That seems to be the essence of your argument here.
(None of those wars are directly analogous to what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now of course; but never mind that for now).
And yes, the wars were not directly analogous but the stark reality of the matter is that the US and RUssia are two of the world bullies that are capable of invading anyone they like, and nobody can do anything about it. Again: why should I like one more than the other? Why should anyone, who is not their citizen?
One shouldn't, and both should be condemned of course.
And not apologized for, like you are doing here.
To be even more clear: those nations include Russia, the US, China, and basically every other national entity with an army that you might want to propose.
For the record, I also dislike, strongly, people on the internet who cannot hold a conversation without insulting their interlocutor, or accusing them of some perceived mind crime.
If that's not what they were, then I misread them. In regard to the peace negotiations -- it does seem (from some of the sibling threads) like you're very quick to grant the Russian side a pass, and to assign an unduly high a likelihood to the possibility that the Ukrainian/Western side simply botched their end of it (because Boris, etc). An assessment that just doesn't hold up in view of how the Russians conducted themselves during those negotiations, as the person responding to you pointed out:
Check also: Germany, South Korea and Japan have more American militiamen stationed there than the active duty personnel of the majority of the countries in the world.
You seem to be implying equivalence between a thousand soldier operation and a full scale war comprising of half a million soldiers on both sides.
Korea was started by a USSR ally (North Korea invading South Korea), the UN Command (led by the US) was a defensive response.
Vietnam is...well, the whole post-WW2 situation in the region is complicated, but it's reasonable to view it as started by Western allies of the US, particularly France.
Iraq 1990- was started by Iraq. Iraq 2003 was started by the US.
Afghanistan 1980 was started by the USSR Afghanistan 2001 was started by the al-Qaeda, a force intimately connected to and defended by the Taliban and based in Taliban-held territory, attacking the US.
Your list of examples doesn't really make a strong case for your thesis.
Afghanistan? You seem to forget that Russia also invaded them.
You also seem to forget Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia, and Ukraine.
So, no, the wars started by "the West" are not significantly more than the wars started by Russia or the USSR.
In any case that still leaves Russia aggression on par with US aggression. My point in this thread is that I don't see the reason to prefer the US and "the West" to Russia. Or China. I would certainly not want to be a citizen of any of those three.
Fine. Don't take my word for it. Go look.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War:
"The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea; it began on 25 June 1950 when North Korea invaded South Korea and ceased after an armistice on 27 July 1953. North Korea was supported by the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union while South Korea was supported by the United Nations Command (UNC) led by the US."
How many wars post-WWII can you name that were started by US allies? Other than Israel, and excluding domestic terrorism issues (Italy, Germany, UK), I'm drawing a blank here.