Yes, when I ask for evidence that someone organised a protest in a foreign country I very much do mean more evidence than their presence at some point in that country.

That is more evidence we ever had for any Russia/Trump/Capitol Riot ties, yet it's not enough for you?

Where is that supported?

McCain giving speeches on Euromaidan, motivating them to keep on going? McCain meeting two of the three leaders of the protest movement?

And wouldn't you know, it was exactly those two leaders who, out of nowhere, just tore apart a transition deal, in favor of overthrowing the government.

The third opposition leader, Vitaly Klitschko, was caught completley off-guard by this, as the former professional boxer refused any violent means. But that was okay, as Nuland and Pyatt pointed out in their little talk: He lacked the experience for a job on a state level anyway.

And because Klitschko was also considered the "EU candidate" out of the opposition, personally pushed by Merkel, that's why the conclusion of Nuland and Pyatt's talk was: "Fuck the EU" when their choice fell on Yatsenjuk over Klitschko.

You know, the same Yatsenjuk who openly admitted being sponsored by the US DoS, NATO, NED, and a whole bunch of other regime changey organizations.

Where does she say they spent money to convince people to protest?

What do you think all that money was spent on USAID poured into Ukraine?

Wasn't even just Ukraine, the US runs these kinds of programs on a global scale, they were also integral in kicking off the "Arab spring".

I'd say that meant they support their happening. I wouldn't remotely call that proof they caused them to happen.

So you really want to go down the naive pedantic route of acting like everybody in Ukraine loved the government, until the US paid people to hate it?

Do you honestly believe that's how foreign interfence, and regime change in particular, works?

These kinds of efforts always attach to existing groups that have an axe to grind with the ruling government.

In Ukraine's case, this US connection even goes all the way back to the Cold War, when the CIA recruited Ukrainian nationalists as spies and saboteurs behind enemy lines who really didn't like the Soviets.

Those same nationalists also used to be responsible for ethnically cleansing Western Ukrainian territories, that used to be Polish.

It's how Ukraine ended up with its very own SS unit:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)

The descendants of these Ukrainian nationalists still live in these regions to this day, and wouldn't you know it, they were quite overpresented on Euromaidan.

While the Eastern and Southern territories were not present at all, as most of them voted for the president that Euromaidan was protesting against.

I'd say that meant they support their happening. I wouldn't remotely call that proof they caused them to happen.

And you don't see anything wrong with the US meddling in another countries politics to such a blatant degree? Would you feel the same if Russian senators gave speeches in Wales, telling people to overthrow the elected government?

No, neither the US nor Russia really cared about this. Russia cared so little that they literally invaded in fact. Three times.

Russia can't "invade" a place it already had troops stationed for longer than the US has been a country.

But at this point it's clear nuance ain't something you are dealing with: All Ukrainians are a monolith, any fighting that ever happened only happened because of Russia, and not because of a US-backed coup that very undemocratically deposed of a democratically elected president.

OK, but the phone call doesn't say anything about Victoria Nuland organising the Maidan protests.

If you want to know more about the actual organizers you can feel free to look up Svoboda and Right Sector. Those were the groups who already started in early 2013 trying to escalate violence with police by themselves getting increasingly violent.

Those were also the same groups that shot and killed people, police and protesters alike, on Euromaidan.

And as already mentioned, and linked, one of their leaders was really cozy with the Americans even in public.

You can absolutely talk about it. But if you make specific claims you should be expected to provide evidence for them, and what you've got seems pretty fucking weak.

Look, you can be in denial all you want, acting like it's something the US would never ever do, and if we don't catch them in the most blatant way, in the act, then it never happened.

But that's just naive, completely disregarding the mostly covert nature of these actions, while demanding a standard of proof rarely applied to any other accusations of foreign interference, i.e. alleged Russian meddling in the recent Romanian elections, when the most meddling there also came out of the US DoS.