This is far more complicated than you make out.
The West backed Maidan because Russia was destabilising the region - attempting to assassinate Yanukovych’s rival and invading Georgia pre-dated any interference by the USA.
Putin kept stating a red line on Ukraine joining NATO. But there was another far more codified red line, enshrined in the Helsinki Accords of 1975 THEN the Belovezh Accords THEN the UN Charter recognitions THEN the Budapest Memorandum.
That red line was, Russia and Europe has for 47 years agreed on a principle of inviolable borders which was further guaranteed by Russia and the independent republics after the dissolution of the USSR.
By wilfully pretending that 47 years of multiple binding assurances FROM RUSSIA ITSELF carry less weight than Putin’s personal Duginist butt-hurt, it’s Russia that dragged Europe into a totally unnecessary conflict.
By wilfully violating Budapest, nonstop since 2008, Russia enabled Ukraine to call on the support of Belarus, Khazakstan, the USA and United Kingdom.
What the Putinistas completely duck is, Budapest was in effect a localised miniature version of the NATO charter which quite obviously had an article 5 equivalent.
If any participant from the ex-Soviet republics giving nukes to Russia got invaded it could call on the others AND RUSSIA AND THE USA AND THE UK to intervene.
Russia has only itself to blame for our involvement. Putin knew all along that the ONLY reason we didn’t go in much earlier when Russia was trying to turn Yanukovych into the new Lukashenko is, Ukraine didn’t invoke its fundamental right to request assistance from us to deal with Russia’s violations.
Compare: We cannot tell you how to reform your society. We will not try to pick winners and losers in political competitions between Republics or between Republics and the center. That is your business; that's not the business of the United States of America. ...
So, let me build upon my comments in Moscow by describing in more detail what Americans mean when we talk about freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.
No terms have been abused more regularly, nor more cynically than these. Throughout this century despots have masqueraded as democrats, jailers have posed as liberators. We can restore faith to government only by restoring meaning to these concepts.
I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing, but let's begin with the broad term "freedom." When Americans talk of freedom, we refer to people's abilities to live without fear of government intrusion, without fear of harassment by their fellow citizens, without restricting other's freedoms. We do not consider freedom a privilege, to be doled out only to those who hold proper political views or belong to certain groups. We consider it an inalienable individual right, bestowed upon all men and women. Lord Acton once observed: The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
George H.W. Bush's speech to a session of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, 1 August 1991.
So what happened to these principals in 2014 and in the following years? Does freedom simply not exist in the Donbass?
Now we can formulate arguments all day long, but that is not the thrust that I was seeking to accomplish in this exercise - posting this article and engaging in debate on this subject. I agree that there is far more complexity in litigating these issues than what this forum can reasonably facilitate.
My goal was to see if I can persuasively state that the Department of State under Obama, led by Biden, created the conditions for this war INTENTIONALLY. They did so, without any planning or appreciation for what it will take to achieve a MILITARY victory or an assessment of who they were jumping into bed with. They believed, it appears, that good intentions ensures they will have the arc of history on their side. Lightning bolts and electric chairs arc - not history.