>>> Holding a square for weeks, and waiting for violence to discredit government wasn't a normal normal way to make a revolution before this method was used.
Protest which turns out violent is a normal way of revolution to happen. The protest can either end up in nothing - in which case it is called protest and forgotten soon - or can turn out violent and spread, in which case it is called civil war, or revolution, or such.
>>> Other than that there is financing of pro-Democracy NGOs,
That is very sinister, to finance NGOs that promote human rights and democracy.
>>> that work under assumption that there is a lack of democracy(no matter what),
It's not an assumption, it's a fact. "No matter what" is your addition, which is false.
>>> leaders with western eduction or ex-Reagan administration staffer wives.
I'm not sure how western education or having wife working for US administration is sinister, but I'm sure you'll explain it to me soon. For now I conclude obviously nobody having western education can be trusted. Those college things, they are obviously set up by CIA.
>>> it's too subjective and CNN-like to call Putin a dictator.
It's the fact - he's a an authoritarian unchangeable ruler, and has been for some time. The fact that a lot of people like him doesn't matter - a lot of people liked Stalin or Lenin or Hitler or Mao too. That doesn't make their regimes non-dictatorial.
>>> The US will support revolutions on Russian border no matter how democratic Russia is.
That is a baseless conjecture, but even if it were true, that doesn't make Putin less of a dictator.
>>> Even more, it's easy to argue that Russia is not democratic as say western europe or the US, precisely because The US is very capable at overthrowing governments.
It's very easy to argue, but it is false. Russia is not democratic because it is convenient for the ruling clique, not because of the US. If the US didn't exist at all, Putin were the same dictator, maybe even worse at the loss of deterrent - though to be frank Obama administration couldn't deter a kid from eating a booger.
>>> it certainly assisted the forces which performed an illegal government coup.
There's no such thing as legal coup, so your insistence on it being illegal is useless - every revolution is illegal by definition, it happens when citizens lose their faith in legal. As for assisting the forces, the assistance has been mainly in words, which are never in short supply, but don't matter too much usually.
>>> There is even a recording of ambasaddor Nuland on youtube.
That seems to be the ultimate argument in support of the "meddling" hypothesis. Except that Nuland did nothing but express her wishes about the future Ukraninian government. That doesn't even relate to "assisting" charge, let alone "setting up" charge. Of course they were talking to opposition leaders and of course they said what US would like to see from them - that's what diplomats do.
>>> As for me personally, being a Russian with pro-Liberty ideology,
Voe is for Russia if pro-Liberty Russians spend their time on proving how Putin is a nice democratic leader and US is to blame for "meddling" with everything and making it worse, while denying agency to anybody else completely. If this is a position of pro-Liberty Russians - that everybody in the world hates Russia and wants it to be harmed and weak and only Putin is the alternative for that - Liberty obviously means something different there. I certainly hope not.