Again, following the argument of "Russia is not at war" (which is already unbelievable), you say "Ukraine is in a civil war", that means that you admit that all the Donbas is Ukrainian territory at contest between two Ukrainian factions (Ukraine surely thanks you for that). You also say that Russia came to stop it. Thus Russia has sent troops into Ukrainian territory and has military presence there.
Almost. In Ukraine, there was a civil war in the Donbass for eight years, and then Dobnass asked Russia to recognize its independence and help deal with this protracted history. Thus, Russia has sent its troops to the territory of Ukraine and has its military presence there, without the approval of the UN Security Council.Invading another country with military forces is an act of war. Russia is at war with Ukraine. Ukraine can use any (legal) means to destroy Russian war infrastructure, including logistics, depots, factories, command centres, military installations, etc.
Not necessary. It can be a peacekeeping mission, or a counter-terrorist operation, or a special military operation, there are more than one options. But what you are right about is that Ukraine can use any legal means to destroy any legitimate targets. The use of illegal means and/or illegal purposes is a war crime.And let's now follow the opposite argument: If "Russia is not at war", then Putin is committing acts of terror in Ukraine which makes him a terrorist and makes Russia a terrorist supporting state. Ukraine is then in the right to capture, put to trial and sentence any member of the Russian government or military involved in these terrorist acts. They are lucky, if it were the US they would be sent to Guantanamo without trial and for an indeterminate period of time.
You have a logical error, and I pointed it out in the previous paragraph. It will be easier for you to understand it using the example of any peacekeeping mission with the approval of the UN Security Council - this is not a war, but peacekeepers sometimes shoot. It can also be viewed as a hybrid information-economic proxy war between the US and Russia for spheres of influence in Europe with a battlefield on the territory of Ukraine. But for my personal safety, I will call this a military special operation.But, none of that is true - Russia has started a war with Ukraine. And, as the saying goes, you only know how wars start, not how they end.
In practical terms, Russia will deny there is a war, and Ukraine will "not deny nor confirm" any activity in Russian territory. But words are just wind.
Call it what you will, but remember that war crimes are war crimes and will have to be answered.In practical terms, Russia will deny there is a war, and Ukraine will "not deny nor confirm" any activity in Russian territory. But words are just wind.
The govs in the West are banning anything that is considered disinformation. Anyone interested can still access Russian media. If you need proof, please, let me know any outlet that you would like me to read.
Unfortunately, all those bots and trolls like you sending false information have given the West govs the chance to restrict liberty. Another reason to hate this war.
Usually in each of my posts there is at least one link as a proof. But your statements are just unfounded blah blah blah with a bunch of logical errors, as if you have burnt porridge in your head instead of brains. Well, which one of us is a bot? Unfortunately, all those bots and trolls like you sending false information have given the West govs the chance to restrict liberty. Another reason to hate this war.
Act of war definition:
Quote
act of war
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;
Does not get any clearer.
The use of illegal means and/or illegal purposes is a war crime.
Curiously enough, that is not always the case. War crimes have also specific definitions, not everything illegal is a war crime and there are three groups of crime wars that are not at the same level of relevance.
You have a logical error, and I pointed it out in the previous paragraph. It will be easier for you to understand it using the example of any peacekeeping mission with the approval of the UN Security Council - this is not a war, but peacekeepers sometimes shoot. It can also be viewed as a hybrid information-economic proxy war between the US and Russia for spheres of influence in Europe with a battlefield on the territory of Ukraine. But for my personal safety, I will call this a military special operation.
There are no US nor NATO soldiers in Ukraine, there are Putin's Russia soldiers. A peacekeeping mission is a force that gets in the middle of two conflicting factions to prevent them from fighting. Russia is not getting in the middle of two factions, is taking a side.
If you wish to consider this a proxy for spheres of influence it would be closer to the truth. I am not particularly happy about US influence in Latin America, the Middle East nor anywhere else. I do take sides when a despotic regime takes the path of aggression on a germinal democracy - a very imperfect one.
I am not blind to the conflicts in Donbas, but there should be a pacific resolution and Russia should have acted as a mediator, not as a part in the conflict. US probably did not help either, both are still living in an imperialistic mindset in which local dissents are an opportunity to grab another piece of the world and they are both experts at feeding the local hawks and make a lot of money selling weapons in the process.
There are many countries that have different levels of governments and political organisations that could very well work in Ukraine, but that happens when people are given the opportunity to discuss and find common ground. That does not happen under despotic regimes that simply take one side, but usually in Democracies (e.g. North Ireland, Basque country, ...) in which people eventually understand that fighting is most of the times the worst solution.
For your purposes, you can call it whatever your government allows you to call it - we would not want you in prison, would we?