FBT you asked about many regimes and how we should handle like situations. Here's how i see it and the view point I look for in politicians, you have three types of foreign conflicts regional conflicts, pretty much the entire Middle East and Africa different tribes and clans clashing and doing bad stuff to each other, we should stay out of it always. Then you have indirect threats Russia expanding as you called it, more concerning flying bombers off our shores, china building islands in international waters these are things we can't ignore and do not ignore. These actions are handled through diplomacy and building a strong military force ( I'm all for having the biggest military force peace through strength). But just like the Cuban missile crisis these conflicts are handled without military action it's when a threat reaches the third level we must act. Direct threats, such as the times of WWII or even responding to 9/11 ( but we bombed the wrong country ?) and when we respond it should be with the full force of our military without hesitation for the world to see the utter destructions we unleash and then we should leave, not occupy and rebuild for decades leave their civilization in ashes and let history note the end of their people in response to a direct threat to us.


However we tend to jump right in and play the middle man in the first level of threats to avoid dealing with the third level. That's what non-intervention as I see it is. We respond with war declared by congress to direct threats and when we respond civilizations are left in ruin.

---