[Boudica]

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.

---

'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).

'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.'

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not outright dismissing any information, however I'm not outright believing it either. Usually the truth sits somewhere in the middle.

From my perspective, you are making the claim that Russia is deliberately bombing or shelling Ukrainian citizens. Russia says it isn't. From your statements, its clear you believe Russia is and the only information you have to go on is what the western media tells you.
So that is where I came in to merely make the point that you are acting with bias. Whatever you may think of Russia, you still should not undermine your own principles of truth just because you oppose someone or something.

'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.'

That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before.

'...you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I would say that is quite accurate. But to clarify, I form a viewpoint cautiously based on currently known information but I am always questioning and if new information comes to light then I revise my viewpoint.

'...your personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?'

Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars.

Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection.

See, here you've assumed I use only western media to make my decisions. I thought I made it obvious that I am as skeptical as anyone about what the media shows or doesn't show.
Of course, that doesn't mean I have no bias. We're human and all subject to bias.

"That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before."
Governments do lie. And do have their own agendas. However, when there are governments from outside the western world also calling Putin a War Criminal... that's a lot of agendas that are suddenly aligning a little too perfectly for it to be merely lies and agendas from the west. The scale of global response to this is too large for it to be solely western agenda or propaganda.

Sometimes the simpler answer, is the most likely: Putin has committed war crimes.
I have also heard the Ukraine may have committed war crimes.

"Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars."
That's fair. I feel similarly in that my viewpoint will change based on new evidence/information coming to light.

"Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection."
Actually, this is seriously untrue. There has been many a protest from general public about western involvement and conduct in those wars. I'd like to believe you'd be pleasantly surprised by how many of the general public are against those wars.