From the Guardian:

But US efforts to turn the political tide in Ukraine away from Russian influence began much earlier. In 2004, the Bush administration had given $65 million to provide 'democracy training' to opposition leaders and political activists aligned with them, including paying to bring opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet US leaders and help underwrite exit polls indicating he won disputed elections.
This programme has accelerated under Obama. In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington DC last December as Ukraine's Maidan Square clashes escalated, Nuland confirmed that the US had invested in total "over $5 billion" to "ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine" - she specifically congratulated the "Euromaidan" movement.
From a realist perspective, there's nothing 'wrong' (in a moral sense) with this practice. And, frankly, from that same perspective, the United States will work to destablize other governments while it has the power to do so. My question is if in the discourse of conflict or in the public discourse this is not taken into account, how can we honestly measure ourselves or our opponents? The faux surprise of Moscow's intervention in Crimea is really another self-imposed example of blowback.