[Boudica]

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

would you go to the RT News site, read the reports there and believe what you read?

State-funded, state-controlled.

Of course RT News is state-funded, state-controlled, which is my entire point. You wouldn't read what they post on that site because its in their interests to make any opposition look as bad as possible.

So then, why would you believe western media if they too have motivation to make Russia look as bad as possible? Its two sides of the same coin, if you understand that metaphor.

Perhaps you have a reasonable justification for applying your values inconsistently, if so, then I am very interested to know how you can justify acting so loosely with your moral principles.

---

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

'A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius.'

Firstly, for me to believe this, I would have to place my trust in you, an anonymous stranger on the internet to tell me the truth. For all I know, you could be making this up to support your point.

Secondly, even IF you have a good friend in the Ukraine who told you that, I would have to also place my trust in your friends word, who is also an anonymous stranger. That would be stupid and naive of me to do that.

Lastly, even IF your 'friend' exists and you genuinely believe them, and they genuinely believe there were no military units within 20mi radius, then we would all have to believe that your friend is somehow privy to intelligence or communications regarding Russian military movements and not simply going by what he sees outside his bedroom window.

Either way, what you're suggesting is extremely unlikely.

So, if I'm understanding correctly: you're personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?

This doesn't really make sense to me. I completely understand not trusting information from mainstream media. I completely understand wanting to find the truth. However, I personally believe that you can get closer to the truth by spending time yourself conducting your own research. You won't find everything, of course, but you won't find nothing.

To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.

Would this not mean Russian or Western media has equal chances of showing truth. Almost like the Ukrainian war is an example Schrodinger's cat: Russia might be intentionally hitting civilians, or it might not.

How can you make an assumption either way if you have no information?

I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims. I do find Western sources at least try to provide evidence of what they're saying. However I've yet to see the equivalent for Russian sources (of course my access is limited to what google translate can do for me).