No conspiracy, no.
There is a strange lack of information in the media, though, concerning the possible (if not probable) United States involvement in Ukraine prior to the public outrage of Russian involvement.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/fuck-the-eu-frustrated-nuland-says-to-pyatt-in-alleged-leaked-phone-call-336373.html
If this is true, it changes how the conflict is viewed.
The two main "pieces of evidence" (the nuland phone call and the presentation) are only evidence if one insists on interpreting all the material as such. They do not refute the hypothesis that the West didn't do anything wrong here. An example of evidence which actually proves something is the study of the MH17 crash site showing that the plane got hit by a G2A missile, hence refuting the hypothesis that the plane got hit by weapons mounted on a jet (even disregarding the problem of making the jet and the MH17 plane meet close enough despite the jet's inability to keep up the speed and difficulty in reaching the right altitude).
I mean, what would the United States do if Russia influenced elements in Mexico and caused a democratically elected government to be replaced with one with closer ties to Russia?
Actually Russia is trying to do that, they are just much less successful. Mexicans, just like Ukrainians, prefer to side with prosperous democracies. Unlike Ukraine however, Mexico isn't subject to rampant election fraud and infiltration from Russian agents. NGOs backed by the Russian government are either old and independent (Greenpeace) or completely lack legitimacy. Even Iran is backing NGOs claiming to be defending human rights. The only way Russia can further its influence today is using military power, and to some degree Russian propaganda that has an audience outside of the country (Crimea and Eastern Ukraine). For that reason Russia is not even close to a point at which it could influence Mexico into anything, whereas the appeal of democracy radiates everywhere peacefully (sounds preachy right?), and NATO powers are associated with democracy much more than Russia ever was.
More importantly, this question tries to view the conflict as a Cold War chessboard even though there's still very little evidence that both players are there, or that there is even a chessboard. A better question would be "what would Russia do if Ukraine influenced elements in Siberia into independence?".
By the way I'm adding Murmillus to my ignore list. After I spent time carefully refuting his points the best he could come up with was this:
Since geopolitics is the driving force behind the crisis and disasters we see on the news whether in the Middle-East or in East Europe, geopolitics is key when discussing these matters. To write off geopolitics as a driving point behind these matters is just proof of your ignorance on the matter.
Which is a completely circular argument (if even that). Honestly I'm not surprised, if a little bit disappointed. Hopefully I'll be able to have an enriching exchange with Kalam or Angantyr. I also invite everyone else to ignore Murmillus from now on, as that would at least fulfill his fantasy of being persecuted by brainless sheeple.
Poll