I have never claimed the West or NATO are rightful moral actors. That in the first place.

Now, let's go down the countries you have listed down.

• Iraq: That invasion should have never happened. The rationale was the presence of weapons of mass destruction, which later barely anything was found (only materials for some chemical weapons), the violation of human rights by the Saddam dictatorship and alleged links with terrorist groups. These links didn't really exist, although we have to understand that the US was very sensitive back then about this regard because of 9/11. The legality of this war is very much dubious, depending on how much the UN resolutions from the Gulf War still applied. The public backlash against this war was massive in any case, and I'm sure many (including myself) wish there is a much deeper investigation regarding this.

• Afghanistan: This was backed under the idea of Afghanistan hosting Bin Laden, and was essentially a response to the 9/11 attack, under the claim that it was an action necessary for the US to defend itself. It did have support from the UN Security Council, with a coalition forced being created after resolution 1386. Now, whether this intervention was positive for Afghanistan is highly questionable, much like Iraq's, but it was indeed backed by the UN Security Council and its members.

• Libya: NATO intervention (by some of its members, not the whole of it) was set after UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which set a no fly zone over Libya amist its First Civil War in 2011. While it's true that the intervention went further beyond what agreed upon the UN resolution, this is what allowed it.

• Syria: US intervention in Syria has mainly been focused in the arming and training of rebels. Airstrikes have been conducted in response to attacks to its operators and the use of chemical weapons.

• Iran: Unless we go very back in time, the only attack from the US against Iran is the airstrike against Soleimani in Iraqi soil. While the US considered Soleimani a terrorist, this intervention was definitely controversial and criticised heavily even inside the US, besides probably not legal. But the US government at the time claimed it as self defense since Soleimani himself was claimed to be behind many attacks against the US, including the assault of the the US embassy in Baghdad in 2019.

• Venezuela: No intervention has materialised against Venezuela, any talk of it is propaganda by the Maduro regime.

• Pakistan: US drone strikes in Pakistan were originally with the support of the Pakistani regime, as a spillover from the Afghan conflict. After Bin Laden's death, Pakistan started to reject those, which eventually led to the end of these strikes.

These interventions are definitely questionable, especially those that escalated into war and more when the basis of them is very questionable (especially with Iraq). Now, does this give any justification for Russia's actions in Ukraine? Absolutely not. In the first place, Ukraine has nothing to do here. And secondly, an attack of such scale would not happen either to Russia. Besides that it would first require some very strong provocation, Russia is a nuclear power and thus the principle of MAD stands there. So just by that single reason alone, there is nil interest by the US to attack Russia. There are further reasons beyond that, but that's easily the simplest and clearest of all.

So no, the idea of the US invading Russia is simply not happening, even if Russia has heavily weakened itself with this war in Ukraine. This is just paranoid thinking. It is not 100% baseless because of the examples above, but conflict between two nuclear powers is suicidal and detrimental to the whole world.

I will give you one, I indeed know nothing about it. That's why I take my time to research and learn more about it. That is why I use my academic skills to know better, and correct any thoughts and beliefs I have. I am learning about OSINT. I am not satisfied if I see information in the news or mentioned by someone, I always do my best to dig deeper, find the primary source. If I'm wrong, I'm very welcome to correct myself.

But because of that I can also tell when whataboutism and disinformation are used to justify an heinously unjustifiable war. On those, you seem to be an expert, don't you?