The West put troops in Iraq, Syria and bombed Libya. The US have troops in S Korea.
None of the above are NATO countries.
There was a bounty on Saddam Hussein, why not on Putin or other despot dictators?
What’s the real reason?
Different circumstances. South Korean bases are to offer power projection against North Korea/China and support Japan/Taiwan etc. North Korea cannot attack the south without bringing in the US and various other countries. It's an insurance policy.
Iraq, Syria, Libya are all a complete mess of different objectives. Oil, regime change, destabilisation, reducing Russian influence in that region. Non of these countries had nuclear capability, they had no way to project power, they cannot hit US cities or invade other countries that easily ,as they lack the firepower, tactical capability and weaponry required to do so. Easy for the US/Russia/various others to create a wargame arena to fight without impacting their own people. Russia/US happy to fight in someone elses playground but cannot fight on their own.
The whole premise of invading Iraq was based on them having nuclear/chemical warheads. That was the legal requirement for entering a sovereign state e.g. they could hit us with a warhead, therefore we are allowed to invade them. The only other legal way of striking them, is if they invade an ally but Iraq would only have been able to invade Kuwait, which they did in 1991 and failed. The US decided NOT to change leadership in 1991 though, they just gave them a nose bleed and left.
The US has done a 180 though. They've pulled out of Afghanistan, Iraq and most of Syria. Leaving behind a burning oil drum of various factions that are pulling countries to pieces and driving immigration issues in Europe. The US don't care about this, those fleeing conflict are not heading to the US border so it doesn't matter. It absorbs the region in fighting amongst themselves and leaves the US protected to a degree, whilst also allowing them to maintain funding for anti terrorism capabilities and weaponry. Peace means no guns and missiles get bought = very sad investors and billionaires
The problem with Russia is that it is unpredictable. They are bogged down in Ukraine at the moment, but they're using very light infantry units and frontline fodder. They haven't used the full array of weaponry available to them and, if this drags on, they may well decide to upgrade the tactical weapons they use. It would be interesting to see what China do in this instance. They've probably been told that the conflict will be done in 14 days, as a demonstration of Russias power but getting bogged town on street corners and crossroads looks embarrassing. Puting might decide to switch it up a gear and hit them with more devastating missiles.