In Europe and the United States, the liberal world cheered on the “color revolutions” in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan and saw in them the natural unfolding of humanity ’s proper political evolution. In Russia and China, these events were viewed as Western-funded, CIA-inspired coups that furthered the geopolitical hegemony of America and its (subservient) European allies. The two autocratic powers responded similarly to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, and not only because China’s embassy was bombed by an American warplane and Russia’s slavic orthodox allies in Serbia were on the receiving end of the nato onslaught. What the liberal “West” considered a moral act, a “humanitarian” intervention, leaders and analysts in Moscow and Beijing saw as unlawful and self-interested aggression. Indeed, since they do not share the liberal West ’s liberalism, how could they have seen it any other way? ~Robert Kagan

Those who cheered on the “colour revolutions” were gullible and usually were not paying very close attention to the people being brought to power in the process.  Whether or not the CIA was involved in any of these (I tend to think they were not involved, since these revolutions succeeded), Western governments openly supported one side against the other and cast each one in terms of movement towards the West and away from Russia.  The bombing of Yugoslavia was aggression.  These do not seem to me to be debatable (especially the latter), and seeing them in this way is not an expression of a different ideological bias.