Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It seems you can't really handle OP being right and have resorted to what-about-ism. So it seems you have conceded the argument and agree that Russia is mindlessly belligerent and now are saying that's fine because you think x-y-z are also belligerent? (Wrong but eh, not the subject of discussion).
But that's not what the OP seems to be saying. He seems to be saying that, history has shown Russia is uniquely a bloodthirsty country that wants to attack its neighbors for no reason, any chance it gets. In a "normal" analysis of countries since, say, 1980s, one would see that countries typically attack as a reaction to something. Even USA invading Iraq was officially in response to Saddam ousting inspectors and maintaining ambiguity about WMDs. And even the secret war of bombing in Laos, which was especially egregious (since Laos presented zero threat, and yet was bombed more than any country in history), was justified by the "domino theory" that we cannot allow communism to spread around the world, because one day it may "challenge our interests".
That's why USA and NATO want to flip Russia's neighbors against Russia, even if it means a CIA-sponsored insurgency war where a million people die. In this kind of geopolitical chess, it is far better that they fight Russia over there, than having to later fight them all over here, economically and militarily, as a geopolitical bloc. Pick them off, divide and conquer. Russia, like a cornered animal, will react, as would any country to whom it is done. That kind of stuff is understandable -- geopolitical chess, action, reaction.
But if one goes to say that Russia is somehow beyond reacting, actually goes out and invades countries to grab their territory for fun and profit, that's saying much more. And in that case, I would push back on that narrative. Even the USA isn't doing that, officially. They are always "reacting" to what they perceive are a threat to their interests and security. But in the USA case it's much harder to justify when a country they're invading is 3000 miles away.
The point of my reply was to say that each country (Russia included) has media that radicalizes their population to think exactly this kind of "cartoon villain" thing about their geopolitical rival, and I wish we would all listen to each other's media and hold our politicians accountable to talk to each other more frequently, as Khrustchev and Kennedy did, so they can avoid killing millions of people as "collateral damage" between the Great Powers. Because watch, if we escalate with China around Taiwan, we'll be saying the same thing about China being a cartoon villain in about 3-4 years from now.
Oh, and avoiding nuclear war: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm