A civil war is an armed conflict that meets the following criteria:
a) the war has caused more than 1,000 battle deaths
b) the war represented a challenge to the sovereignty of an internationally
recognized state
c) the war occurred within the recognized boundary of that state
d) the war involved the state as one of the principal combatants
e) the rebels were able to mount an organized military opposition to the
state and to inflict significant casualties on the state.
All of the criteria must be meet in order for it to be defined a “civil war”.
Insurrection:
An act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Invasion:
Entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
Conquer can be also defined—to force a change ie political change upon a government that the government does not want.
Does any of the three above items forbid a government from reacting to these actions—no it does not especially after the last Ukrainian election which was deemed one of the freest and fairest since it’s freedom from the Soviet Union.
What mirhond was attempting to push via agitprop was the theory of a "Ukrainian civil war" which has been the constant propaganda drumbeat by the Russian government. Why --then Russia can and does state--ie Putin's Duma speech that they are "protecting ethnic Russian speakers from an evil Nazi junta". That seems to then to not sound like the term "invasion".
Seems they do not quite understand the definition of a "civil war".
WHAT we have from the Russian side is a Russian supported, funded and fueled with mercenaries "insurrection" that in August 2014 transitioned to an "armed invasion" WHICH has now transitioned a full blown Ukrainian Russo war being fought along a 200 mile front with a width of 50kms.
Notice all western leaders to include Putin are running from the use of the term "war".
As they are still running from the term "invasion" ie the US actually stopped using the term "incursion" and are saying now nothing.
IF we look at the figures of the so called first --"independence fighters then separatists, and now Russian proxies" they really are all "mercenaries".
Paid for by Russia, armed by Russia, trained by Russia and feed by Russia--the furthest thing from being a so called "local".
Out of the current figure of 34K fighters of the DNR/LNR only approximately 4-6K are actually locals. Even the first Russian former or maybe not so former FSB officer mercenary Strelkov aka Girkin to arrive in the Donbass from Crimea --openly and often complained that the locals did not want to join and were poor fighters.
So is what mirhond calls a "civil war" really a "civil war" when the majority of the fighters are Russian mercenaries and Russian troops physically located inside eastern Ukraine? --BTW an eastern Ukraine with a clearly defined international recognized border with Russia that one has to illegally cross to get to the Ukraine in the first place since they did not have a visa issued by the Ukraine????
No----
Bookmarks