Are you calling it propaganda only because the authors used the term "civil war"? Or are you saying that the statements about the origin of the conflict, in the early slides, are untrue? If the latter, please say why you think so and what the actual facts are.

I call this propaganda because the authors used many emotionally charged terms and slogans, claim to speak for the people, claim authority on things that they not only don't source, they can't possibly know. In all, this is clearly a plea for emotional response in support of a particular side.

Lastly, it is the positive claim that needs facts. You can't prove a negative, even with facts.

Seems so obvious to us on HN but why do journalists in many Western countries miss this obvious issue with what is coming out of Ukraine? Is there no investigative journalism anymore?

Even when the protesters are throwing rocks and petrol bombs, the press still describes them as democratic protesters, and even sometimes still describes them as peaceful.

Someone really should ask, "Why are there so many angry young men in Ukraine?" That might lead to some real truth on what is going on. I have personal connections to Ukraine and I suspect that the real problem is hopelessness for the future caused by severe economic privation in the face of media depictions of wealth in other countries.

I disagree. It is imperative to see how technology is used in a crisis situation. I find this extremely pertinent.

It is certainly biased, but >100 people think it is interesting and its also something that hasn't be reported on very well by other media.

My prayer is that this would come to some sort of a peaceful conclusion.

how would you define "Civil War"?

War: "Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups, usually involving the engagement of military forces."

A standoff between protesters (lots of yelling, occasional rock-throwing and starting small isolated fires) vs. riot police pretty much just standing in lines, hardly constitutes a "war" (civil or otherwise). If fatalities are on the order of "one in a million", that (however tragic & objectionable it may be) is little more than statistical noise.

how would you? if a demonstration turning violent is "Civil War", they should take notice at the G8.

Protestors weren't taking over government buildings during G8 conferences.

That's a good point, but they would have, if they had lots of small unguarded municipal buildings. Not to be sarcastic, this is still just a few thousands of extremists being destructive. A Civil War is when you have armed forces on both sides, a big population willing to take arms. Most adult people want this to stop and get back to work.

> this is still just a few thousands of extremists being destructive... Most adult people want this to stop and get back to work.

I'm not even going to ask you how exactly do you know this, because this is completely untrue. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Ukrainians who already actively expressed their support to current shift in Ukrainian political landscape and their distrust to corrupt politicians currently in charge of the country, call it a war or a revolution. Arguing that and calling them "few thousands of extremists" is laughable - just have a look at any of the livestreams. Also, most adult people are at work. Ukraine is a big country.

From your comments I conclude that they have some agenda behind them. You are either trolling, deliberately trying to misinform HN community, or doing both of those things.

I wonder if you are trolling, because your first claim a strawman argument based on conflation.

>There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Ukrainians who already actively expressed their support to current shift in Ukrainian political landscape and their distrust to corrupt politicians currently in charge of the country, call it a war or a revolution

Yes, of course, millions support a shift in Ukrainian political landscape and distrust to corrupt politicians. But I DON'T call that civil war and revolution. That is a civil process. These are not the people picking up stones and attacking police and government buildings right now. Like you, yourself, say, these people want to be at work.

You are correct from an historian's point of view. If one side is asymmetrically stronger than the other one, the powerful side simple destroys the other side and declare them terrorists (or extremists).

When you are in hell rather than a history textbook, however, what you care is whether your most basic rights are violated or not eg. torture, kidnap, murder. In that case you take whatever you have at hand go outside and do what you think is right. The majority may want to get back to work and that might be the sustainable/profitable/reasonable thing to do. The question is whether it is the right thing or not?