I don't think the point stands because of the differences, though. Ukraine's "insurgency" is not really an insurgency, it's an invasion. You can make an argumen

I don't think the point stands because of the differences, though. Ukraine's "insurgency" is not really an insurgency, it's an invasion. You can make an argument that a lot of insurgencies are supported from the outside, but a) you can't say that about Chechnya, and b) the one in Donbass wasn't just supported from the outside, it was initiated, armed, financed, manned from one outside country. So on a kind of insurgency gradient where on one side you have people rising up against central government for grievances real or imagined, and on the other side a pure invasion by another country with a very thin veneer of "insurgency" just to cover things up, Chechnya and Donbass are on the opposite ends, and places like Iraq and Afghanistan somewhere in the shadier middle (e.g. Iran's support for Shia militias in Iraq, Pakistan's support for the Taliban). Insurgencies happen. Civil wars happen. Although intervention in them is often driven by geopolitical interests, it's hard for countries in the free world to justify doing so without other rationales, e.g. terrorism, genocide, etc. No such problem exists for countries like Russia, run by authoritarian imperialists. They intervene early and often, and also create fake 'insurgencies' to invade without committing.