This is a logical fallacy most toddlers learn. Two wrongs don't make right. You claim to be for peace and non-escalation but this is a direct justification for violent escalation. Think about what you just said. Country A might hypothetically not like something country B does in the future so country C is perfectly justified to inflict violence on country D. As a logical principle how insane is that? What about simply saying Russia's violence is wrong and if America or another country does the same (Iraq for example) we will say the same? That would be being in favor or peace and and non-escalation.