Yes, naturally. Getting involved in conflict is related to a country's power and global reach. Countries seek to control the environment around them: securing trade, resources, protecting allies, etc. As a general rule, the more of the world that a country is involved with the more it risks being drawn into conflict, and the more powerful it is, the more it has the ability to intervene militarily.
As a result, just because the USA is the country most involved in conflict, it does not follow that US nonintervention would necessarily result in less conflict, because any vacuum will be filled by other states' power. For instance, Russia could be "given" Ukraine, but it would not stop there. Once Ukraine were secure in its sphere, it would move on to new countries to spread its influence over, by hook or by crook. Without US military deterrent in the Pacific, China would almost certainly aggressively start to assert dominance over the Far East, with its military a key component.
One could even consider that the presence of a supreme global power like the USA may actually
reduce conflict globally, because it forces potential belligerent minnows to consider the ramifications of the supreme power's disapproval. The cost of this is that supreme power has to get its hands dirty instead; of course, it also tends to benefit the supreme power, who can pressurise countries to do things the way that they want.
Yes, we supported people to campaign effectively and win a democratic election. How naughty of us! Russia, meanwhile, has been happy to support just stuffing the ballot boxes.
Let's have a look at some of what Russia's been up to in Ukraine:
Explaining the two countries’ intertwined histories, the armed conflicts in Crimea and the Donbas region, and disputes over gas supplies.
www.chathamhouse.org
Over time it has become clear Russia is unwilling to settle its borders with Ukraine and acknowledge its territorial integrity as an independent state.
www.chathamhouse.org
Do you think Russia has a right to subjugate Ukraine, and that the Ukrainian people don't merit rights and self-determination? If the Ukrainians don't merit these, why should the Balts, Poles, Georgians, Kazakhs have them either? Where would Russia stop?
Why would it stop? Would the world be a better place if we just let countries like Russia take what they wanted? Do you just think weak nations should be sacrified and thrown to wolves, just so long as we aren't remotely wolf-like?
You need to connect the first part of your post to your second part, and then you will understand my argument. Here's the gist:
After 1991, both Russia and Ukraine were weak, wracked by internal conflict, together with the other Republics. What did the U.S. do in response to that? First, it suggested "shock therapy" via free market capitalism, which only made matters worse, and led to the downfall of democracy plus the continued strength of the oligarchs. Later, we would find out that various U.S. politicians and their cronies were making deals with the same oligarchs, which in turn set up corrupt politicians like Putin, with the intention of government working for them until Putin went againt them.
What happened a few years later? After the resurgence of U.S. military adventurism via Iraq it set its sights on Eastern Europe, with Clinton using NATO enlargement as part of electioneering and thus gain victory over Dole. Keenan, who came up with the policy of containment decades earlier, warned the government that if it uses NATO for encirclement and continues to meddle in both Ukraine and Russia, then war will break out, if not worse.
Years after that, what happened? The U.S. began to meddle in Ukraine for over a decade, culminating in Nuland and others engaging in manipulation, and leading to regime change and thus control of Ukraine. From there came manipulation from EU to take advantage of natural resources and NATO considering membership. Put simply, the West was wrestling Ukraine away from Russia, and Russia was seeing that as a sign of belligerence, with more countries joining NATO and encircling Russia. Why's this not fake news? Because the U.S. was doing the SAME THING in Asia, with over 400 military installations out of what is now 900 to encircle China.
Why is the U.S. doing this? Since WW2 it has engaged in war after war, accumulating incredible levels of debt to pay for what is the most expensive military in the world, and with over 900 military installations, onerous foreign policies, and even financial aid with strings attached aka structural adjustment to work with all sorts of regimes worldwide plus cause the fall of governments perceived as a threat through destabilization and even intervention. For example, in the Middle East it arms Israel but also Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It manipulated Iraq to make it attack Iran, and then attacked it in turn when its former client Saddam went out of control and was later selling oil in exchange for euros. It made deals with Iran after its client the Shah of Iran with his dreaded SAVAK went out of power, and then went against it when it tried to form its own oil bourse, and caused countries like Libya to fall apart because it tried to do the same. The basis of terror groups? "Freedom fighters" funded by the U.S., recruited by U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, and trained by U.S. ally Pakistan. Over at the Americas was support for all sorts of banana republics plus groups like the Contras and training of military officials via the School of the Americas. Over at Asia were deals and support for the likes of Suharto and Marcos, and then later deals made with Communist China.
The purpose is to keep many countries weak and thus dependent on the dollar, which in turn allows the U.S. to continue for decades of heavy borrowing and spending, and not just for financial gambling and consumer spending but for the same military used to keep that dollar propped up. Meanwhile, the same U.S. rich which control 70 pct of wealth in the U.S. and the bulk of U.S. media, pharma, food processing, and even the defense industry profit from the same regime change. And there's no "we're fighting for freedom and democracy" ilk here. It's all for profit and realpolitik.
That's why when Zelensky imagined Ukraine as a "big Israel," he received praises from the neocon-neolib Atlantic Council. From the liberals and chicken hawks who "stan for Palestinians"? Crickets. Same when Zelensky announced that he was making deals with BlackRock and others to "manage" the Ukrainian economy. Also, when the NYT reported that the defense industry was estatic over increased sales and opportunities to use Ukraine and Russia to "beta test" new weapons, which isn't surprising because that's the same NYT that for over a decade wanted to bomb Iran, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and more, ljust like the obedient chicken hawks they are.
So, what do we have left? The view that "but Ruzzia invaded Ukraine, end of story" coupled it "I was against the invasion of Iraq, you know." It's a blinkered view that completely ignores the context of that invasion and instead replaces it with "Ruzzia wants to form an empire" and thus must be stopped with the same war machine that the U.S. employed to attack many other countries and foreign and economic policies that coerced and manipulated others across decades.
So why should you and others be surprised by the fact that more of these countries are now answering back? Is it because you live in a world where you think the U.S., as the sole superpower, has for its intention, and has succeeded, in reducing global conflict? If so, then you're talking about another planet.
www.theguardian.com
covertactionmagazine.com
markets.businessinsider.com
