No, stupid. The CIA doesn't spend money on controlling politics because it wins from liberalism/homosexuality. It wins from mind control, divisiveness and war. No Liberal humanist Maidan Ukrainian promoting trade with both EU and Russia, was selected by Neuland for power. Only nazi pig scum marching for US driven war.

The Maidan coup is precisely why separatist movements came to be of any significance in the first place.

The Maidan protests were staged by nearly 800,000 NATO drones

The Maidan massacre was a false flag attack by fascist Banderite snipers with US support. The protests were partly real and partly astroturfed: they were funded & advised by the US/UK in the interest of regime change. Previously.

Here’s how it works: we look for the sorest division/tension within the country we want to regime change, and we take advantage of it and inflame it, because that’s the easiest and most effective way of getting the regime change and/or Balkanization we want. It’s what we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and we’ve been reusing the playbook ever since.

In case you don’t recognize this face, it’s bin Laden.

FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’

But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many ways, the Mujahiddin groups acted as an incubator for the later rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.

Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions. Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar—the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander. In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide.

The blueprint of regime change operations - How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent

[H]ere’s the step-by-step process summarized:

1. A strategic country is selected as a target.
2. Stories start being fed to the media about human rights abuses or just concerning developments (lack of democracy, dwindling economy, etc).
3. To help lay the basis, the government may make official reports the media can then use. They might also use humanitarian NGOs (Amnesty, HRW…) or outright CIA outfits (World Uyghur Congress, Radio Free Europe…).
4. Stories start coming out more and more often. The volume of coverage regarding the target country becomes much bigger than before the campaign.
5. At the same time, groups and individuals in the target country, that have been funded by the imperialist country, are being put in the spotlight. They have been groomed for years, laying somewhat dormant until it’s time to activate them.
6. Stories about these groups call them champions of democracy, freedom fighters, etc. A clear limit is drawn: they are good people, and the government that’s preventing them from achieving their policies are the bad guys. This is the basis of a color revolution.
7. Slowly, public opinion starts to shift. We don’t necessarily act on this opinion yet though, we plant the seeds to make later consent easier. Each seed makes the next one easier to plant and grow.
8. The imperialist country continues the campaign but also starts small, probing actions to see what it can get away with. It might enact sanctions or query the UN for intervention. It will also call these acts “moral” and underline that they are meant to sanction the country until it becomes a democracy again, further digging the good vs. evil line.
9. Meanwhile, everything the target country does to prove its innocence and lawful conduct is not published or gets blocked (e.g. request for a UN delegation visit). Their point of view is never printed in the media or if it is, only when they can spin it in a good way.
10. Slowly, regime change is brought up. Subconsciously at first (e.g. “China would be free if it wasn’t for the communist party”, which implies destroying it and the system it built). Later, it can be more overt (e.g. Iran).
11. Finally, consent has been manufactured and public opinion has completely shifted on the target country. People come to see invasion as the only solution, and they will happily support it once it happens. It may not happen for several years though, as material reasons might not make invasion possible. Sometimes, a color revolution (which is mostly carried by nationals of the country in question but funded and trained by the imperialist country) is the best thing we can do.

 
If the operation succeeds:

12. If the operation succeeds, a pro-US dictator will be ‘elected’ or seize power. The election will be called fair and democratic, as was the case in Ukraine 2014. This president will be paraded around in the West and become a media figure that everyone comes to know. This is what happened to Zelensky, but also to Pinochet in his time and Juan Guaido.
13. Inside the country, everything gets privatized and sold to US and European companies under the directives of the dictator. This is rarely talked about or if it is, it’s presented as banal — e.g., “Ford to open factory in Argentina”. Quality of life plummets, actual humanitarian crises start, etc.
14. The media still publishes stories on the country, but always in a good light, and not as many as during the operation. They might sometimes call to unrest in the country but always as a distant, abstract phenomenon.
15. As long as the dictator plays by our rules, the country keeps being talked about positively. As soon as he starts to become too independent, we will use the chaotic post-coup situation to repeat the process with a new President.

It’s what we did to China in the late 1980s in Beijing and again recently in Xinjiang.

Davel pretty much covered it. Part of the Maidan coup was legitimate, but the west took advantage of it and steered it towards its own interests. The seperatist movements were sparked by ethnic suppression and the coup against the president they supported.