Russia has uniformed soldiers in there conducting war -illegally, if wars are other than illegal, or at least not sanctioned by the UN and also committing war crimes.

But I don’t think it’s terrorism. Terrorism usually has a few criteria: not a regular army, and typically don’t use heavy military equipment but rely on guerrilla tactics and aim to terrorize because they are incapable of taking over a territory —because of a lack in numbers for control.

They would also qualify if they “export” terror by training, providing comfort and logistics to terrors groups. Maybe the latter applies more than the former. Though a few other countries could easily be labeled as such too.

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?

Have you misplaced your comment? It is obviously an ethically grey area, but the question was whether it violates sanctions or not. It isn't, as far as I know (if there's someone better informed I'm happy to be corrected).

According to Russia it’s a “SVO”, not a war. Which means they are not soldiers. Ukraine keeps treating them in a humane way, but technically they could be just shot on sight. Russia wouldn’t care anyway, they don’t even bother to pick up corpses.