I actually think we've gotten to the point where NATO is militarily so superior, that invasion is not out of the question, given the rhetoric and the sheer amount of it in the media. I'd say at this point the question is if Russia can defend itself vs NATO, not the other way around.

To be fair, some of the territories those countries are based on have been part of the Russian statehood longer than the US has been a country. Even Poland was Russian for many years. I really think you're having trouble seeing this from a Russian perspective. How do you think the US would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?

What if another country, (say China, for hypothetical purpose) became TWICE as wealthy at the same time as the US suffered a sharp economic crash? And Chinese media got interested in things like Hawaiian nationalism, Texan nationalism, Californian nationalism, etc? I mean they were all either Kingdoms or Republics at one point, but don't have any other special status than the other states, right? You don't think a lot of inhabitants of those former states, suffering in poverty, would also be interested to play that game? Especially if there was money/investment involved? And that's not even starting the Native American business.

I would say that the USA's and Russia's values are very similar, many similarities in the constitution. Biggest reason Russia shuts down free speech because a lot of it isn't anti government in the sense that it's corrupt "let's vote it out," but rather anti government in the sense as "its so corrupt, participating in elections helps to hide its corruption, there's no other way than mass riots and overthrow" deal. How can the most reasonable government deal with that?

Ultimately, I think you're misunderstanding that the SU's dissolution was that step back that you were talking about. It was the (partly) voluntary reduction in both budgets and troops. But NATO never really reciprocated, despite that Russia became even much less a potential threat and never threatened NATO itself?