It's not an "invasion" and you know very well it isn't. If Ukraine itself was a real country and not an artificial construct of lines on a map then their would be no "uprising" in the entire East of their territory, nor would any of their citizens be receiving arms from a foreign state for the purpose of making war on their own government. The reality is, if "Ukraine" as a nation was real, then their national unity would prevail and some half of their country would not be in revolt for the purpose of being independent or of joining the Russian Federation.

If anything I'd blame the current conflict on the particularly devious way the Soviets drew the borders of Ukraine, in such a way to make sure Ukraine had a sizable Russian population, which was Stalin's favorite trick in maintaining control over subject states.

The conflict in Ukraine would not be happening if a sizable amount of it's people didn't want it to happen, or rather that they were willing to fight to separate themselves from Ukraine.

No one is saying that either the US or Russia isn't involved in the conflict, but blaming these kind of civil conflicts on foreign meddling is just a way of refusing to look at reality - that it's a Ukrainian war with Ukrainian causes.

I'm not saying mind you that Ukraine is an artificial construct and not a nation, a certain part of it certainly is. Then again you can look all over the world and see conflict as the result of lines being drawn on a map without regard to the languages, nationalities and cultures within. Iraq and Syria anyone?

Any country's borders is an artificial construct, even if they match natural sea\rivers etc lines. But if you seriously somehow been able to miss a moving of personnel and war technic from one "artificial construct" to another (what is usually called, eh, invasion or sorta, unless it was done by agreement with that "construct"), and even dont know where actual actions you're talking about are happens, it probably would be wiser to dig into stuff you decided to discuss prior actually posting a message.

If you actually think that it's as simple as East versus West you're in no position to evaluate the legitimacy of the separatists' demands.

An uprising like this one doesn't appear out of nowhere. Russia created the whole thing. There may have only been a few radicals among an otherwise mostly content population before Russia supplied them with the means to start a minor shitstorm and things snowballed from there. Nobody knows how big the pro-Russian movement really is or how big it would be if Russian propaganda didn't spread *tons* of lies - heck, people listening their media live in an alternate universe that doesn't make any sense. One thing you can be sure of is that a few armed radicals are not legitimate representatives of the local population and they are not people anybody should give in to.

You might want to actually read what I said. And no I don't believe all countries are "artificial constructs", some are real because they mostly speak the same language, have the same history, share the same culture, have a common identity, all the other measures you decide what a nation is. I can safely say that a country like Lebanon or even Syria and Iraq are artificial constructs. Borders should never have been drawn that indiscriminately and I think I've been proven right multiple times).

I did not deny that Russia (or other powers) were not involved in Ukraine, there's scarcely been a war ever fought between two or more sides which didn't have outside powers helping the combatants, I'm simply stating that it wouldn't have gone on for so long if Ukraine did not have large internal problems within itself for which a foreign power could so easily exploit. Unless your making the claim that every separatist in the Ukraine is in fact a Russian soldier undercover, which I don't think anyone would. It's an internal conflict, and undoubtedly a large amount of Ukraine's population wants independence (or at least wide-ranging autonomy) from it's central government, or to join Russia (presumably because they are Russians).

If anything I think the parts of Ukraine where the majority are ethnic Ukrainians who speak Ukrainian should be their own independent, sovereign, free state, I'm just saying that the stuff in the East isn't dark magic conjured up by Vladimir Putin in his Kremlin office, it's real divisions in the country.
Nope, I'm sorry but this is just more "Russian magic" logic, people do not start fighting and dying unless they've got a really good reason to risk their lives, and I'm sorry but "Putin commanded them to revolt!" isn't going to cut it. The conflict certainly isn't going to come to a peaceful resolution soon if they just keep shouting that the separatists are just foreign invaders (even if they armed by Russia) and instead face reality.

How exactly do "a few armed radicals" take control of entire territories and cities and towns? If the locals weren't supportive they'd be finished in a day.

