There’s plenty of evidence though that the Russian army is seeking to terrorize civilians, including bombing hospitals / schools and leaving mines and booby trapping homes of civilians, specifically because they are having trouble taking over the territory. It would be weird to me that a military unit can do what terrorists do and not be labeled that way just because they are officially part of an army and have modern equipment. That’s not something a “normal” army does to protect its territory. https://ctmirror.org/2022/05/16/designate-russia-a-state-spo...
I think we need to be careful. Is it the stated goal and mission to terrorize or is that being carried out by rogue units? Most army and war operations do have rogue units —those doing things on their own. Just about any war has this aspect. If this is a criteria then we’ve all been terrorists and calling terrorism ceases to have a defining meaning.
But again it likely depends on how widespread and sanctioned or ignored by superiors these tactics are in the current conflict.
I understand the need to be careful but when you have widespread reports of execution and rape of civilians in all the areas being invaded by Russia (i.e. all 3 fronts) it seems to be more of a pattern than an exception.
Look, there is no denying war atrocities. But all conflicts have them to one degree or another. If we go by the definitions above, then most allies (and foes) have engaged in terrorism too, including ourselves and then the distinction the term provides disappears.
Let's look at it from another angle. In order to submit the people of Ukraine, has Russia taken out all the stops? Do they have other more lethal and effective options?
