Generally speaking, I find it effective, when I disagree with someone's sources describing an event, to explicitly provide my own. This ensures that the person I'm speaking with knows what sources I find credible, and knows the version of events that I'm willing to defend as accurate.
Also, if you feel that the Wikipedia page is misrepresenting the situation, I encourage you to engage on the talk page, and update the event section to provide an alternative view point. Yes, you'll get some pushback, but you can then cite the same published sources that you find to be more reliable, making it easier for people to follow the different threads.
The events in the Ukraine during 2014 are important, and I would like to have Wikipedia be accurate on it.
I don't think Wikipedia is a good source for anything that goes against an established narrative, no matter the subject. I don't have any interest in making sure Wikipedia is up to date when there are state actors publishing their view of events on Wikipedia.