You have SO no idea about propaganda or how civil wars are created. Most of the time this shit is provoked or fully fabricated by more powerful external parties. The US does these things, Russia does them. You, Sir, are living in a dreamworld.

I'd say you are living in a dreamworld if you think civil wars are concocted or fabricated into existence with conspiracies.

The US, Russia or any party of course influence or even arm people, but the idea that they can just make people go out of their homes, get guns and start fighting and risking their lives - if there isn't something very wrong in the country - (at least in their eyes) I think you're deluded.

Seriously, you must think human beings are quite low if they can be controlled THAT easily.

You're welcome to tell the Polish Air Force to drop some guns in my backyard tomorrow, I'm 100% sure I and my neighbors won't be able to help ourselves and we'll form the "Victorian Liberation Front" to violently secede from Australia and go into the streets blasting away.

Id doesnt matter what you're actually believe or no. You make an incoherent statement, thats the deal. While its possible to create your "real countries" in theory, its looks to be impossible on practice by now. Say, i move to your country with my family, you will need to redraw your country borders to make them match your ideas of "common identity" at a spot then, or they are simply some random dreaming. If youll somehow will isolate groups of people from eachother entirely - it could lead to something you're dreaming about, but again, world history show what it still doesnt work the desired way. But yes, in theory its possible, In theory there is actually Reptilian shadow governent, what rule the world etc, but its pointless to discuss in topic about war, unless you can bring some actual unknown yet data about it into, otherwise its simply (un)intentional distraction. The countries we know now, and can operate with, are "artificial constructs", so if you claim what one country can do smth because its "real", and other "artificial", youll just go to not even wrong contributor category.

Thats actuall a nice twist you did, i noticed it in past. Now id be curious to see you eagerly battling the common idea of some people here, what roughly can be described as "USA staged a coup, poor people resist it, Russia have nothing to do with it at all". Just to see if you actually having some idea behind your words, or its just another nice "everybody's fault exept mine" stuff. And yes, it wouldnt have gone on for long, in case internal problem woudlnt been accompanied with direct involvement to prolong them. And of course not every separatist is a soldier, why you propose that? Or you mean what if you add to internal problems some phony army, what consist from gunmen 100% came from outside, and was unable to find not even one guy to share a good word with them as the only possible meaning of "invasion"? Its fantasy again, then there was almost no invasions in human history then, and total majority of wars was "civil wars" instead. Surely its possible in theory to change a terminology and start to call things this way, but for what? "It's an internal conflict, and undoubtedly a large amount of Ukraine's population wants independence" - problem here is what its essentially "doubtedly", and thats all that stuff is about. And there is also problems with "artificial constructs" worldwide now. Even if we will imply that "undoubtedly" for some certain case - there is not any conclusion could be done at spot, but its a problem in general, again, and here is about some small case of it.

There is also problem with ethnic Russians, who speak Russian, and want to be part of Ukraine-as-it, and with ethnic Ukrainians, who speak Ukrainian, who want to be part of Russia-would-be, and other mixes like this. If you somehow actually manage to see it so extra-naive-simplifying way - well, you surely could do better after youll do some research work on a subject. And no, surely not everything there is "dark magic", but if youll concentrate on the stuff you started to initially deny - "invasion" (e.g. moving of personnel and armor through artificial border), you have to go to conclusion what it is in that narrow case. Or, worse, what "artificial construct" Russia is so artificial, so it cannot handle and control own military, so local commanders or simply random people can move anything military they have in theyr disposal anywhere they want, and use it anyway they feel to. And central government unable\dont want\dont care to control them. In this case it lead to a way more urgent situation, as you probably should see.

"but the idea that they can just make people go out of their homes, get guns and start fighting and risking their lives". No, idea there was slightly different. You come with a mobile group, neutralize possible opposition, and then deliver the guns to ones, who will decide to join your cause. If you send mobile groups from abroad - it makes rather a difference there.

