Yes, facts matter, so let's lay them out clearly.

The 2014 Ukrainian revolution wasn't a US-backed coup - it was a popular uprising against a corrupt, pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who betrayed his own people. The millions of Ukrainians who protested in Kyiv's Maidan Square weren't CIA agents - they were ordinary citizens fed up with Yanukovych's theft, repression, and his last-minute decision to abandon an EU deal in favour of Moscow's demands.

Now, did the US support the protest movement diplomatically? Yes. That's what powerful countries do when they have an interest in global affairs. But supporting a movement isn't the same as orchestrating a coup - especially when it was Ukrainians, not foreign agents, who took to the streets and forced Yanukovych out after he ordered security forces to fire on them.

And about Victoria Nuland - yes, she was involved in diplomatic discussions about Ukraine's post-Yanukovych future. But let's not twist that into some grand conspiracy. Ukraine's parliament - democratically elected, by the way - voted overwhelmingly to remove Yanukovych after he fled the country. That's not a coup; that's a failed leader abandoning his office when his own government turned against him.

Meanwhile, Russia's role in this whole saga is conveniently ignored by those pushing the "US coup" narrative. Russia had been bribing Ukrainian officials, pressuring Yanukovych to crush the protests, and ultimately responded by invading Crimea. If anyone was violating Ukraine's sovereignty, it was Putin, not Washington.

So yes, facts matter - which is why the "US coup" narrative is nothing more than Kremlin revisionism, designed to justify Russia's illegal invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory.