Ok, I'm sorry but I'll have to work. Go look further on the Ukranian thing if you are willing. It was some time ago, I read at the time, so I couldn't find more relevant links in a short time. There were American financed NGOs, trade deals to disrupt relations with Russia, the NATO threat, and the pro-US president screwing the country to cause the "resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony " (do you honestly think there would be a "government turnover" if the people were not screwed over?). If you don't think putting missiles on your border is a serious threat (and they needed the "government turnover" for that) just remember the Cuban missile crisis, and that your country considers this kind of thing a serious threat. So yes, the Russians where between having missiles on their border and invading Ukraine. If the "turnover" wasn't associated with NATO, the missiles and Yats, I wouldn't think the US was at fault. If with all those things you don't think it is, think again.
On Syria, the email in the link was from 2011.
t's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country
Read the quotes again.
on the ground (...) training opposition forces (...) commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns (...) enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi
The interview about how supporting terrorists would help terrorists relates to a 2012 report by the DIA. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages). Before "the rise" of ISIS, the report is an intelligence alert that ISIS would happen depending on US actions. Please, at least watch the 5 minutes video with the American intelligence officer.
So, if you don't believe the Russians, you should believe at least the Americans... plus, they are saying the same thing.