The answer to specific and general causes of such action (intervention, interference, invasion) by foreign states, eg. Russia, UNSC, USA, &tc, is, no. World history is littered with justifications (alliance, "just war", R2P). This should explain why political dissents in one nation-state frequently request and receive material and financial aid from another nation-state in order to prosecute civil wars.

As a practical matter, you need not trust that Russia did not start civil wars in Ukraine and Georgia. Or that constituents in both nations had rejected their governments' bureaucracies and especially torrid corruption of their heads of state before requesting foreign "aid" -- be that billions-EUR-USD IMF debt, peace-keeping patrols, munitions or "technical" training.

The more interesting question is, which states do not expect invasion? It's a short list of OEMs.

Finally, the applicability of the "rights" of a sovereign government is intended by unscrupulous politicians to be a problematic test of their personal legitimacy and constituents' appetites for profiteering adventures elsewhere.  Ideally and regardless of government form, a nation-state constitutes itself in sui generis origin of "rights" granted to or withdrawn from its constituents, citizens. For a nation-state acquires, or incorporates, supreme authorities from no other source but manifest obedience of the people to that authority. When that obedience evaporates, who generated the most advertising to promote civil war or generate donor funding for civil war counts for nothing but future sales.

Isn't it strange that by all accounts, Russia has posted poor returns on its "meddling & interference" by comparison to its peers.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.