Most importantly, I don't think we will agree on whether a revolution or a coup happened in 2014 Ukraine.

So, if NATO boasts about spending billions on subjugating Ukraine and semi-openly picks politicians in Ukraine, that's not a coup? All while things play out without any noticeable distinction from all the other coups (and similar actions) attempted/carried out by NATO?
Do you also claim that NATO did not try a coup in Iran recently (before proceeding to whine that Iran successfully suppressed it)?

Of note here is that 73% of the parliament voted the president out of office, which gives this "coup" a pretty decent democratic basis.

A "decent democratic basis" is when the ruling class decides to oust whoever isn't subservient to NATO, then?
Going to note that, when even NATO's own studies say that the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted to secede from Ukraine and join Russia, you are opposed to their wishes being respected.

I think we are circling a hen-an-egg problem here, because I can always bring up some earlier aggression from Russia / the Soviet Union and then you can bring up some earlier aggression by NATO.

Firstly, it is telling that you imply that the USSR's anti-colonial actions were "aggression", while things like the ongoing NATO's genocide of Palestine, the Belgian atrocities in Congo, the invasions of Iraq weren't/aren't.
Secondly, what "earlier aggression from Russia" can you point to?
Thirdly, the rest of the world has a right to defend itself against the most prolific invader in the world. "The rest of the world" does not magically exclude Russia.
Fourthly, if you cared about aggression, you would be against Ukraine siding with, for example, Poland and Germany - which have actually been aggressors against Ukraine in recent history.

Fact is, both the invasion of 2014 and of 2022 were illegal by international law and by the very agreements that Russia had signed before.

Ah, so "legal" invasions and atrocities like what your empire did to Iraq, is doing to Iran, etc. are fine, then? Care to explain who decides what invasions are "legal", then?

The referendum was also held after Russian troops invaded the peninsula, whch is definitely not okay

So, your complaint here is that the referendum didn't conform to liberal democratic norms (as alleged by the propaganda machine of the invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan), rather than that it was somehow not actually reflective of the wishes of the people?
Do you also have the same complaints about Ukraine not holding elections, about NATO states blatantly overturning election results, and about NATO states intervening in elections? Why are you not being vocal about that?

Legally speaking, one of them just changed the government of an existing state while the other one moved the borders; the latter of which is much more invasive to the international order.

Nobody in their right mind cares about imaginary lines in the sand or about the "international order" (where NATO gets to invade the rest of the world with no repercussions).

It seems that most of Ukrainians want to associate with Europe.

Most Germans also wanted to associate with the government of NSDAP.
Just because they want to does not mean that their desire to repeatedly invade Iraq should be respected and somehow not considered an act of aggression.

If Russia is so big about letting people choose whom they want to associate with, why invade Ukraine in 2022?

I don't claim that Russia is "big about letting people choose whom they want to associate with". I was pointing out about your very selective support for "self-determination".

The actual reason was very obviously NATO repeatedly acting against its promises to not expand eastward, invading everywhere, and self-admittedly pushing for war with Russia.
As for whether or not Russia's response is bad, I'd like to repeat my question: what do you think a state should do when the most prolific invader in the world gathers weapons and military personnel on its borders, especially after doing a coup against a neighbouring state?

The same argument works for the occupied part of Georgia. Or for the regions predominantly settled by Crimean Tartars.

Not sure what you think should have happened with South Ossetia. Do you think that Georgia should have kept killing people there?
As for the Crimean Tatars, NATO's complaints about them not having their own state is very obviously just to drum up support for using them the way NATO has been using Kurds and other ethnic groups to harm its enemies.

And if we do bring up the middle east for some reason

Ah yes, "for some reason". That "some reason" is the fact that that is where the most prominent recent invasions and atrocities of your empire have been happening.
By the way, Ukraine took/takes part in those, as well.

