I think the point he was making is it's tough to pinpoint who start the war, considering ukraine has been a pretty intense proxy battlefield for almost a decade and beyond
Clearly he thinks that when the Ukrainian people threw out the russian puppet head of state that was an aggressive attack against Russia so everything done since then is in self defence.
This fits the bias hypotheses. Facts gets twisted in the way that confirms your bias that already exists.
If the population elects a head of state you don't like, it's a pro-Russian puppet. If the person is pro-USA, it's an expressed democratic will.
If government gets changed on the streets, it's not a coup, it's a pinnacle of democracy, as long as you don't like the former head of state.
If people you don't like start a rebellion, they are terrorists who need to be crushed. Or a democratic liberation army, if you like them.
If the regular army of a state is sent to crush a rebellion, it's either a genocide and the country needs to be bombed to oblivion, or a legal action where any atrocity is allowed because you are fighting an evil terrorist organization.
Seen thousands of times on any of the mainstream TV in any "western" country. (in "eastern" countries too).
You just have to put a "correct" frame based on your pre-existing knowledge who's your friend and who's your enemy, and the whole narrative fits perfectly.