What's up with that spelling all of a sudden being pulled out of the internet's collective ass in 2022? All of a sudden it's being used by the same people hysterically comparing the current situation to the Munich Conference in 1938, which, if we're going to be using "Kyiv", should be "Munchen". In the state of Bayern, in the nation of Deutschland.

This is exactly the kind of circular logic always used to shift the blame for wars. The Warsaw Pact was allegedly formed due to Western aggression, too. Russia occupied and installed a puppet government in half of Germany, while allocating the territory of the primary state of unified Germany to Poland and annexing the remainder, so when the rump German state joined NATO, the USSR somehow saw this as threatening, instead of a defensive move by a country that had lost half of its territory to Russia. This was after WW2, where Russia invaded six countries in Eastern Europe and then asked literally, "What have we done to deserve this?" when Germany declared war on them.

That these current countries were afraid of Russian invasion does not make it likely.

Again, Central Asia invaded Russia first. Arguably, Russia came into being in response to Central Asian invasions. Germany invaded Russia and not even the most extreme anti-Soviet or Germanophile would claim that Konigsberg becoming Kaliningrad was not somewhat justified consequences of losing a war. Poland invaded Russia in the Middle Ages, Russia occupied & partitioned Poland in early modern times, Poland invaded Russia as almost its first act as a reemergent nation, and at the end of the Cold War more than any other communist country to bring down the USSR. Hungary, Romania, Finland & Bulgaria joined an alliance with Nazis to bring down Russia. If we're still allowed to be hysterical about fascism in countries with no history of it, or be tediously reminded of the Shoah in countries that not only did not participate in it, but ended it, why are Russia's security concerns of that time no longer relevant?

Funny way of saying "Part of Russia since the Mongols."

Except that's not the argument. The argument is that the government imposing that language is sketchy and has an agenda. The language is critiqued to call into question the motives of the government insisting on using it, as opposed to a much more widely-spoken tongue that is actually spoken outside of Ukranian enclaves. No one is saying Russia should get Ukraine because of the language, but if a Haitan government tried to forbid the use of proper French and imposed their creole as the language of government business or taught it in schools at the expense of French, the French community Haiti would be getting nervous, assuming any of them were not already massacred.

American and German is a particularly bad example to cite. You know there was a time in the US when speaking German could get you thrown in jail, when people with German names were changing them out of fear, which an Anglophile administration encouraged, because they were trying to drum up war fever to get us into WW1?

Which are...?

How are nukes a power perk of the USSR? The US, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan and India all have them, too. The Security Council seat had nothing to do with communism, everyone left of center insisted loudly and often during the Cold War, it was a natural position for one of the largest countries of the world, and they could not be excluded simply due to their being communist.

Because Russians were also victims of its crimes. They changed the government and everything, which was the whole point. Why should Russia accept the blame for the crimes of Stalin? It's like holding the US to account for the British crown.
"Ukranians are just as bad" is the basis of my whole position wrt the current conflict.

Hence why we should stay out of it. The bad guy is going to suffer, so, as Napoleon warned, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.