A Full List of Mysterious Fires in Russia
storymaps.arcgis.com
storymaps.arcgis.com
EDIT: And of course https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/fm3_24....
More importantly, this is not the core issue of your comment to which I replied. By which principle can an outsider call for violence and in support of any faction/separatists? How general is such principle and by which method to apply it in practice? And, what if the separatists movement you decided to support as an outsider are being crushed by the said government's army? (What then?) Just leave it be or intervene? I hope you see where this is going.... and I doubt you would support the end result of this very logic. [for a principle applies to both sides, not just one, otherwise it is not a principle but a rule-by-mob].
(And it is not that the very issue you are addressing is invalid, I just point out that it is not a trivial one and no one-liner phrase will do here. Especially a blind call for violence as a principle method of solving disagreement).
As for principles: there are two aspects here. One is that people have the fundamental right to decide; usually there are peaceful ways of achieving this, like voting, but when they fail or don’t exist - like in Russia - then there are more violent options. And no, of course it doesn’t apply to both sides: it only applies to people side, not governments’.
The second is that there is a war going on, and every option that hurts Russian army means fewer people getting killed. Insurgency would be a really convenient method of ending this war.
However, that is not a principle or method by which to form governance or social policies (especially as an outsiders to a country). That is a mob rule. You have not done the homework of following your own argument to its logical conclusion, which is what I was trying to induce. If you were to answer some of my questions following your logic you would arrive at a contradiction, in kind and degree. (In fact, your logic would vindicate RU attack on UA due to their inability to solve separatists movement in Donbas and Luhansk with diplomacy).
(also the way you cite "fundamental rights" are very vague in your usage, but they are not so foggy as you suppose, but we would then veer off).
And no, my logic wouldn’t vindicate Russian invasion - invading another country is the exact opposite of a society deciding about its own government. Also note that this particular “separatist movement” was artificially created by Russia. I guess you are making some assumptions which then result in bizarre conclusions you’ve demonstrated above, but I have no idea what those assumptions might be.