Why are the West the bad guys for intervening against a war criminal, but Russia isn't a bad guy even though it's also carrying out war crimes by bombing civilian populations, by annexing sovereign foreign territory (Crimea), by shooting down an airliner full of civilians over the sovereign territory of a nation it is attacking, and by backing a war criminal?
Because we are the subject to propaganda no less than anyone else in the world. Let's dissect that statement:
"bad guy" is not a term likely to be found in any law book. So you are making a moral argument, but I was making a legal one.
Then you are mixing Syrian and Crimea as if they were the same thing. While western propaganda links them, there's no legal connection between the two.
Bombing of civilian populations is done by all sides in Syria, they all claim that they target military targets (or "terrorists") and that civilian casualties are unfortunate collateral damage. Whom you choose to believe and whom you call liars is an entirely political choice.
Shooting down an airliner is again Crimea, unless you are referring to SA 1812, which was shot down by the Ukrainian Air Force with 78 civilians on board (no survivors). Or maybe to Iran Air 655, shot down by the US with 290 civilian casualties. The unfortunate fact is that even if it was Russia that shot down MH17, a conclusion the international investigation did not make (they say russian missile system, probably operated by the rebels) - civilian airliners get shot down in war zones, and over the years everyone made that fatal mistake, including the US.
Backing a war criminal? Where is the investigation and conviction? Is Erdogan in Turkey any less of one, and the west is backing him? What about Saudi Arabia, the wests stronges ally in the region, whose government is comparable to the fucking Taliban? And wasn't Saddam Hussein backed by the west for decades, even after it was absolutely clear he is using poison gas in the Iraq-Iran war? Funny how being a war criminal only counts if you're inconvient to current politics.
Your final list is very nicely cut. It excludes such things as unprovoked invasions or bombings, which the west is a hundredfold guilty of, or the "temporary" (we are speaking years and decades) occupation of territory, all of which are illegal under international law. It ignores all the military interventions done on simiarly bullshit grounds, or even based on pure fabrications (Iraqs WMD). Nice parlour trick. You have a nice multi-color cake on the table, but you cut out only the white parts and then claim the whole cake was white. You really think that only 12-year olds read /. who don't immediately see through that trick?
Your "self-hatred" argument I left for last. This is censorship par excellence. By putting negatively connotated labels on criticism, you silence it. Chapter one in, ironically, the Nazi book on propaganda. This is literally the first thing they did - labelling things according to their perspective. This allows you to frame the entire discussion in your mindset.
But have you ever given a thought to the fact that the whole binary approach could be wrong? That in these questions maybe there is not one good and one bad guy? This is the real world, not a Hollywood movie! There can be two bad guys. Or three, or five. Or mixed guys - good intentions, bad methods. Or mixed intentions. Someone (forgot who, damn it) once said "Nobody is the villain in their own life story." and in the same way that Bush or Obama or Trump will be able to explain to you why everything they do is right and proper, I'm sure Putin can do the same. Or Assad. Or even these ISIS fanatics. And if you really listen, you would find that their argument is sound. It will be subjective, one-sided and leave out many facts and nuances, but it makes sense to them. And that is why we are in this mess, because everyone thinks they are right, not because bad guys enjoy being bad just for the sake of it. Not a Hollywood movie.
"But, but, but..." I hear you say. Now you want to rattle off the list of war crimes done by the other side. Completely oblivious to the fact that such lists exist about the USA or the west in general as well. I'm sure a reader in Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Vietnam, has his own perspective on the benevolence of western military forces. "But, but, but... Vietnam (and the many war crimes committed there by US forces) was decades ago!" you want to say. Well, Abu Ghraib wasn't, so there's no reason to believe something has so fundamentally changed that if there were another war like Vietnam, the same things wouldn't happen again.
But that doesn't make the USA the "bad guy" nor does it make anyone else the good guys. Pointing out the evil in one person does not make another person magically less evil. In these conflicts there are no good guys. A war to end wars is the most insane idea of them all, and everyone who says anything like that after The Great War should get a slap in the face by each and every one of the millions who needlessly died in the trenches.
Once you stop believing the (western) propaganda, you see that none of this is about any moral highground. There's a dozen conflicts in the world right now where a US or NATO intervention would be just as justified as it is in Syria, or as it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. - but you need to search the Internet to even find out what they are. Because they don't have oil, they are not important for geostrategic interests or they don't affect any political friends. War is done for reasons, and if you really think those reasons include any humanitarian motivations, you need to see a shrink.