For Eastern regions of Ukraine the war started back in 2014, when a democratically elected leader was removed from power, using a procedure that was made up on the spot (not constitutional i.e not democratic). Ukrainian (and perhaps other) far-right were the main driving force and the most active group that as far as I can see steered the crowd and contributed to escalating the protests. Even after Yanukovych agreed to protester's demands.
As a result of the illegal ousting of the Ukrainian president, a pro-Western government took power, which sought to break all ties with Russia. Eastern regions, which are historically aligned with Russia, did not agree with the course that the new interim government indicated, and declared independence. Instead of diplomacy, the interim Ukrainian government launched an "Anti-Terrorist-Operation", which unfortunately included indiscriminate attacks on East-Ukraine civilians.
Then we have president Poroshenko that tried restoring peace. His efforts were sabotaged by mass-protests, organised by Ukrainian "nationalists". After that we have president Zelensky, that vowed to restore peace with Eastern regions. His efforts (Steinmeir formula) were also sabotaged by mass-protests and threats from the same group that opposed Poroshenko's plan.
Then there's that whole thing about USAID meddling, CIA bases and everything else. Russia-Ukraine was provoked. Does that mean that Russia did the right thing? War is never a good answer in my opinion. However NATO and EU expansion into Ukraine significantly threatened Russia's geopolitical interests. It's not a justification. It's a fact.
USA has had it's fingers in most (if not all) of the conflicts in modern history. Especially in the Middle East. And most certainly the current conflict in Iran.
Or do you think that it's just a coincidence that USA seems to be mostly interested in fighting wars (direct or proxy) against countries that have significant natural resource reserves?
