I did some reading, like you suggested. In particular I read about the Glazyev tapes and how they showed that Russia was involved in the counter-demonstrations in Southern and eastern Ukraine following the maidan revolution.
And there's a tendency to accept state involvement in demonstrations that we like (i.e. Palestinian demonstrations, or Hong Kong democracy calls) and to decry as 'interference' the involvement in demonstrations we don't like. For me, states can advocate for change in other territories, that's diplomacy of a sort.
But even this appears to have been Russia's response to a perceived threat from NATO (the conversations were held the week after the coup).
For the umpteenth time, it wasn't a coup. Furthermore, what 'threat from NATO'. Russia is not under threat from NATO, Russia's plans for expansion are at threat from countries joining NATO to prevent themselves being swallowed up. NATO is not going to invade Russia, but Russia is going to invade other countries which is why (in part) they opt to join the alliance. This isn't a threat to Russia, this is a threat to Russian ambitions.
And I also read that it goes back further, to 2009. But that was after NATO committed to allowing Ukraine and Georgia to join.
Letting Johnny join your club isn't a threat to Billy. Billy feeling attacked because he wanted Johnny in his club is what, in technical terms, is called tough shit. If Russia wants people not to join NATO and join them instead, it needs to be more welcoming, not get all invadey.
O.
