That sounds a lot like Bill Clinton's parsing of the language, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Nevertheless, a war that happened around 1920 which resulted in a peace treaty between the warring parties is not a justification for Germany and the Soviets deciding to split Poland in two at the end of the 1930's. The only rationale was revenge.
Bill Clinton is irrelevant on this issue.
The point is double standards should not be applied to history.
The rationale for USSR was to secure the Western flank producing a buffer zone in the future war with Germany.
The rest were secondary rationales and if it was revenge why not. I believe revenge is a wrong term.
What was a rationale for Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia?
What Jozef Lipski was talking about saying: ‘Hitler deserves a monument for solving a Jewish problem for Poland’?