I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous.
> democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations
Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups.
> Ukraine
I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part.
> Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers.
I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.
Here is the video direct from Victoria Nuland's mouth, speaking at a Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsored conference[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448
Ukraine, along with Libya and Iraq are prime examples to demonstrate when the Americans tell you your country should be liberated so it becomes democratic, you should probably plan to move out.
I doubt the US goverment is capable enough to finance and plan a coup of an not yet known goverment 20+ years in the future.
Why help Ukraine with billions and not other countries that do not have gas/oil?
Between donations from Ukraine oligarchs to Clinton foundation, Joe Biden's son involved in Ukraine gas corporations, the hundreds of millions spend by U.S. every year in Ukraine to "build democratic institutions", stories from recruited shooters planted in Euromaidan[2], here you are, saying U.S. officials are the good guys for the Ukrainian people. If that's not effective propaganda, I don't know what is.
And if you think the above situation is fine and dandy, I think there's nothing else we can say to increase our agreement. I'm not the kind of person who would interfere with my neighbours family, because their children didn't get lunch money for school, so that I can buy their house at a foreclosure auction later in the year when they divorce, but if you're fine with the U.S. government doing that kind of behaviour, then I should not interfere with that, either.
[1]http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-f...
> Russia would not be able to say ...
On a much more minor point, the Russian government will find a way to justify whatever it wants to do. They are not waiting for the U.S. to somehow give them the right to do it; they don't care about or need any truth or facts. For example, like the good propagandists they are, they fabricated that entire fictional structure on a tiny kernel of truth and now even people on HN are repeating it. That is information power.
Libya certainly had serious civil unrest before receiving US support. But it certainly has been going in the wrong direction since the fall of the Gaddafi government.
If you polled people in the west, at least 80% of them wouldn't be able to tell you that Yanukovych was removed illegally.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#constitution...
Calling Yanukovich Russian-friendly is extremely naive.
Russian officials saw him is Russian-friendly. He thought he is Russian-friendly. He wasn't Russian-friendly if you consider what he did and what friends do.