What kind of mental gymnastics are you jumping thru to think a full-scale foreign invasion is acceptable because a president that's suites your political wills gets ousted thru civil protests?
In a parallel universe where Trudeau promised closer ties to the EU and pivoted mid-term to get closer to the USA, would the USA be entitled to invade and annex us should we decide to throw him out?
People died there. 67 of the protesters died after being shot. They were killed. However, 18 police officers died, too - and probably not to friendly fire. That seems to suggest there was violence involved. Most of that violence was done by the police. Still, that death toll on the police side cannot be just an accident. There was fighting happening there. The police used violence, but the protesters reciprocated in kind.
I'm not saying who was right or wrong. Obviously, 750 people with gunshot wounds is too much for any police action. The officers evidently failed to get the situation under control, and, of course, they are paid to do just that, so the large part of responsibility lies with them. They shouldn't have needed to shot to kill. But, the protesters also could have gone home. Or they could have stayed there, but without resorting to violence (though they would be tortured and some of them would get killed anyway). What actually happened, though, resembled regular urban warfare, if Wikipedia description is to be trusted. One side was out-armed, the other outnumbered, but there definitely were two opposing forces, fighting for territory, taking and re-taking important points, moving wounded to the rear, making surprise attacks or night raids, and fighting them off, involving third parties, and so on.
Again, none of that justifies the invasion by Russia. Annexation of territory, and the war that ensued are both Russia's responsibility and crime. Obviously, Russia is an aggressor here, and it violated sovereignty of Ukraine, no matter the reasons. I'm writing this much about the obvious, because last time I pointed this out I got into a lengthy, very frustrating, discussion with someone who accused me of being on Moscow's payroll. I'm not. I'm not justifying any action of Russia, and I'm not endorsing their aggression, and I don't feel (at very least) like I advance their agenda.
But. More than hundred dead and more than a thousand wounded is not, in my opinion, (EDIT: just a) "civil protest".
Civil unrest is more what I meant, with those people much in mind, felt like a better term than coup. But I don't think "protest" is necessarily wrong, it doesn't count out violent ones AFAIK (lethally repressed, riots, etc), i.e :
Why would US invade Canada for wanting closer ties with EU? Like EU is damaging its population for US interests? Like you maybe misunderstood my point, but it is enemy entities that are not liked on the border of superpower, let Canada say that they want to join CSTO and see what happens
They got invaded the day after a president that turned the country away from the EU to Russia was ousted, not NATO to CSTO. They're getting shelled for exercising economic sovereignty, not military ones.
If Canada was to get wrecked for joining the Schengen Area (or somehow the EU or China's RCEP), which FWIW I don't see happening, it in no way would justify one or the other superpower pre-emptively crushing sovereign countries. Just like other cases of the US encroaching on foreign countries for dubious reasons don't excuse or justify Ukraine in any way.
In a parallel universe where Trudeau promised closer ties to the EU and pivoted mid-term to get closer to the USA, would the USA be entitled to invade and annex us should we decide to throw him out?