Separatists or Russian troops and local collaborators? Russian aggression in Ukraine: The problem of definitions

Abstract

This chapter analyses how incorrect definitions accredited to individuals behind theRussian aggression in Ukraine can lead to falsifications at the international level. Such incorrect definitions include the mistaken classification of the conflict as a non-international armed conflict and the inaccurate characterizations of individuals fighting in Donbas as 'rebels' and 'separatists'. As a result, this definitional problem has led to a distorted view of the conflict in Donbas. Hence, this chapter firstly argues that the conflict is an international armed conflict under international law and that the notion of the existence of both international and non-international armed conflicts ought to be debunked. Secondly, this chapter examines the nature and role of individuals fighting in Donbas, evidencing their manner of participation and true characterization. Attention is also given to the relationship between Russian troops and local collaboratorswhose cohesive effort sustains Russian aggression in Donbas. Thirdly, this chapter assesses the root of the definitional problem stemming from the incorrectly ascribed classifications being disseminated throughout the world, which form part of the distorted language around the conflict. Furthermore, consideration is given to the issues regarding how distortions are 'creeping' into reports and other publications, which form part of the pool of information used at public, legal, and diplomatic levels. Fourthly, this chapter analyses the consequential issues concerning the normative backlash, the attribution of responsibility, and the manner of response to the conflict from the international community. The analysis then focuses on the argument that the use of distorted information could be used to influence future decisions, inevitably resulting in futile solutions. Finally, this chapter concludes by discussing the propagation of incorrect definitions, which has an undermining effect on the principles and doctrines of international law. Moreover, emphasis is given to the importance of the responsibility of definitional accuracy during times of perilous conflict.