My point is the same one I have outlined consistently, it is that you cannot make the moral case against invasion and violence in isolation.
You cannot make a universal argument against the abhorrence of invasion, of killing people because they object to being invaded, without recognising the instance where the US and the UK have invaded and killed local populations. The attempt to separate them in order to claim moral superiority in one particular case is hypocrisy, but worse that the hypocrisy is the inability to look at where the invasions come from in a historical context, to then address the root causes of abhorrence, and maybe, from that recognition of past mistakes, build a more stable universal argument that makes future invasions and killing less likely.
Yes, we have to deal with this one first, but we will not get rid of this one or prevent a future one by claiming a moral superiority that we do not deserve and runs contrary to our own amoral histories.
We have to recognise our part mistakes before we can start to, hopefully, make changes that might prevent the next Putin. If we don’t recognise our past mistakes, we will not even start to make an improved future possible.
If we want to claim moral superiority we have to get our own house in order first