Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[HVC]

I don't know, the last time we trained a nation to fight the Russians they turned on us

[Zoupa]

That AI report also caused a small scandal in Finland. A member of board of Amnesty Finland (a well-known anti-US demagogue) talked about the "Ukrainian civil war in 2014-2022" and used a Russian propaganda website as a source.

Well, given that there was a Ukrainian Civil War from roughly 2014-2022, I'm failing to see the outrage (other than the source he cited). 

It's not very accurate to call it a civil war. Without russia and it's little green men, it would not be a war at all.

[mongers]

Sweden is sending instructors to the UK to help train Ukrainian soldiers. 120 in total.

According to Ilia Ponomarenko there's now British, Canadian, Dutch, Finnish and Swedish instructors training Ukrainian troops in the UK (I swear I read there were New Zealanders too) - but seems like good news and a scheme that is, hopefully, helpful to Ukraine.

Edit: Enough to worry that the Protestants are up to no good again

Yes were or are training Ukrainians on Salisbury Plain in the use of 105mm light guns that are being sent.

[Tamas]

So the oil pipeline feeding Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia (and perhaps others) have been shut closed for 5 days now, but only now coming public.

Allegedly its because the Russians can't bank transfer to the Ukrainians for allowing the transit due to sanctions (this is also weird how you maintain business transactions with people you are killing / defending against - I guess you just have to).

The situation is getting absolutely desperate in Hungary especially because the government is trying to maintain the heavily depressed price cap on fuel. The Hungarian oil company (MOL) is now trying to arrange itself as middle man, volunteering to pay the Ukrainians if the Russians agree to send the money to them.

[DGuller]

That AI report also caused a small scandal in Finland. A member of board of Amnesty Finland (a well-known anti-US demagogue) talked about the "Ukrainian civil war in 2014-2022" and used a Russian propaganda website as a source.

Well, given that there was a Ukrainian Civil War from roughly 2014-2022, I'm failing to see the outrage (other than the source he cited). 

I could be missing a point you're making, but only Russian propaganda has ever called the Donbas conflict a civil war, for obvious reasons.  I don't think that an insurrection organized and run by a foreign power, with an occasional direct military intervention by said foreign power, is classified as a civil war.  There are always collaborators working with the invaders, but that doesn't make wars of aggression a civil war.

[Tamas]

I don't think you can call it a civil war if one side wants to secede/want far-reaching autonomy, even if you ignore that the whole thing was started and directly supported by a foreign power and its military (I do not subscribe to the notion of Donbas farmers having artillery and tanks in their sheds to be used in case of a rebellion).

[grumbler]

It's not very accurate to call it a civil war. Without russia and it's little green men, it would not be a war at all.

The civil war would not have continued without the Russian intervention, and certainly the Russian-Ukrainian element of the war ended up dwarfing the Ukrainian civil war element, but it isn't outrageous to observe that there was a civil war going on during that time. Unless, of course, one actually recognizes the DPR and LPR as independent.

[DGuller]

I don't think you can call it a civil war if one side wants to secede/want far-reaching autonomy, even if you ignore that the whole thing was started and directly supported by a foreign power and its military (I do not subscribe to the notion of Donbas farmers having artillery and tanks in their sheds to be used in case of a rebellion).

Yeah, that too.  Even if War in Donbas was a legitimate secession movement rather than a covert Russian invasion, it still wouldn't be called a civil war.  American Revolution wasn't a British civil war.

[grumbler]

I could be missing a point you're making, but only Russian propaganda has ever called the Donbas conflict a civil war, for obvious reasons.  I don't think that an insurrection organized and run by a foreign power, with an occasional direct military intervention by said foreign power, is classified as a civil war.  There are always collaborators working with the invaders, but that doesn't make wars of aggression a civil war.

The point that I am making is that the pro-Russian uprising in the Donbas started a civil war when the government fought back, and I do NOT recognize the LPR and DPR as sovereigns, making their war against the government a civil one.  Russian intervention (and eventually domination) in the civil war doesn't mean that it stops being a civil war.  It's just dwarfed by the international war.

[grumbler]

I don't think you can call it a civil war if one side wants to secede/want far-reaching autonomy, even if you ignore that the whole thing was started and directly supported by a foreign power and its military (I do not subscribe to the notion of Donbas farmers having artillery and tanks in their sheds to be used in case of a rebellion).

I don't know any term for "an armed conflict that occurs within the territory of a particular state, between government armed forces and organized armed groups" other than "civil war" (popularly) and the concept is recognized in international law. 

The fact that you don't like the term doesn't change the fact that it isn't outrageous to call the civil war element of the war in Ukraine a civil war.  That's certainly how it started, and even though the international war aspect has since dwarfed it, there are still armed groups claiming to represent the LPR and DPR, so there's still a civil war element.

What is your favored term for "an armed conflict that occurs within the territory of a particular state, between government armed forces and organized armed groups?"

[alfred russel]

I don't think you can call it a civil war if one side wants to secede/want far-reaching autonomy, even if you ignore that the whole thing was started and directly supported by a foreign power and its military (I do not subscribe to the notion of Donbas farmers having artillery and tanks in their sheds to be used in case of a rebellion).

Yeah, that too.  Even if War in Donbas was a legitimate secession movement rather than a covert Russian invasion, it still wouldn't be called a civil war.  American Revolution wasn't a British civil war.

Was the American Civil War a civil war? 

[DGuller]

The point that I am making is that the pro-Russian uprising in the Donbas started a civil war when the government fought back, and I do NOT recognize the LPR and DPR as sovereigns, making their war against the government a civil one.  Russian intervention (and eventually domination) in the civil war doesn't mean that it stops being a civil war.  It's just dwarfed by the international war.

I think there are more than two options.  It's not just a choice between "LPR and DPR are sovereigns" and "LPR and DPR are Ukrainian rebels", the third option is that it's a Russian invasion dressed up as rebellion after the fact.  Considering that the "uprising" started after Russia overtly occupied Crimea, it doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy theory.  Yes, there was Ukrainian cannon fodder fighting on the Russian side, but they were directed by Russia, and backstopped by Russian army when they proved to be too inept at fighting on their own.

[grumbler]

Yeah, that too.  Even if War in Donbas was a legitimate secession movement rather than a covert Russian invasion, it still wouldn't be called a civil war.  American Revolution wasn't a British civil war.

Why wouldn't the struggle between the forces claiming to be those of the DPR and LPR and those of the Ukrainian government be called a civil war?  And the reason the American Revolution wasn't called a British civil war was because it was not fought in Britain between British forces.  Do you consider the American Civil War to be a civil war?

[Tamas]

I don't think you can call it a civil war if one side wants to secede/want far-reaching autonomy, even if you ignore that the whole thing was started and directly supported by a foreign power and its military (I do not subscribe to the notion of Donbas farmers having artillery and tanks in their sheds to be used in case of a rebellion).

Yeah, that too.  Even if War in Donbas was a legitimate secession movement rather than a covert Russian invasion, it still wouldn't be called a civil war.  American Revolution wasn't a British civil war.

Was the American Civil War a civil war? 

Actually no.

[The Brain]

Allegedly its because the Russians can't bank transfer to the Ukrainians for allowing the transit due to sanctions (this is also weird how you maintain business transactions with people you are killing / defending against - I guess you just have to).

Reminds me of Onoda Hiroo, the most famous of the Japanese WW2 soldiers who wouldn't quit fighting. In his book he describes how he figured that Japan and the US had made a deal to let civilian trade go on and leave the fighting to the militaries, this to explain what he saw in found newspapers and heard on a stolen transistor radio.