Sure. None of those E. European countries had anything to fear from kind, benevolent Russia. And the invasions? They were for those nations’ own good. Moldova? Georgia? Ukraine? Those military juggernauts posed a clear danger to Russia.
On Ukraine, see my post 63.
As for Georgia, the EU itself put the blame directly on Georgia for starting that conflict.
“But the conclusions will discomfit the western-backed Georgian leader, Saakashvili, who was found to have started the war with the attack on Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, on the night of 7 August last year, through a “penchant for acting in the heat of the moment”.
The war started “with a massive Georgian artillery attack”, the report said, citing an order from Saakashvili that the offensive was aimed at halting Russian military units moving into South Ossetia.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili’s version, the report said: “There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation ... Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive could not be substantiated ... It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of such a major attack.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/30/georgia-attacks-unjustifiable-eu
It is not that simple.
In defense of a nation from external threats, strategic land becomes very important. It is not being against them at point. It is being for personal survival. Examine all war and world wide conflicts, past and current.
The “innocent” nations, especially Ukraine, are not really innocent. Ukraine was told flat out what their joining the EU meant to Russia, how it threatened them. Keep in mind Russia and Ukraine have many many ties to each other. That move was a spit in the face. The order of these countries is to join EU and eventually join NATO. Perhaps if they want to avoid conflict with Russia, they should not join up with Russia’s enemy. So small, yes. Innocent, no. And we (U.S. and NATO) are the pot stirrers. If we cared about those nations, maybe we should do things differently, too. We are the ones breaking promises and instigating trouble.
After the fall of the USSR and the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, NATO tried to change Russia’s perspective of it by making that agreement to not expand toward its border. The reason Russia has renewed its view of NATO as its enemy is because of that broken promise. So that is a second front of the NATO instigating the trouble perspective.
Two fronts: Renew and escalate old distrust and threats to Russia’s homeland(attitude - “We do not distrust each other because we are armed, we are armed because we distrust each other” Ronald Reagan); and second, expand NATO toward Russian borders, gobbling up old allies and turning them into enemies (actual physical threat).