I think the point that has the previous poster concerned is that you seem to be asserting that anything that requires capital allocation to perpetuate it's effectiveness as a disruptive protest isn't a protest. This thereby de-facto caps the effectiveness of any protest to something that can be quaintly noted and largely dismissed by the establishment.
This ultimately degenerates around the extremes, and I believe that is what the poster is concerned about; that your definition basically bakes in the assumption that any protest must necessarily be so minor in nature as to not overly disrupt, when in reality, the point of a truly effective protest is to disrupt.
Assume that somehow a fit of madness took hold of the Highest authorities in the land and sufficient agency to implement and enforce dicta in a resistable, but still a threatening degree to the nation as a whole. Assume quite literally the entire country except the perpetrators disagreed.
Now apply your rule. We've got a situation where literally everyone but the people wrecking things is ready to organize resistance. Your rule places the Authorities on a privileged position of presumptive legitimacy where none exists. Only token protests capable of being safely ignored due to transient nature and poor coordination will be tolerated. Anything (even peaceful in the extreme, literally being somewhere, taking up space, breathing air, and just existing), but requiring extensive/non-trivial logistics becomes an act against which force of law is "justifiable" to disperse.
Personally? I don't accept your view. If there are enough people that feel like their capital is best allocated making themselves a pain-in-the-ass to , that's their perogative.
...Now, given, the cross-border jurisdictional complications in this case, I will give you this seems different because people in another nation are funding disruptive activity in yours. If it were only coming from domestic funders, that'd be one thing. The external funding elevates this to something else. However, this is a complication that has been long in coming to the forefront, and poses diplomatic questions currently above my paygrade.
However, I'm still more sympathetic to the protestors here in the same manner that I disagree with the Taft-Hartley Acts ban on organized secondary striking. Ultimately, I believe the People (for any unit Nation's definition thereof which is a completely different thing to kavetch about) are the ultimate authorities on what is legitimate, and what isn't. If they decide to fund something that the government, or even the rest of the populace doesn't like, ultimately, the vote of no confidence inherent in the action elevates their behavior to civil disobedience.
Which I am totally okay with.
Note: the implicit okay evaporates once people start getting violent, actually committing crimes (where said crimes are not transparently "stop being inconvenient" crimes, a la assault/battery/arson/murder/larceny/grand theft/kidnapping/property destruction).