If he explicitly backed the protesters, it might "morally commit" the US to some kind of support or intervention, which in this case is tantamount to backing the 100%-guaranteed-to-lose side.
That is terrible. You think it's too much trouble to even defend democracy - just surrender to its being destroyed. Maybe we should even cheer China crushing it! You want the US to stand for nothing. And you're not representing the situation accurately, either: google 'one state, two systems 2047'.
I personally think the US has backed enough lost causes this decade--Libya, Crimea, Yemen, rebels in Syria, Juan Guaido in Venezuela--without adding to the list. The Chinese are even mocking you for it. You're five for five so far: either the movement you back fails miserably or else succeeds and completely destroys the nation it's meant to help. The US media can pave over reality with flags and propaganda but it's not as if the rest of the world hasn't noticed.
You make it explicit here - what matters is 'guessing who will win and supporting them', not what's right and democratic. Not to overuse Hitler, but a lot of Americans used the same logic why we should welcome him and get along. Most opposed fighting Hitler. Meanwhile principled Americans were going off to get killed volunteering to help Republicans in Spain fight Franco, tragically.
Your examples look at nothing but 'who won'. And some are not examples of the US doing the right thing, which is what I'm talking about. Yemen is pure 'let the powerful massacre the weak for corrupt reasons'. We could do better in Venezuela ending our economic war with sanctions, than trying to install a US puppet (again).
We're right to be on the side of Crimea and Ukraine. There are heroic people in Ukraine wanting freedom from Putin facing an uphill battle. Hell, go look up the wonderful music of the group Dhaka Brakha", and then realize how passionately they speak for freedom as Ukranians. They're on the right side.
I know people who defend the Tiananmen Square massacre on the basis of 'the democracy protesters were creating unrest'. We can't always militarily intervene to force democracy everywhere, but we can prefer democracy instead of the Republican opposition we have to democracy everywhere unless it benefits them.
The lesson of Vietnam, for example, was not that we wrongly supported democracy - we did the opposite. We refused to allow democracy, and forced a puppet, claiming by doing so we were defending democracy. The lack of democracy in Iran, for example, is directly caused by our preventing democracy there, installing a tyrant. Same with Guatemala's 60 years of problems, it's a long list. We should push for democracy.
It's Putin's goal to undermine democracy in general - to weaken the global alliances to defend it, an effort which trump has become his accomplice on, attacking our allies. Even in his hand-selected enemy Iran, you don't hear him say a lot abut supporting democracy there, just about wanting to threaten the regime and end the global deal on their nuclear program.
Now Putin's efforts are directly corrupting our democracy. Russia picked our president. In response, a large majority of both parties wanted to sanction Russia - but Mitch McConnell was approached with a bribe, a $200 million factory in a poor part of Kentucky that will help him get re-elected, and he single-handedly ended the US sanctions, serving Putin. Now the same oligarch has contacted eight governors saying he wants to build factories in their states.
The experts explain that this is how Russia does things, looking for ways to put money somewhere that gives them power; that in weaker states, it can reach the point of an effective takeover of the state. So far we're unable to even stand up to this McConnell effort - even Kentucky Democrats often support the deal, unable to politically oppose something that helps the poor in their state. Russia has made clear if the US looks at sanctions again, the factory can be cancelled or closed; it's pure bribery and it's working. Nevermind the huge benefit to them for the cheap price of $200 million, and the principles in defending our country and democracy and right to choose our president a large majority in Congress support, against an attack Mueller clearly investigated and documented.
Democracy isn't 'free'. The natural course is always for someone to benefit by not having democracy, by having power over the public and oppressing them. The US needs to decide whether it still supports democracy or not. I've long said that as we allow our own democracy to be corrupted so the government doesn't serve the people, it weakens our support for democracy, and I think we're seeing that.
