You've gone into way more detail than necessary to respond to my point. While there may be some merit to the suggestion of US involvement, calling it a coup, and stating it as absolute fact isn't helping your case. You simply don't have enough information yet to make such definitive statements about it yet. Its probably true to some degree. It appears there may be something, but the degree may be important. You are glossing over a lot and assuming a huge amount.
Either way, I don't specifically disagree with you entirely, but I think you've gone too far with assumptions currently.
What the US did (staging a coup) threatened the influence and control that Russia had in the situation.
Russia is not entitled to influence of its neighbors if they choose to align away from them through force, which is what happened. It certainly doesn't merit attacking eastern Ukraine. I never mentioned Crimea, thats an entirely different issue. The situation in Ukraine appears to include direct Russian involvement. Regardless of your definition of coup, some could say it with different words and still be correct. It doesn't entitle Russia to move into east Ukraine, south in Mariupol, or to annex Crimea. These are all directly aggressive, in contrast to some possible US involvement in Ukraine. You're discounting what appeared to be very broad support for closer alignment with the west from Ukrainians.
This is false. What the US did to destabilize Ukraine is a direct threat to Russia and was even intended to mess with Russia unless you can provide some type of evidence as to why the US would do this without any thought of Russia but the past 100 years has shown otherwise. Russia and Ukraine's economies are tied together. It's no secret.
Wow. So encouraging/enticing/supporting a closer alignment with the west, which has broad general support from the people is destabilizing Ukraine, but Russia moving forces into Ukraine, arming rebels, and shooting down commercial airliners is not destabilizing?
If Russia wants to keep its influence, it needs to modernize its relationships with its former occupied states. Many/most want nothing to do with Russia and prefer a closer relationship with the west it seems. Russia shouldn't be able to beat states into submission. Regardless of the outcome for Ukraine, this last year will have significant negative impact on Russia and its relationships with its neighbors.
you can not speak as if they're the only ones who have done wrong here because they most certainly are not.
I never said anything like this, and have a huge amount of criticism for US policy, but that has nothing to do with the fact that Russia is loosing influence for many reasons, so feels it OK to annex and attack its neighbors. Regardless of US involvement into trying to get Ukraine more closely aligned with the west or not, Russia shouldn't be moving into its neighbors by force. Saying the US destabilized Ukraine stretches the definition of words when compared to Russian actions. One is non violent, lines up with popular public support, has a greater chance of positive impact for the country. The other is violent, doesn't have the same public or international support, and based on history will have a more negative economic impact on the country. (comparing the eastern bloc development to western Europe over the last 60 years)