Labelling something a "talking point" is dangerous and only suits to dilute context employing a fallacy in an argument unfortunately.
Ok let's remove rhetoric.
There is a disagreement which has turned into a shooting match or armed conflict. People are dying and there's destruction going on.
We want to resolve this.
That involves people sitting down and not shouting or name calling but talking.
Resolution involves compromise, compromise brings peace.
This is ignoring the fact that one player is much bigger than the other, who is right or wrong, but simply trying to move forwards.
Unfortunately the point that the tanks were knocked out by Ukraine within the opening hours on Ukrainian soil is a "Russian talking point". Kiev was clearly armed with Western anti tank weapony beyond their means and arguably beyond their financial ability to pay for (arguably).
A Western talking point is that Russia is much bigger, a known bully and could have worked to resolve this. Yes they could. But the other party involved was sitting there claiming they're a bully and are "just going to attack no matter what"... It's sad but the response is really calculable at that point.
Russia did not send it's high class latest tanks for the same reason we aren't seeing the latest and greatest American vehicles holding the line in a shooting war, that is a different level of aggression that would have different consequences. That is closer to a blitzkrieg and so was likely not the point of the engagement. (From the perspective of a military analyst position).
Russia has hit civilians with missiles yes. Again you're taking what I have said and extending it to make claims I am not making. Please stop this it gets old.
Israel hits civilian targets, not casualties, _targets_, and the world sits in silence this is a concerning reality.
The fighting in Ukraine is over Ukrainian soil so yes most of the casualties are Ukranian. This is not saying this is justified or correct again, this is not saying they should be Russian, this is saying water is wet and the survival rate of CV19 for non at risk groups was >99%>> these are all, uncomfortable for some, facts.
Again Russia could hit much harder and be more deadly. I hope for all that is sensible they don't, but they're capability compared to Ukraine is a different league. Like it or dislike it they are obviously showing restraint of a kind by not carpet bombing the whole country and moving the Russian border to Poland.
Again, does this make what they've done correct, or nice or good or defensible. No.
Again understanding a position is not defending it it's understanding context that helps understand the problem which helps conversations and candidly helps peace.
No, facts are facts. Interpretation is what's the problem. And unless you look at all facts this will be biased due to lying to yourself. Also known as being in a bubble online.
Truth is a 3 edged sword.
But frankly if you're going to insist on facts not being facts I'll just bid you good day and go back to gardening.
Ok let's remove rhetoric.
There is a disagreement which has turned into a shooting match or armed conflict. People are dying and there's destruction going on.
We want to resolve this.
That involves people sitting down and not shouting or name calling but talking. Resolution involves compromise, compromise brings peace.
This is ignoring the fact that one player is much bigger than the other, who is right or wrong, but simply trying to move forwards.
Unfortunately the point that the tanks were knocked out by Ukraine within the opening hours on Ukrainian soil is a "Russian talking point". Kiev was clearly armed with Western anti tank weapony beyond their means and arguably beyond their financial ability to pay for (arguably).
A Western talking point is that Russia is much bigger, a known bully and could have worked to resolve this. Yes they could. But the other party involved was sitting there claiming they're a bully and are "just going to attack no matter what"... It's sad but the response is really calculable at that point.
Russia did not send it's high class latest tanks for the same reason we aren't seeing the latest and greatest American vehicles holding the line in a shooting war, that is a different level of aggression that would have different consequences. That is closer to a blitzkrieg and so was likely not the point of the engagement. (From the perspective of a military analyst position).
Russia has hit civilians with missiles yes. Again you're taking what I have said and extending it to make claims I am not making. Please stop this it gets old.
Israel hits civilian targets, not casualties, _targets_, and the world sits in silence this is a concerning reality.
The fighting in Ukraine is over Ukrainian soil so yes most of the casualties are Ukranian. This is not saying this is justified or correct again, this is not saying they should be Russian, this is saying water is wet and the survival rate of CV19 for non at risk groups was >99%>> these are all, uncomfortable for some, facts.
Again Russia could hit much harder and be more deadly. I hope for all that is sensible they don't, but they're capability compared to Ukraine is a different league. Like it or dislike it they are obviously showing restraint of a kind by not carpet bombing the whole country and moving the Russian border to Poland.
Again, does this make what they've done correct, or nice or good or defensible. No.
Again understanding a position is not defending it it's understanding context that helps understand the problem which helps conversations and candidly helps peace.
Not a taking point. Peace.