> which i think is an attempt to understand who the aggressive party/parties are in your opinionAppeasement is defined as policy that avoids conflict. The conflict in Ukraine hasn't been avoided and remains ongoing, so Russia does not fit no matter how you slice it. Nor does the West, to be fair. Conflict hasn't been avoided full stop.
If, for argument's sake, conflict has been avoided, it is important to understand what concessions have been made to Russia, if Russia is the aggressor. It matters not who the aggressor is if nobody is performing appeasement in the first place. I am not aware of the West providing any concessions to keep Russia happy as it pertains to this. Instead, sanctions has been imposed against their wishes.
Russia pulling out and conceding Ukrainian territory back to Ukraine to keep the West happy is how sanctions will be lifted. The West is not the aggressor in the war, but could be considered an aggressor when it comes to sanctions. They were very much intended to be putative. If appeasement is relevant (which is debatable), that is where it fits given the subject of what it will take to see sanctions lifted.
One's feelings about whether or not Russia is justified is irrelevant and a change in subject. Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.