"You're welcome to tell the Polish Air Force to drop some guns in my backyard tomorrow, I'm 100% sure I and my neighbors won't be able to help ourselves and we'll form the "Victorian Liberation Front" to violently secede from Australia and go into the streets blasting away."
If you went to mind experiment, lets continue that. Suppose what you, and your neighbors indeed was able to resist a luring opportunity, but 3 families of Polish emigrees next street - not. Moreother, what some drug smugglers also picked them, and joined Poles-next-street cause. Assuming PAF involvement stated here from start, question here is - would you call it Australian civil war, in case of some clashes to go, especially if theyll be able to take an airfield in some initial confusion, so PAF planes can land there with volunteer troops and cargo?

I have to agree with F4LL0UT. Civil wars can be fabricated into existence with propaganda. He said "propaganda", not tin foil hat conspiracies about aliens. Just because Crosmando would never leave his home, pick up a weapon and fight unless he was offered a billion dollars(or something else that would get Crosmando to fight and risk his life) doesn't mean others won't fight because of something they watched on TV or read from a newspaper etc... Most human beings are sheep that can be controlled very easily if you know how to control them. If propaganda is useless like you say it is then why does propaganda exist?

And people choosing to fight or not is a luxury people usually do not have. If the people who have power over you send soldiers to your home to tell you that you are now in the army, you have two options. You can't just tell them to fuck off or tell them "Sorry, war is simply not my cup of tea." Your two options will be to fight for the people who own you as a soldier or play along and then desert later when the opportunity presents itself. And most likely, you will be shot while trying to desert if there is some serious shit going on.

They'r just knowd what would be alternative to it http://gazeta.sebastopol.ua/2014/08/18/v-sevastopole-obrushilas-krysha-kadetskogo-uchilischa/? (for non-cyrs in short, during renovation of similar object there, bravely saved from restoration by ass-handed Americans too, roof had collapsed, causing some causalities). Yes, im not arguing with not_even_wrongs, just this certain propaganda case is curious imho.

I'm not proposing anything, I'm simply saying why cling to some lines on a map if they clearly do not represent reality and are causing bloodshed? Why not come to terms even if it means redrawing some borders or giving these regions independence, if it means peace? When exactly did I suggest anything even close to this? Please inform me. Obviously many people in Ukraine do not want to be part of Ukraine, and want a union with Russia or independence, if they are willing to fight and risk their lives then they must feel quite strongly about it. If any country has a portion of it's people who are willing to fight, kill and die for the chance of not being part of their country - then something is wrong with that country. ??? Again, I did not say that Ukraine itself was an artificial construct, but that perhaps it's current borders are - that is they do not reflect reality and are causing bloodshed and suffering. If you get to the stage when people are dying then it's a good idea to have a clear look at the facts. I would not say this, and I'd appreciate if you didn't try and put words in my mouth. So what? Countries will always support one side or the other, if a country is so weak that it cannot even keep itself together then you have to evaluate if it's worth keeping it in it's current form. Of course not, but if their wasn't widespread popular support for such foreign intervention, I don't think it would happen, if no one was collaborating. Great, it's a problem, you can admit that now? And yes it could be applied all over the world, start with giving the Iraqi Kurds independence and move on from there. Lol now this is naive. Again, where have I defended anything Russia is doing or has been accused of doing? It's not even the point I was making. It's simply that nations exist for a reason, because they share a common identity, culture, language or whatnot, they have real national unity and it would be nigh impossible to make them start killing each other without a very good reason. If the idea of nationality means nothing and is just some lines on a map, well you shouldn't surprised when it doesn't work in reality. Again, you use big phrases but you still can't explain to me why a person is going to go out and fight and possibly die if they don't have a good reason for doing so. Do Russians have mind-control rays now? This is the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

So just a few days ago head rebels admitted to getting military training and weapons from Russia, on their own live TV... Putin tried to do damage control and denies everything but it's out anyway, why would the Rebels lie who helps them! Russia is training the rebels and equipping them in Russia's territory, then sends them back over the border. *This* is what the Guardian Journalists saw and reported!

