"Civil society" implies the existence of uncivil people; it's good guys vs bad guys, not civilian vs military. If Ukraine targeted civilian organizations in Russia, the headline wouldn't call it an attack on "civil society" (but Russian media might.)

> "Civil society" implies the existence of uncivil people

It does not. You are conflating:

civil 2b: adequate in courtesy and politeness : MANNERLY

with

civil 4: of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (such as military or religious) affairs

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil

You can see that 'uncivil' does not include in its meanings an antonym of civil 4:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uncivil

You're being naive. Propaganda often employs double meanings, subtext and implications. This kind of language would not be used if the actors were reversed.

Civil society as a term for “not government” goes waaaayyyyyy back.. I think you are mistaking a cloud for a ufo here..

As a term for "not government", it would not be used to refer to civilians of a hostile nation.