{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014773776546629732, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.491017964071856, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anticipating Intervention: Third Party Support and the Onset of Civil War

A large literature analyzing the sources and consequences of civil war intervention demonstrate both that it is a patterned, predictable event and that it is particularly consequential for civil war states. Interventions are associated with longer, bloodier civil wars. Such civil wars are more likely to recur. If academic researchers can uncover patterns indicating which civil wars experience interventions, surely political leaders can as well. Thus, they must anticipate the subjective probabilities their struggles will involve third party interventions when planning their civil wars. The correlates of civil war intervention should then influence the probability of civil war onset. Although a few studies have recognized this logical connection, no one has yet investigated empirical patterns between intervention and onset. We undertake such analysis here, and find strong support for the expectation that when the estimated probability of intervention is high, civil wars are less likely to occur.