We're gonna need some evidence that the first one was a NATO coup for that to be persuasive. Because frankly it is not that weird at all to me that a president suddenly and unilaterally making an enormous and unpopular shift in policy sparked large protests and opposition. Never mind that Ukrainians completely destroyed Yanukovych's party at the election only months afterwards. Never mind that Yanukovych fucking fled the country. Was Ukraine meant to just patiently wait for him to come back after he abandoned his post?
And yes, I have read the transcript of the Nuland-Pyatt call. It is not persuasive towards your claim of a NATO-backed coup. It shows that America wanted to influence who came to power afterwards, but it's very clearly reactive and not proactive. And I'm sorry, but negotiating with leaders of a movement to try to persuade them who they should work with is just not a coup.