FYI, the account that you are replying to has a very long track record of pushing this talking point (and other crank opinions), so do not think that you are engaging in a good faith discussion with someone who can be convinced (1) - if they could be, it would have happened long ago. They're here to push that opinion into the public sphere.
That account was even banned from posting for a while (2), thankfully. Why it was allowed back, I do not know.
The word coup, which user "yucky" hasn't introduced in this conversation, is used informally and not in a literal sense. It does not mean that the U.S. installed a military junta.
It means that U.S. officials interfered in the Maidan revolution and picked favorites. How much influence they had is questionable, but they were there.
If you think that is a crank opinion, the BBC is a crank outlet.
> The word coup, which user "yucky" hasn't introduced in this conversation
That account has in fact introduced the word "coup" with reference to Ukraine, many times over in conversations. And you're right, it does carry with it the ugly, false and deceptive connotations of "installed a military junta against the wishes of the people".
Not to imply that they always "introduce" it. In fact, if you say it, they probably pop up like Beetlejuice for the opportunity to launch into the shpiel again. You are again correct that this conversation appears to be one of those times.
Assuming that you're asking this in good faith and would like to read more from reliable sources, here are a handful of them from across the political spectrum:
Rather than stalking my comments which is against the rules of this site, you could instead just reply to the content of the sources I provided. They are legitimate and credible. If you dispute any of the actual content, please cite and provide sources and reasons.
There is no point in giving good faith rebuttals in reply to rhetoric that wasn't good faith and seeking understanding in the first place. A different user summed that up earlier, I think in three words.
I respect you for doing the work, and you should definitely keep a copy for next time, but it is pretty much what I expected: the "balanced start" from "across the political spectrum" is expected to impress us into nodding along, and never to hold up to close inspection. Which of course it does not. It's the bullshit asymmetry principle at work: even if you do refute, you have been bogged down wasting time defending on that.
It is a confidence trick, as the idea that a popular uprising against an unpopular government "must be the US's fault" is inherently laughable, even before we saw how hard the Ukrainian people have since fought to keep what they won then.
> "sugar words" to entice you to believe them. George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Q, Pax Americana, deep forces, dark forces 2
Ah. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that it's that basic.
Will you convince the parent poster? Of course not. Here they are 7-8 months ago, banging the same drum:
