All they need to do is provide proof, ie evidence that cannot have holes knocked in it by five minutes on google.

eg, Satellite photos could be proof, but a couple of low quality ones don't say anything relevant, if anything they beg the question as to why such low quality ones are released. If they're the only satellite photos available that show what they want then there certainly there's not enough evidence to say there's been any large scale 'invasion'. And if they have lots of others why not release more, and especially higher quality ones. Anyone can go to Google Earth and see what the same commercial satellite can do, let alone spy satellites. Not like the Russians don't know that the US has spy satellites, they do after all supply the rocket engines to get them into space...

But twenty different people yelling 'fact' in unison doesn't prove anything except that those twenty people believe (or purport to believe) that they're saying a fact. That's why I like the analogy to the Iraq War 2 build up. You had lots of supposedly conclusive stuff like satellite photos, mock ups of mobile chemical labs, Powell with his phial of white powder, supposed Al Qaeda links, Nigerien yellowcake, 45 minute launch times, lots of 'just trust us, we're right' all sorts. All shouted as fact. All undeniably wrong.

So was reading news today and Putin is getting quite insane now since he threatened the President of the European Commision that he could take Kiev in two weeks if Europe does not stop sanctioning Russia. Well it seems all of his masks have finally fallen down and it might just be the whole of Ukraine that he will occupy.

that's not how satellite work. They do not take 24h photos of every part of the earth. Instead they travel certain path taking HQ photos of small part of earth once. then they will never be able to take the same picture again (few places on the planet might be an exception where current orbit passes through former orbit)
USA as spy-friendly it is does not have spy satellites point at every single point of earth or even at every important part of the planet. Instead they travel on orbits which allows them to monitor sites like nuclear silos in Russia, China, military bases in those countries and places where satelitte coverage is extremely important aka where american lives are in danger during military operations. so Iraq, Syria...
If the war escaltes USA probably will be able to put some sattelites on orbit which allows to take HQ photos at any given time of Ukraine territory. but it is extremely costly, ties up resources so it is not done often.

Therefore your demands cannot be met. but a satelite picture is not a single fact. There are many photos, statements from locals, ukraine soldiers AND rebels about presence of russian military in the area. We also had Crimea inncident where Russian soldiers helped to annex the penisulina but when it was happening Russia claimed there were not their soldiers.

you cannot dispute the evidence based on mistakes of the past. you take them into account and you look critically at the data we have but you do not dispute it because it's not perfect and because people made mistakes and lied before.

That coupled with the 'we're one of the biggest nuclear powers' threat was a bit of a worry.

There is no UDSSR anymore and Ukraine didn't attack Russia, therefore:
Russian military on Ukrainian ground = invasion.
It's as simple as that. Stop doing what your politicians do: Confusing people with thousands of words and hilarious arguing until they don't see the simple facts anymore. Stop listening to liars.

Yep.

Looks like a total lie. Russian army could take all Ukraine (not just a Kiev) in 2 weeks, but this will not happen. There are no proofs for months!! (all shown pictures are confirmed fakes), only words in newspapers and on TVs. And because of it there is no military support from USA and EU to new ukrainian goverment, only economical sanctions against Russia (humorous and light ones by the way).

It was confirmed by your own foreign office that that happened so check the news first before you talk stupid.

Did you read it from your morning newspaper? :D I'm checking news feeds every day (mostly - videos, even live ones, shows war crimes of new Kiev's government against people of eastern Ukraine). This situation is a tragedy for most Ukrainian and Russian people. There is NO Russian army in Ukraine. There were only about 300 trucks with food, water and medical supplies sent to Donetsk (they went to Russia on next day). This convoy was checked by Ukrainian border guards, reporters and representatives of Red Cross. Is this "invasion"? Hardly doubt.

Looks like just another troll, but for others who wonder what it's all about - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ukraine-crisis-russian-president-vladimir-putin-claims-he-can-take-kiev-in-two-weeks-9705449.html

Yeah that what you posted is now on every newsmedia besides Russian off course.

actually it's in russian media too:

http://www.regnum.ru/news/polit/1842838.html
http://www.mk.ru/politics/2014/09/01/barrozu-na-sammite-evrosoyuza-prezident-putin-prigrozil-chto-pri-zhelanii-vozmet-kiev-za-dve-nedeli.html

second one is well known btw - that's why i think that guy is a troll.

Again, to provide to whom? To you? Suppose theyll do - you will stop Russia, for example? Or only to make you please? Proofs needed to be provided to ones, who can take action based on proofs. That Iraq example is good here, while you wasnt satisfied with reliability of provided proofs, the other ones was, and took the action. What you did in result? Started to hate USA? That was from a serie of cases when actual proof was wrong, and you position on them was correct, and their was not. Deal is what you cannot build statistics based on one experiment, and assume what you always right, and anything what was not proved to you is wrong. So what would be your actions in case with reverse bits - you wrong, they right, actual proof right too? Just will switch your dislike to Russia instead?

And btw, whats the point to mix realpolitic you like to drag sometimes with facts and proofs? Facts and proofs mostly can do harm to realpolitics, not support it. Why you see a Russian actions as good realpolitic, as might make right, and other sides as bad? Whats the problem with Iraq then? it was realpolitic. Why you seem to not like the idea of some countries teamed to get Russia down in another realpolitic aka negative selection swing? As a more scaled example of it - you supposedly should like it even more, but i hadnt seen you called it as good idea yet. So what special in Russian realpolitic, what make it good one, versus bad realpolitics of others, so you tend to support it?

It proves nothing. Just like I said before - no evidence of any military presence. Only a bunch of words in a newspaper about a possibility to take Kiev in short time IF a conflict rises (a very unrealistic scenario). It was not a secret for anyone and same worlds were said before by many western politics. By the way, the administration of president Putin is ready to share audio and text logs of this conversation but waiting for excuses first. Last news.

How about providing proof about all claims being made on the pro-russian side? About the CIA involvement on Maidan, that the Ukrainian army shot down MH17 on purpose, the widespread infiltration of Nazis in the current Kiev parliament and so on?
You demand proof, yet fail to deliver for your own claims (not saying the above examples are yours). You demand proof from the pro-western side, but where is the proof from pro-russian side meeting your requirements?

Edit: You know what? I'll bite. What's the official Russian version? Russian soldiers helping their brothers in their spare time? Thing is: they do it with Russian equipment. And I'm rather sure, that a Russian soldier isn't allowed to take heavy equipment home or anywhere else in his spare time. Certainly not into a foreign conflict... which leads to 2 possible conclusions.
a) Mr. Putin is lying as he did (and later admitted) about the involvement of Russian soldiers in Crimea.
b) the commander-in-chief of the Russian Federation hasn't control over his army.
Choose your poison.

I don't demand proof from the Russian side because their side isn't generally accepted as gospel, so there's no need to refute it. Plus, you cannot prove a negative, that's why if an assertion cannot be proved it is automatically refuted. It's the old "prove you've never taken candy from a baby, if you can't you're evil" proposition.

If you want those claims dealt with so far as they can:
-CIA involvement, not really significant at all in Maidan, though I suspect there's a lot more now. Moral and some practical and monetary support from the State Department and US politicians, certainly, but a lot less than came from Ukraine's home grown oligarchs. They may have been encouraged to contribute by the EU or US, but then it isn't like pro Russian ones weren't encouraged by the Russians either.
-MH17, certainly the initial Russian version is deeply flawed since they suggested a Su-25 shot it down with AAMs, and a commercial airliner flies well above a Su-25's normal service ceiling. Which doesn't mean that the Ukraine/ NATO narrative is correct either, that's what you have an investigation for, to determine blame. In this case both sides are determining blame then having the investigation. Personally, I don't find either 'official' explanation to be inherently convincing.
-Yes, there are plenty of right wing nationalists (neo nazis? not that far, imo) in the current government, that's easily verifiable- Svoboda and Right Sector are proud of themselves and think they're right, so hardly hide their thoughts- as is the use of ad hoc militia from those groups to reinforce the Ukrainian military. And the insistence that all their enemies are 'terrorists' or foreigners is deeply indicative of a No True Ukrainian attitude.
-Russian equipment? No conclusive evidence since everything seen is ex-soviet, except some specifically Ukrainian stuff. There have been two supposedly conclusive tank pictures, neither of which is conclusive at all. Some T-64s earlier- not Russian equipment, they were of an upgraded post break up type, and the T-64 plant is in Kharkov, a city in Ukraine- and the recent T72BM, whose plant at least is in Russia but which the BBC said was never exported (it was, under a specific, different export model number, though that may be irrelevant since Ukraine bought none) but more importantly predates the SU's disintegration, so Ukraine will have inherited some from the ~6,500 tanks/ AFVs they got then. There's a lot of excess military equipment in storage in Ukraine- a large proportion of the theoretical Ukrainian air force was found mothballed in Crimea, for example, and a lot of equipment has been abandoned in the southern sector when the military retreated as well as earlier prizes from barracks and the like.
-I have no doubt that Russia is supplying spares and ammunition, plus deniable volunteers.
-Organised invasion/ regular troops though? No evidence provided. People bring up the Crimea as an example, but it really isn't at all. There there was very little doubt as to what was happening, you had obviously Russian military vehicles all over the place with Russian numberplates and all sorts. It was also a well organised and precise operation that accomplished all aims very very quickly. Neither of those are true in Donbass, it's still rather shambolic, the recent pictures of the attack on Lugansk airport showed rebels using ancient public buses and cars as transport, not the BMPs or military trucks regulars would use.

I'll deal with the satellite issue separately, because this is already far beyond tldr for most sensible people.