The west that financially and politically encouraged dozens of regions of the former Soviet Republic to split off and declare independence? The above statement is a fact. What is being argued and debated is which view to lend more weight, the view that primarily the US heavily involved itself in aspects that they had zero business to be involved in, from a sovereign perspective, or the view that the claimed independence is legitimate and hence Russia is wrongly invading territory that it claims was and should be its own.
History does not start where CNN and MSNBC wishes it to start, it goes back way further. In fact the above argument plays out in the exactly same way regarding the Taiwan question and contested Islands between Japan, China, and Korea. Same story with the legitimacy of the state of Israel. In fact it directly relates to the legitimacy of the entire United States and whether to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in reparations to the indigenous survivors.
It all comes down to how far you are willing to go back in history and whether you are believing in the winner takes all or seek different resolutions. But you can't have it all, you can't claim that Russia has no legitimacy with its invasion, while you give credit to surviving blacks who demand reparations in the US or indigenous who seek to be made whole for land that was stolen from them. Either winner takes all or not.