I see. The sources you’re quoting (at least some, but again - gish gallop) do paint this picture a little bit differently.
Human Rights Watch said that insurgent forces have failed to take all feasible precautions to avoid deploying in densely populated areas, thereby endangering civilians in violation of the laws of war. In one case, separatist forces moved their base closer to the center of the town when Grad rockets struck their base and a nearby residential area.
That’s literally human shield strategy done by Donetsk insurgents.
Russian propaganda parts is to omit that information to put them in pity position instead conflicting position.
Another example, the Hill:
The odious Russian media tried to paint Ukraine as a land of Nazis, though that is patently wrong
I think you might be misunderstanding something and imagining me saying there is not US propaganda or Ukrainian propaganda, for example whitewashing Azov?
You claim to know what a Gish gallop is but have no idea what cherry picking is.
The articles are western agitprop, of course they’re gonna have unsourced and editorialized claims of how monstrous the Russians are anyway, how noble the Ukrainian puppet government is despite these bad apples. That is the entire point of the article.
The thing is, you seem to be holding on for dear life to those paragraphs while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the claims which have actual evidence attached to them, which are all the uncomfortable bits.
I see. The sources you’re quoting (at least some, but again - gish gallop) do paint this picture a little bit differently.
That’s literally human shield strategy done by Donetsk insurgents.
Russian propaganda parts is to omit that information to put them in pity position instead conflicting position.
Another example, the Hill:
I think you might be misunderstanding something and imagining me saying there is not US propaganda or Ukrainian propaganda, for example whitewashing Azov?
You claim to know what a Gish gallop is but have no idea what cherry picking is.
The articles are western agitprop, of course they’re gonna have unsourced and editorialized claims of how monstrous the Russians are anyway, how noble the Ukrainian puppet government is despite these bad apples. That is the entire point of the article.
The thing is, you seem to be holding on for dear life to those paragraphs while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the claims which have actual evidence attached to them, which are all the uncomfortable bits.
Edit: carnt rite without my cofe