrocks]

>Sure, we've all studied the Mexican-American war (1846-1848)

and Cambodia, Iraq, Vietnam, Cuba, and 50 other known instances with more than a few of them in this decade itself.

Given how good the US is at the sort of foreign meddling, and that supporting protesters hasn't ever worked in reversing regime-change (unless it was an extremely unstable country), taking control of a territory that US is using for it's operations isn't an invalid move, geopolitically speaking.

>there's a "Russian River" in California just waiting for its own SMO: Славянка наша?

Lol. I'm not at all disagreeing with the ideological basis in your point, but Russia's wanted Ukraine for a long time, and US using Ukraine as a frontline provided a convenient excuse.