War in Ukraine

[Wisbech Eagle]

Apparently there was no civil war in Ukraine 2014.

Funny that.....So I asked Grok.

'Was there a civil war in ukraine 2014'.

'Yes, in 2014, a civil war broke out in Ukraine, often referred to as the War in Donbas or the Russo-Ukrainian War. It began after Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, following a controversial referendum. Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, declared independence as the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), sparking conflict with Ukrainian forces.

By late 2014, the conflict had killed thousands, displaced over a million people, and led to the Minsk agreements in 2015.'

But hey some guy in Cornwall thinks it wasn't a civil war so how do you like those apples Grok.

I just read this response, so apologies for it being so late. It’s important though.

It says much more about the politics of Grok and those who use it for “information” than ever it does about the truth. It’s far from “some guy in Cornwall” who disagrees! So does Ukraine, the United Nations and NATO.

I asked ChatGPT the same question. This was the response:-

“The events in Ukraine in 2014 are sometimes described as a civil war, but this label is highly contested and often considered inaccurate or misleading, depending on the perspective and political context.

What happened in 2014?

1. Euromaidan and Government Overthrow (Feb 2014):
   • Mass protests in Kyiv led to the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
   • The new pro-Western government took over in Kyiv.
2. Russian Annexation of Crimea (March 2014):
   • Russia occupied and annexed Crimea following an unrecognized referendum.
   • Widely condemned as illegal by Ukraine and most of the international community.
3. War in Donbas (April 2014 onward):
   • Armed conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), where Russia-backed separatists declared independence.
   • The Ukrainian government responded with military action.
   • Russia provided substantial support to separatists, including weapons, fighters, and at times direct military involvement.

Was it a civil war?

Arguments for calling it a civil war:

• Ukrainian citizens on both sides were involved.
• It began with local unrest and protests that escalated to armed conflict.
• There was genuine dissatisfaction in some eastern regions with the new Kyiv government.

Arguments against calling it a civil war:

• Russia played a central and active role in organizing, supplying, and directing the separatist forces.
• The leadership of the so-called “people’s republics” included many Russian nationals.
• The conflict is widely viewed as a form of hybrid warfare or proxy war, with Russia exploiting internal divisions.
• The Ukrainian government and most Western governments describe it as foreign aggression, not a civil war.

Conclusion:

Most experts, including the United Nations, NATO, and Ukrainian authorities, do not classify the conflict as a civil war. Instead, they characterize it as a Russian-instigated and supported armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.

So while the term “civil war” has been used—often in Russian or pro-Russian narratives—it is not an accurate or neutral description of what happened.”

Russian and pro-Russian narratives? Says it all, doesn’t it?

 

[silvertop]

I just read this response, so apologies for it being so late. It’s important though.

It says much more about the politics of Grok and those who use it for “information” than ever it does about the truth. It’s far from “some guy in Cornwall” who disagrees! So does Ukraine, the United Nations and NATO.

I asked ChatGPT the same question. This was the response:-

“The events in Ukraine in 2014 are sometimes described as a civil war, but this label is highly contested and often considered inaccurate or misleading, depending on the perspective and political context.

What happened in 2014?

1. Euromaidan and Government Overthrow (Feb 2014):
   • Mass protests in Kyiv led to the ousting of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych.
   • The new pro-Western government took over in Kyiv.
2. Russian Annexation of Crimea (March 2014):
   • Russia occupied and annexed Crimea following an unrecognized referendum.
   • Widely condemned as illegal by Ukraine and most of the international community.
3. War in Donbas (April 2014 onward):
   • Armed conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), where Russia-backed separatists declared independence.
   • The Ukrainian government responded with military action.
   • Russia provided substantial support to separatists, including weapons, fighters, and at times direct military involvement.

Was it a civil war?

Arguments for calling it a civil war:

• Ukrainian citizens on both sides were involved.
• It began with local unrest and protests that escalated to armed conflict.
• There was genuine dissatisfaction in some eastern regions with the new Kyiv government.

Arguments against calling it a civil war:

• Russia played a central and active role in organizing, supplying, and directing the separatist forces.
• The leadership of the so-called “people’s republics” included many Russian nationals.
• The conflict is widely viewed as a form of hybrid warfare or proxy war, with Russia exploiting internal divisions.
• The Ukrainian government and most Western governments describe it as foreign aggression, not a civil war.

Conclusion:

Most experts, including the United Nations, NATO, and Ukrainian authorities, do not classify the conflict as a civil war. Instead, they characterize it as a Russian-instigated and supported armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.

So while the term “civil war” has been used—often in Russian or pro-Russian narratives—it is not an accurate or neutral description of what happened.”

Russian and pro-Russian narratives? Says it all, doesn’t it?

I take a simpler view.

Most of the pro-Russian forces were Ukrainian nationals.

They fought other Ukrainian nationals.

Thus, civil war.

There is probably a reason linked to international law the term has not been used (death v genocide, campaign v war etc.). However, that is more to do with geopolitical expedience than reality on the ground.

There have been foreign interventions in civil wars since time immemorial (Yemen right now). Nothing should hang on that. It is still a civil war.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I take a simpler view.

Most of the pro-Russian forces were Ukrainian nationals.

They fought other Ukrainian nationals.

Thus, civil war.

There is probably a reason linked to international law the term has not been used (death v genocide, campaign v war etc.). However, that is more to do with geopolitical expedience than reality on the ground.

There have been foreign interventions in civil wars since time immemorial (Yemen right now). Nothing should hang on that. It is still a civil war.

Essentially he's trying to present the lie that the 2014 coup d'etat wasn't cause for civil unrest in Eastern Ukraine and didn't lead to revolts in their military units.

It did and while it's true that this insurgency received Russian backing (a somewhat ironic complaint considering that the 2014 coup had been funded and past projects and actions supported to the tune of billions by the US) the reality is the East of Ukraine has always voted for pro Russian candidates for the simple truth that about half the population have Russian ancestors.....just like the west of Ukraine has lots of Polish, Hungarian and other more western minded ancestors.

So for people like him it's an inconvenient truth that what the west supported in 2014 split half the country and continues to this day.

My own personal view is that we have zero place in Ukraine and I fully blame the neo cons.......Never a war they didn't like. All these people do is feck everything up, spend billions for no gain other than for their war industry and end up with worse than before results on the ground.....and then blame you for pointing out the mess.

 

[Spindle]

It will last another 41 months, provided the Democrats get their act together. Then the USA will resume its place as the leader of the western world because it understands that a threat to Europe is ultimately a threat to them too.

Biden was a disaster, weak as piss. Quite why you think the Dems are a solution is beyond me.