Good to hear from you and thanks for responding. That said, there is not much you said here that I can agree with unless a clarification makes me read it differently.

 Counterpunch's bias is flagrant - "junta" here, "junta" there. The "civil war" is fairly contained in scope - like Sri Lanka had for 20+ years.

I'll try to be clear, partly by working at defining terms. Bias is a tricky word. I might use it casually not intending the negative connotation of the dictionary description but just to identify what I see as a common or usual leaning of thought which I might then justify or might use as an accusation. I am not sure how you intended the word but I will use the dictionary definition going forward in this comment. 
 "Bias,  prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". Included in that definition is the word 'prejudice' which is defined as, "Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." So, the author may be biased in one or many ways, I could not know, but I do not see any strong and certainly not conclusive evidence of it here in what He wrote.
 The publication, Counterpunch, certainly demonstrates an inclination or a tendency or a predisposition or a proclivity or a propensity towards criticism of some U.S. government actions. So do I, in case you haven't noticed, but I do not consider that I hold a [bad-connotation defined] 'bias' that is intentionally unfair or prejudiced, although maybe wrong of coarse, and I do not consider that that I am prejudiced in opinions or that my opinions are ones which I do not come to with [an attempt at] reason or as a reaction to actual experience. Looked at that same way, I do not think Counterpunch does either.
 None of what I read in the article can fairly be described as demonstrating 'flagrant bias, IMO.  "Flagrant ... of something considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive.'
Maybe offensive to someone who thinks that neither the U.S. nor the IMF in this case, could/would/did use its power in a wrong or counter-productive way because they had the power to use it to play bullying politics in favor of their political or ideological position. We would surely agree that Russia would do the same if they were in position to.

Counterpunch's bias is flagrant - "junta" here, "junta" there. The "civil war" is fairly contained in scope - like Sri Lanka had for 20+ years.

 The Ukraine government was, by definition, overthrown and replaced by a flagrant junta/coup. That action did bring about a civil war that is ongoing. Being contained does not mitigate existence and does not help those directly involved and does not assure that it will not break out into a larger and vastly more destructive confrontation between outside forces with either real or concocted reasons/justifications to be involved.

Sure there's politics - but I also don't buy that Ukraine's a worse case than Greece which was keeping double sets of books to hide debts, focused on only 2 industries - tourism + shipping, and rampant with tax evasion up to 50% of its citizenry.

Hidden books could be used as an excuse for having made a bad loan though I doubt that that was not a 'known known'. Making a far riskier, and, relatively speaking far bigger, loan to a recipient that is obvious for anyone to see in an even worse financial state begs some questions as to reason or justification or motive. One question that is begged if the loan seems to have huge political implications and could be seen as propping up one side of a civil war is who has the power within the IMF to choose to make that loan? Who is playing power politics with the IMF as one of its tools? Of course that is only likely to become a question for those who do not like the course of the politics in play.
 A quick scan of the Wikipedia chart on percentage of votes held by the various governments participating in the IMF shows that, in descending order of voting power, the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, and Canada have togethr approximately 42% of the votes in the IMF. Russia has 2.39% and China has 3.81%. Ukraine is not listed, too small a voting block which cuts off at 30 countries and at o.7% voting power in chart. It is one of the 138 other countries which in total have 23,5% of the voting power at IMF. My inclination is to assume I know who is swinging big when deciding to throw good money after bad in Ukraine but which helps to enable the fight to go on.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

But hey, the left's found a whipping boy, might as well keep whipping.

 Is the whipping boy you refer to Putin or Obama or someone else or some other entity? I can't tell.

Hopefully Ukraine will get on fast-track talks to the EU and this issue will go away.

You do know, I am sure what started the protests which turned into killing by both sides and then became a successful coup which then kicked off a civil war, don't you? I too hope the problems in the Ukraine go away in the sense that at least the war stops but I don't see a quick near term alignment with the EU as something which will help that come about.