Oh and another thing:

The CIA has every right to train troops in whatever country it wants to be if it's invited, Russia has no right to dictate what Ukraine does.

Not only is this stance destructive, but it's also designed for useful idiots.

First of all, the CIA training people in countries has almost always brought calamity and destruction. The CIA itself even studied it and concluded this, but we do it anyway: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/arming-rebels-has-...

Secondly, would you argue that the KGB had ever right to train the PLO, because they asked for it?

Well, Russia was welcomed by the government of Syria (as was Hezbollah from Lebanon) to help stabilize the country against Sunni Jihadists with American weapons. Seeing this, we funded the opposition, which we called "Moderate Rebels", but the Free Syrian Army was largely a myth since 2012, it was all going to Al Nusra front. Was Syria helped by the sunni jihadists? What is the USA even DOING thousands of miles away in a country destabilizing a government that didn't invite them, and which presents ZERO THREAT to them? Well, we all know what: they are "showing leadership" by making sure Putin doesn't help Syria defeat the Jihadists all by himself, and making sure that Russia loses "its last ally in the region": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wib6cLJ99yY

Well, the USSR was welcomed by the Afghan government. The CIA still trained rebels against that government (Mujahideen) including foreign fighters (Afghan Arabs). Did this help Afghanistan? 1-2 million dead civilians would indicate no. The American people deserve to know about this, but it's secret. It all started in Laos, which was heavily bombed and Americans didn't even know. Why are you seriously defending intelligence agencies training foreign fighters as a good thing when they themselves concluded it never works out well?

Ukraine already had a deal that was meant to stop this war.
It's called the Budapest Memorandum, in it, in exchange for its nuclear weapons Ukraine got assurances from the UK, US and Russia that they would respect its borders and never threaten its sovereignty.

Yeah, that deal was once again pushed by the USA. Clinton's admin felt that all the nukes in Ukraine and Russia were aimed at the USA. It was the USA that pushed for Ukraine to get rid of its nukes. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-11-mn-10675-...

Ukraine, politically and economically unstable since it became an independent state after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has 176 intercontinental missiles armed with some 1,240 nuclear warheads--all aimed at the United States. It also has 592 nuclear warheads aboard bombers, which would be covered by the agreement.

NATO itself admits on its own website that they undertook the world's largest DISARMAMENT project, to rid Ukraine of its DEFENSIVE weapons, and then presented themselves as a solution: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_22266.htm

You may have not known this?

As far as violating agreements, that's sadly fairly common among countries. Clinton's Three Nos given in 1994 publicly were amply violated... but if USA violates things it's OK: https://usrussiarelations.org/2/timeline/after-the-fall/34

USA was the first to undermine stability in Ukraine, as I have already shown... with McCain visiting the country and publicly calling for an ouster of a government that's relatively friendly with Russia and shut down the hugely unpopular NATO program that needed to be restarted: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2010/03/29/ukraine-says-n...

If Russia never bothered respecting the Budapest Memorandum why should we believe they would respect any other agreement?.

I mean, a memorandum doesn't have the level of a treaty, in any case. Russia tends to respect treaties way more than the USA does. USA has constantly openly flaunted treaties, often because the next administration comes along. Some selections:

Clinton's "Agreed Framework" with Kim Jong Il - torpedoed by US Republicans

Iran Deal - Tom Cotton and some radical Republicans openly admitted that they will reneg on the deal as soon as a Republican president comes to power ... and they did!

This goes back to the Native American nations. "White man speaks with forked tongue". Jefferson promised the Civilized Tribes they'd be fine because they took on our customs. The following president, Jackson, was a well-known "Indian killer" and he said nah. They sued and won in Supreme Court and he said "let them enforce it". Caused the Trail of Tears, ethnic cleansing.

I mean hey, USA took Mexico's territory from California to Texas. It maintains a worldwide protectorate. Yet you are super concerned about China and Russia, which are nowhere close to any of that. Not a word about USA breaking its word.

The truth is, you can't really trust the "Great Powers", especially if they are democratic because the next party will try to undo everything the previous party did. I'd rather trust the king of Morocco's treaty, because he's going to be there for decades. But whatever.