In the end, it's all geopolitics. US funds revolutionary Ukrainian groups in an attempt to bring the Ukraine under the US sphere of influence, Russia annexes Crimea in an effort to reinstate its sphere of influence, US threatens visa restrictions on Russian elite, Russia begins to threaten companies that act as extensions of the US on trumped up charges. And so the cycle goes.
If the US funded the revolution in Ukraine it did a pretty damn good job of finding a representative cross-section of the Ukrainian population to do so.
It's much more likely that it's a classic case of an economically failing petro-dictatorship attempting to stay in power through the age old technique of radicalizing it's population through cracking down on free media, ramping up propaganda and starting some 'little wars' to restore former glory.
It is a classic case of an economically failing superpower trying to stay afloat with skyrocketing debt, shifting attention from it's internal problems and feeding on wars in other countries.
US keep supporting terrorists in Syria and did so in all other uprisings they fueled. None of them ended well for any of the countries involved so far - Libya, Iraq, Syria.
Totally. If you'd have asked me five months ago which super power was most likely to start the next world war I would've said the US. It seems we overlooked and misjudged a player we thought was fairly harmless though.
