...
You are again twisting the facts. I didn't claim that the Russian side necessarily tells the truth. I suggested looking for information in primary sources, and not through the prism of someone else's interpretations.
This is what you wrote:
...
The strategy of the 'defenders' did indeed seem to be to use multiple civilian buildings and keep the civilians hostage in them while doing so. ...
...
The article you quote does not say that the civilians were held hostage at any point, thus this is your interpretation and therefore your claim or opinion.
Now, you have the chance to set the record straight - Do you claim that the Ukrainian army has held their civilians hostage in buildings to protect their military at any point or not?
As you do not SEEM to have good reading skills either, I will ask again: Does any of you claim that the Ukrainian army has held their civilians hostage in buildings to protect their military at any point or not?
And now, if you want you can call me kid (thank you), argue about me, or actually do yourself the favour of either supporting or not supporting the point.
Sorry Velcro (or whatever), but the kid just doesn't seem that sharp with his reading skills. Anyway,
I (tvbcof) said 'seem'. As time goes by, it 'seems' that way more and more. What I did not say was 'Ukrainian army'. It seems to me more the case that these tactics are widely employed by a set of groups who's subservience to the regular nation's regular army command is in many cases quite dubious. Looks like it's the opposite in some cases.
Looks to me a lot like the Syria model where effectively criminal elements within the country and a large number of foreign mercenaries, often quite radical, were tasked with wanton destruction of all aspects of the country. In Syria they pinned on the label 'ISIS', and it was pretty clear that Western (chiefly U.S.) and Israeli organizers were behind the operations. It's looking more and more like that is the case here as well.