And if we do bring up the middle east for some reason, it also applies to the Kurds

Yeah, NATO uses Kurds in order to attack its enemies there, like how it did in Syria, where the Kurdish policies prevented Syria from accessing its own oil, and proceeded to just join the DAESH government in Syria when the latter conquered Syria.

Are you saying Russia was protecting countries in the middle east by carrying out military maneuvers over the Swedish airspace?

Russia was quite literally protecting Syria against your empire before you conquered it. Not sure why you are even asking this question.
Also, you are implying that the Swedish airspace is so sacred to you that it shouldn't be breached to help non-white people resist your empire.

Sweden and the Baltics didn't really play an instrumental part in any of these campaigns.

Sweden took part in, for example, bombing civilian shelters in Iraq.
Also, please stop whitewashing the nazis. They did take part in those. They do take part in those. They will never stop taking part in those unless stopped.
Also, being in this "defensive" alliance does mean that they promise to help whoever does engage in those atrocities if somebody attacks them, so even if they didn't participate in those things directly (they did), they would at the very least be making action against the direct actors harder.

But how does that justify regularly threatening the Baltics or Sweden (the latter of which even used to be neutral before its chagrined association with NATO due to growing pressure from the East)?

"Neutral" is when you collaborate with one side against all the others?
Also, why do you keep trying to paint literal SS troop worshippers and colonial subjugators of the world as if they are the victims? You are hell-bent on punishing Russia for resisting you on the grounds that Russia invaded Ukraine, but excuse their invasions as if that's perfectly fine.

Are you suggesting the Baltics and Sweden should've allied with Russia to prevent them from being invaded by Russia?

No, I pointed that out as an option. Russia hasn't engaged in military hostilities with its neighbours outside of the cases where it was either Georgia attacking Russian peacekeepers and South Ossetians, or NATO's aggression via Ukraine.

In my reading of history, the Baltics and Sweden suffered both under Nazi occupation

The Baltics today basically worship nazi Germany and complain about the USSR resisting Germany.

... and Soviet occupation

No, being prevented from plundering Africa and Asia is not "suffering under occupation".
This "suffering under Soviet occupation" nonsense is especially wild when we consider that they had some of the highest living standards in the world (while today they keep plundering the Global South).

Russia is not fighting NATO right now

It quite literally is. Not sure why you are trying to pretend otherwise, as if NATO hasn't been taking action against Russia, such as sending weapons and personnel to fight Russia.

With NATO boots on the ground, this conflict would look very different very quickly

NATO boots at least used to be "on the ground".

However, NATO is demonstrating that, at least for now, it remains a defensive alliance that only springs into action when a member state is attacked by a foreign state adversary

NATO has literally invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, is carrying out a genocide in Palestine, and self-admittedly started a war against Russia (which it has been losing), and is comprised of colonial metropoles and some semi-peripheral states. Why do you keep pretending that it's a "defensive" alliance?

I brought up Sweden and the Baltics because the second strongest military in the world (Russia) has much less reason of being afraid of the 26th strongest military (Sweden), than Sweden has a reason to be afraid vice versa

Ok? Invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan don't get to whine about being threatened.
Furthermore, Russia, for all its flaws, has so far not attacked anybody unprovoked (unlike Sweden, and unlike the rest of NATO), and Sweden is not even sharing any significant borders with Russia. So it has even less of a claim to being threatened.

Even saying that Russia was afraid of the USA by proxy doesn't change this much, A) because the US is not in Sweden, they could just project through Sweden, while Russia could actually march at Sweden if it wanted to, but more importantly, B) because number 2 vs number 1 is a much less drastic difference than number 2 vs number 26

These arguments are rather silly.
Again, invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan do not get to complain about being threatened. Also, joining their gang is an act of aggression, and the rest of the world does have every right to retaliate (and stop this plight upon the world).

Before 2022, everyone thought Russia could just overrun its neighbor states (like Ukraine) whenever it wanted to and this drove many of them into the arms of NATO, which has yet to invade a member state.

That's a silly reason for joining Adolf Heusinger's organisation.