This ain't a civil war, it's a proxy war. Russia vs Ukraine. And fitting to this the rebels have very very little support in their own "territories" if Russia wasn't providing tech and equipment they'd be finished already.

Yep, it doesn't take much to make people want to kill each other. I agree with you 100%

From wikipedia, here are some propaganda techniques

"Demonizing the enemy
Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term "gooks" for National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam aka Vietcong, or "VC", soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations. Dehumanizing is also a termed used synonymously with demonizing, the latter usually serves as an aspect of the former. "

"Managing the news
According to Adolf Hitler "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."[17][18] This idea is consistent with the principle of classical conditioning as well as the idea of "Staying on Message."

"The Lie
The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression."

"Ad nauseam
This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited or controlled by the propagator."

"Appeal to fear
Appeals to fear and seeks to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people. "

I said this in my previous post and I will say it again. Most human beings are sheep that can be controlled very easily if you know how to control them.

'm not proposing anything, I'm simply saying why cling to some lines on a map if they clearly do not represent reality and are causing bloodshed?
Because nobody was able to came with better idea yet? Lines works bad, that for sure.

Say, i move to your country with my family, you will need to redraw your country borders to make them match your ideas of "common identity" at a spot then, or they are simply some random dreaming. If youll somehow will isolate groups of people from eachother entirely - it could lead to something you're dreaming about, but again, world history show what it still doesnt work the desired way.
When exactly did I suggest anything even close to this? Please inform me. Obviously many people in Ukraine do not want to be part of Ukraine, and want a union with Russia or independence, if they are willing to fight and risk their lives then they must feel quite strongly about it. If any country has a portion of it's people who are willing to fight, kill and die for the chance of not being part of their country - then something is wrong with that country.
"some are real because they mostly speak the same language, have the same history, share the same culture, have a common identity, all the other measures you decide what a nation is. ((c) you)" Assuming it was "real" country before my family come there, and changed the proportion, you have to redraw your lines to match it, as some part of territory now not fit a "real country" standarts. Or you can decide what its not "real country" anymore instead. What did i miss? Obviously many people in Ukraine want a described, also many people in Germany or Australia want a sharia halifate, and? There is difference between "want" and "doing". If Saudis would send enough weapons and support to your halifate lovers, you could realize what they're portion isnt such small as you could probably think. Would it mean what every demand from they should be fulfilled at spot? If i and 2 friends of mine think what Russia should have a union with Mozambique, and be ruled from there, and willing to fight, kill and die for it (when we're drunk enough), but not doing so yet - its a problem of Russia, right? Oh, you mentioned "many", right. Now suppose Mozambique army somehow had deployed here for me and my friends delight, and proposed a golden windfall after theyr imminent victory (as all is decided and agreed on Top alredy, and you need just to emulate things going, to meet the international rules, as they sayd), and moreother will provide you with gun - then it would happen, what Mozambique support inside Russia not so small as it looks, and much more than 3 loonies. See? You cant meazure actual support during invasion going, and if youll decide to use a pre-invasion data - you had to stop to say about "many" then. Maybe there was, maybe not, modern measuring capabilities cannot tell this sadly, but ones we have on a subject clearly show what number was low.

But yes, in theory its possible, In theory there is actually Reptilian shadow governent, what rule the world etc, but its pointless to discuss in topic about war, unless you can bring some actual unknown yet data about it into, otherwise its simply (un)intentional distraction.
???
You decided to elude from your initial point to some fantasies about "real countries" vs "artificial ones". That was example, what you'd better do not.

