A historical clarification - Ukrainians don't like it being called a "civil war", as it truly wasn't.

The "republics" were started by Igor Girkin, a highly productive employee of the GRU, now imprisoned for incessant criticism of Putin over "not invading Ukraine properly enough". He had the assistance of countless colleagues, of course.

At some point, the flow of support from Russia to the "republics" allowed even a civilian to calculate how many people were involved. In a court case over corruption, the Kirov region's court in Russia carelessly published what amount of military food rations were delivered bi-weekly. Unless I recall incorrectly, the calculation indicated presence of approximately 30 000 men. The court even clearly called them units of the RF military. An archived copy of the text remains, the original publication was taken down of course.

That's why people object to calling it "civil war" - it was a low-intensity war between states, interleaved by occasionally adhering to some ceasefire or keeping heavy weaponry far from the front. It was fought between Russian troops in control of Donetsk and Lugansk, and Ukrainian troops.

Now as for US interference: Obama tried getting Putin to back off, but was ineffectual. He enacted sanctions (about which Navalny once noted that they were close to a joke), but also left the oil tap open, and the resulting decrease in revenue somewhat influenced Putin. Obama also started military assistance to Ukraine, which was reforming its armed forces at very high pace. Humanitarian aid to displaced people was also offered, and I'm sure that many more things happened.

Trump continued the military aid, but tried blackmailing Zelensky once by blocking it. He demanded that Zelensky must have Biden's son investigated. Zelensky didn't do that, but a US whistleblower informed the public of the occurrence and Trump got his first impeachment proceedings as a result. As we know, he wasn't impeached. His grudge against Ukraine likely originates from this incident - Zelensky not bending to his will, and the Ukraine scandal blowing up in his face. Humanitarian and developent assistance continued to be offered.

Biden mostly continued the assistance programmes from his predecessors. But in late 2021, when intelligence analysis started pointing towards an imminent invasion, he engaged in diplomacy to make Ukraine aware of the level of the threat (they didn't believe it at first - they were sure that Putin was a criminal, but didn't consider him detached from reality) and tried to deter Russia from invading. He was ineffectual at that. After the invasion, he offered considerable military assistance, which helped Ukraine stand its ground, and probably made a difference. There might be no more Ukraine without timely assistance from the Biden administration. I would not say that Biden's assistance has "terrible consequences". Without his assistance, we'd have really terrible consequences.

A war is terrible. But the defending side losing a war and an agressor winning (followed by repressions against the civlian population, and subverting the resources of a country to serve another conquest), that is multiple times more terrible - it can be the start of a chain of invasions.

But Biden didn't do everything that could have been done.

Most normal, well adjusted, and definitely not propagandized .ml user take

You clearly have the ability to read. How are you still so misinformed?