the US actively undermines the sovereignty of countries it is intervening in by propping up native comprador groups, often right wing extremists, to act as intermediaries for its interests in order to establish plausible deniability and to insulate itself against direct retaliation, hence the term 'proxy war'. this has been the case in pretty much every single intervention in recent history and ukraine is no exception. historically, these extremist groups also have a tendency to eventually slip the leash and engage in various unsavory acts of violence in accordance with their ideology, as was the case in places like south korea, taiwan, afghanistan, iraq, and syria, with the US preferring to turn a blind eye until its core interests once again come under threat (afghanistan, iraq, syria), at which point the cycle repeats itself.
to do this, the US will typically utilize a multitude of sockpuppet NGOs and human rights groups to harness populist anger regarding legitimate grievances within the countries it is intervening in, as in the 2014/2019 hong kong protests or the 2004 ukrainian orange revolution, and allowing its pet rebels to be valorized through giving them a shitload of money and equipment, along with positive media coverage across the board. this was how the 2014 maidan coup regime was created. @SimulatedLiberalism responded with a more detailed account of what happened afterwards (looks like they left out some details regarding russian attempts at reconciliation in the form of minsks 1 & 2), but for me, the cynicism with which the US misrepresents, instrumentalizes, and ultimately aggravates the suffering of people in the countries it intervenes in is reason enough to resolutely reject the american justifications for support. the russian invasion is after the fact, the important part is that the kiev regime itself is fundamentally illegitimate as it came to power through less than democratic means and moreover does not even attempt to fairly represent the interests of all its people.
the US actively undermines the sovereignty of countries it is intervening in by propping up native comprador groups, often right wing extremists, to act as intermediaries for its interests in order to establish plausible deniability and to insulate itself against direct retaliation, hence the term 'proxy war'. this has been the case in pretty much every single intervention in recent history and ukraine is no exception. historically, these extremist groups also have a tendency to eventually slip the leash and engage in various unsavory acts of violence in accordance with their ideology, as was the case in places like south korea, taiwan, afghanistan, iraq, and syria, with the US preferring to turn a blind eye until its core interests once again come under threat (afghanistan, iraq, syria), at which point the cycle repeats itself.
to do this, the US will typically utilize a multitude of sockpuppet NGOs and human rights groups to harness populist anger regarding legitimate grievances within the countries it is intervening in, as in the 2014/2019 hong kong protests or the 2004 ukrainian orange revolution, and allowing its pet rebels to be valorized through giving them a shitload of money and equipment, along with positive media coverage across the board. this was how the 2014 maidan coup regime was created. @SimulatedLiberalism responded with a more detailed account of what happened afterwards (looks like they left out some details regarding russian attempts at reconciliation in the form of minsks 1 & 2), but for me, the cynicism with which the US misrepresents, instrumentalizes, and ultimately aggravates the suffering of people in the countries it intervenes in is reason enough to resolutely reject the american justifications for support. the russian invasion is after the fact, the important part is that the kiev regime itself is fundamentally illegitimate as it came to power through less than democratic means and moreover does not even attempt to fairly represent the interests of all its people.