At this point it's pretty much wilful libel from you... try being more intellectually honest! I'm neither a Vatnik nor a Tankie, nor any other dismissive term you care to throw, but it's the usual fare from people who push an agenda and someone brings up substance ("nevermind the facts, that's off topic, you're just a racist, antisemite, misogynist, uncle tom, self-hating Jew, anti vaxxer, white supremacist or whatever else") to distract from the substantive questions. The word "whataboutism" is also used to shut down any questioning about double standards, or about reasoning by analogy, or comparing apples to apples, etc.

I had to look up "Vatnik" on Wikipedia just to make sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik_(slang)

A term which "which is used to disparage someone as a blindly patriotic and unintelligent jingoist who pushes the conventional views presented in Russian government media as well as those of Russian web brigades"

Hm, first of all, do Vatniks regularly go around condemning Russia's destroying of Grozny, Aleppo and Homs, killing civilians, arming rebels in Donbas, and now constantly saying "no to War" and advocating resumption peace negotiations? In Russian channels I keep challenging Russians the same way I challenge you. And in each case some jingoistic people think I'm "an agent of the other side". It's very common, when you're holding an extreme position (USA is 0% at fault, Russia is 100% at fault) to think anyone with a more balanced view is some kind of follower of "enemy" propaganda.

Second of all, I don't follow Russian propaganda, most of what I am telling you I pieced from mainstream Western sources like the BBC, PBS, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Guardian, mainstream politicians, as well as Western experts and critics of the US (thankfully we have freedom of speech in our country).

You must really think Tulsi is a Russian asset, Noam Chomsky is a Vatnik, etc. You probably think that I follow Russian propaganda because you can't imagine someone thinking for themselves, following mainstream Western sources, arriving at the same conclusions as some of what Russia has been saying (because some -- not all -- of it is true). The argument "well, Hitler also says 2+2 is 4 so your conclusions are remarkably similar, you must be a nazi sympathizer" is a logical fallacy, in any case.

Third, you're uncritically repeating all CIA talking points, and always quietly dodging any direct questions come up with regard to US involvement. What should I call you? A jingoist American exceptionalist? A useful idiot for US intelligence agencies to destabilize more countries, agencies which have admitted to lying to our own citizens for decades, but every time you take everything they're saying at face value -- until they declassify 10 years later the extent of their involvement?

In fact, in your OWN ARTICLE, quoting from it multiple times, you conveniently omitted paragraphs which PROVE MY POINT:

He added that the lack of large-scale support from Russia was a major disappointment for the separatists, who lacked the manpower or weapons to combat government forces.

"Initially I assumed that the Crimea scenario would be repeated: Russia would enter," he told Zavtra. "That was the best scenario. And the population wanted that. Nobody intended to fight for the Luhansk and Donetsk republics. Initially everybody was for Russia."

After Donetsk and Luhansk held "referendums" on their independence from Ukraine in May, separatist leaders appealed to Moscow to accept the territories as Russian regions but Moscow responded with vague statements calling for "dialogue" between rebels and Kiev.

The separatist groups had not contemplated building functional states and had pinned their hopes on being absorbed by Russia, Strelkov said, reasoning that Moscow needed a land connection to Crimea, which it had annexed in March.

"And then, when I understood that Russia was not going to take us in — I associated myself with the resistance — for us that decision was a shock," Strelkov was quoted as saying.

So let's see. You asked how did Russia refrain from escalating. They told the Rebels they're not annexing them, and to work things out with Kyiv. They did however help the rebels more than the official government admits (another place where I call bullshit on Russian government claims... unlike you with US government claims).

Every time the CIA declassifies the extent of their role behind the events 10 years later, it turns out to be way bigger than the "US Vatniks" have ever admitted. By then, of course, they've moved on to the next thing, or a next generation of "US Vatniks" rises up to say, this time, it's 100% the other country's fault. Like, all those dozens of countries, they're all bad, and US is the indispensable nation, that is simply helping others achieve their freedom.

You don't see the irony of you defending the US coordinated official talking points, calling someone who thinks for themselves a Vatnik?