The countries we know now, and can operate with, are "artificial constructs", so if you claim what one country can do smth because its "real", and other "artificial", youll just go to not even wrong contributor category.
Again, I did not say that Ukraine itself was an artificial construct, but that perhaps it's current borders are - that is they do not reflect reality and are causing bloodshed and suffering. If you get to the stage when people are dying then it's a good idea to have a clear look at the facts.
" If Ukraine itself was a real country and not an artificial construct of lines on a map then their would be no "uprising" in the entire East of their territory, nor would any of their citizens be receiving arms from a foreign state for the purpose of making war on their own government. The reality is, if "Ukraine" as a nation was real, then their national unity would prevail and some half of their country would not be in revolt for the purpose of being independent or of joining the Russian Federation. ((c) you)". All we can operate with - is reflection of reality, its a way humankind do. You can operate reflection better or worse, thats all. Right now you're falling into fallacy what would lead to "we need to ban a cars, because people are dying using them, that a clear look at the fact"

Thats actuall a nice twist you did, i noticed it in past. Now id be curious to see you eagerly battling the common idea of some people here, what roughly can be described as "USA staged a coup, poor people resist it, Russia have nothing to do with it at all".
I would not say this, and I'd appreciate if you didn't try and put words in my mouth.
No-no, never, never would put any wrong words into your mouth, you sayd "No one is saying that either the US or Russia isn't involved in the conflict, but blaming these kind of civil conflicts on foreign meddling is just a way of refusing to look at reality - that it's a Ukrainian war with Ukrainian causes. ", and i meant what i want to see you also disproving the such ("roughly described") statements too, because you somehow missed them yet, busy to defending only one "blamed" side, but ignoring similar "blames" to other. Just purely aestethically its looks not good.

Just to see if you actually having some idea behind your words, or its just another nice "everybody's fault exept mine" stuff. And yes, it wouldnt have gone on for long, in case internal problem woudlnt been accompanied with direct involvement to prolong them.
So what? Countries will always support one side or the other, if a country is so weak that it cannot even keep itself together then you have to evaluate if it's worth keeping it in it's current form.
Thats correct, but how come you came to it by denying invasion, and how you're planning to measure "weakness"? See a "Mozambique case" above.

And of course not every separatist is a soldier, why you propose that? Or you mean what if you add to internal problems some phony army, what consist from gunmen 100% came from outside, and was unable to find not even one guy to share a good word with them as the only possible meaning of "invasion"?
Of course not, but if their wasn't widespread popular support for such foreign intervention, I don't think it would happen, if no one was collaborating.
So we are planning to call WW1 and WW2 "some civil wars around the globe", right? We can, as its just a terminology, but for what point, again? There is popular support, there is also direct invasion, you can mix them with various outcomes, but they are 2 different things, and your point was in denying one. If you talked only about "popular support" - i even wouldnt care to bother to write to you back, as there is obviously some support present.

Surely its possible in theory to change a terminology and start to call things this way, but for what? "It's an internal conflict, and undoubtedly a large amount of Ukraine's population wants independence" - problem here is what its essentially "doubtedly", and thats all that stuff is about. And there is also problems with "artificial constructs" worldwide now. Even if we will imply that "undoubtedly" for some certain case - there is not any conclusion could be done at spot, but its a problem in general, again, and here is about some small case of it.
Great, it's a problem, you can admit that now? And yes it could be applied all over the world, start with giving the Iraqi Kurds independence and move on from there.
Im never denied a problem, moreother i think what people of Whatanystan (any parts of Ukraine, Australia, Russia etc included) could have a way to join or secede any Farawaystan they want all around the world, and i even wrote about it in this topic. Problem is what looks like what not only im have no idea how to do it right way, but no one else in charge too. And again, how come it make any difference here?

There is also problem with ethnic Russians, who speak Russian, and want to be part of Ukraine-as-it, and with ethnic Ukrainians, who speak Ukrainian, who want to be part of Russia-would-be, and other mixes like this.
Lol now this is naive.
If that stuff is actual news for you - well, you jumped way to early to discuss a distant stuff you have little glue about. In game terms, its as jumping to discussion of HOMM2, because you played HOMM5 (only), so you naively think you can participate too, as you know the stuff enough to make a valid statements.

Right, that's why we have so many wars in Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland and France all the time. *giggle*
You do know that in all parts of those another "tribe" with another languare is present, right?
No, they don't speak the same language in every part of those countries, not at all.

Maybe Australia really is too far off to know anything about the rest of the world. oO