So, USSR invades Poland in 1939 along with its ally Nazi Germany (it’s funny, isn’t it, that Russians had no problem aligning themselves with REAL Nazis back in 1939-1940).
Prior to the invasion Poland’s eastern border incorporated what is today western Belarus and western Ukraine (hell, in the early 17th century the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth included ALL of what is today Latvia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad, Belarus; one-half of Estonia; 80% of Ukraine; and a portion of western Russia).
Shortly before the German surrender in May, 1945, the allies agreed to establishing a provisional coalition government in Poland (an agreement that Stalin immediately broke). With the close of WWII, the USSR gobbled up all of eastern Poland up to the Bug River. It then installed a communist, pro-Kremlin government and in a few years incorporated “Poland” into the Soviet Union as a satellite state.
Poland has been caught between the aggressions of Russia and Germany (Prussia) for hundreds of years. It has been tossed around like a rag doll by both Germany and Russia. No wonder Poland detests both and trusts neither.
The borders of eastern Europe have been as fluid as thin treacle, moving this way and that, malleable in the hands of whatever power wants to play with it.
Russia is upset because it lost its hegemon over the region, and it wants it back. Russia is all about conquest and expanded empire to restore its “glory days,” if ever there truly was such a Russia (but, IT thinks so, and that is what matters today).
You easily slide into the equivalence argument, which seeks to justify an act simply because it has been done before, by someone else: “Well, if Johnny did it, so can I!” Such logic concludes that if one commits a crime or an injustice, then another is entitled to commit the same wrongs and cannot be called to account for it simply because...well, someone else has also done it.
I don't see it that way. To me its more a case of recognizing the hypocrisy of being outraged when somebody else does exactly what the US does. I don't see the fundamental fairness in anything being justified for some but not for others. We falsified evidence to justify regime change in Iraq. We did what was necessary to justify a decision we made based on what we saw as in our interest. I think it is hypocritical to set a double standard when Russia takes similar actions for purposes that they feel is in THEIR interest. We invaded Grenada for less justification than Russia has now. Even after the 2014 coup, Russia tried to work with Zelenskyy and his predecessor to reach acceptable conditions. They'd reach agreements, and then the Ukrainian side would inevitably renege on what they had agreed to.
There are numerous examples of the US taking actions to implement regime changes around the world in the past 60 years. The US has interests that they need to pursue, just as France did when they helped the US throw off British rule in the 1700s. I won't deny Russia the same rights that we grant ourselves.
A key part of the rule of law is that the rules are set, and then they apply to everyone. It isn't "We can do it, but you'll be punished if you do the same." The rule of law doesn't allow for different standards, depending on who has more or less political or military clout.
I'm much more concerned about whether the US is abiding by the rule of law themselves than I am about them trying to get everybody else in the world to abide by it. The US shouldn't be seizing and freezing assets of other countries. The US should be using their power to STOP piracy, not to use their financial and military power to engage in piracy themselves.
It seems that the US wants a unipolar world. We decide right from wrong, and if anyone disagrees with us they can face our wrath. That viewpoint is bound to lead to fear and animosity from leaders of countries around the world who wind up becoming fearful of what will happen to them if they get on our bad side. Not only the countries big enough to directly challenge us (specifically China and Russia), but a lot of less powerful countries think it would be better if the US didn't have that much power, especially when the US has shown they won't apply the power equitably. Besides their own economic calculations, I think the power dynamic was a factor in some of the 160 of the 195 countries in the world not enacting sanctions on Russia. They know they'd find favor with us if they comply with our wishes, probably thereby gaining some rewards, but they're willing to forego that to avoid harming Russia as a counter to the US.