I don't. And - as usual with whataboutism deflection - you failed to indicate whether those two things are supposed to be positive or negative.
If you say you don't, then it's true. Let me think though... Nah, this is nonsense. You do it. And your thesis about "whataboutism" is your subjective assessment.
I said "[you] post Z-links and other Russian propaganda as facts." You responded by saying that I post Western propaganda as facts. That is whataboutism as defined above (counter-accusation). And even if your counter-accusation were true, it doesn't make any sense as a counter-argument. "someone else does it too" doesn't work as an excuse even for toddlers.
For you, everything that is printed in the American media like CNN or AP about the Ukrainian conflict is true. A little bit of a journalistic "investigation" has appeared against the Russian troops and you are ready to swallow everything that American propaganda offers you. Moreover, you are ready to defend it as the ultimate truth. You don't even question their articles, if they were published in the American media, then it's true. You consume information in such a way and your perception is so tuned.
I don't really consume the media the way you imagine. Most of the information about the war I'm getting from TG, both Russian and Ukrainian channels. When I post links to media sites it's likely because they're more accessible. I doubt I ever claimed they only publish absolute truth and nothing but the truth, but your rebuttals are quite pathetic. Like trying to claim that a couple thousand Ukrainians surrounded in Mariupol for a month managed to bomb themselves while defending against 20 BTGs of Russian forces. Makes no sense. Or that some social media comment is proof of something. Photo/video/witness evidence beats armchair expert opinions IMO.
No, I'd say I have a pretty good understanding. Here is a quick recap if you need help: your genocidal dictator invaded Ukraine.
Judging by what you just wrote, you are generally far from any understanding.[...]
I kinda expected that "genocidal dictator" will trigger you, but holy crap, this is a lot of work to justify the old deluded wannabe tsar.
But let's assume in some contrived alternate universe Putin's invasion was justifiable. How do you imagine he's going to achieve his objectives? So far he's managed to kill many more Donbas residents than were killed in the prior 8 years, and left a huge trail of destruction everywhere, from ruined Mariupol (or e.g. Severodonetsk - not even basic services/utilities functioning 6 months after occupation) to the capital of one of their new republics Kherson, which they're bombing non-stop killing supposedly new Russian citizens (TBH I don't really follow the annexation logic if there is one).
There was never any proof beyond speculation of Ukrainians having that many, let alone any proof of Russians destroying that many.
You were given a link to a completely official Ukrainian site, where they named the approximate number of bayraktars from 60 to 96. Everything else is guesswork. For some reason, you don't ask yourself that bayraktars have practically ceased to be talked about in the media.Which media? I see them mentioned a lot, particularly in Russian channels. Seems that Bayraktars are now mostly on recon duty, what with Ukrainians having better weapons like HIMARS now. Of course Russians could be lying, that sometimes happens too
Shares such information, including on the HIMARS and aircrafts, during the hostilities no one will ever. Therefore, your conversations are at the level of faith. You also cannot refute the words of the Russian general Konashenkov, because you don't have the appropriate level of knowledge for this. What real evidence do you have that Konashenkov is lying, apart from your guesses?
Number of airplanes Ukraine had and number of HIMARS launchers it received - both are well known. I'd dig them up but it seems kinda pointless since you'd find someone on the internet saying that it's not true and that will be your rebuttal.
Do you really think The Sun can start a world war?
Do you feel the difference between "starting a war" and "providing information support to escalate the conflict"?The most recent war started on false information that I remember was the invasion into Iraq, and it wasn't tabloids, it was bad intelligence. So I'd still say that your claim is absurd. If anything the UK/US yellow media tends to dig up shit that discredits their military, because again - catchy headlines, clicks, and revenue.
It seems to you that the war can simply be ended with the withdrawal of Russian troops.
Yes. And likely that's how it will end in any case, give or take the exact line the withdrawal will happen at.
Kremlin officials would rather destroy the whole of Europe together with Ukraine in a nuclear fire than go for it
It'd be suicide though. I'm sure even the most deluded kremlinists can figure that one out, otherwise they'd have nuked Kyiv long time ago.
If it seems to someone that Medvedev is nothing from a military point of view, then I hasten to remind you that in 2008 (08.08.08), under Medvedev, they dealt with the Georgian army in five days, which attacked the territory of South Ossetia.
Makes one wonder why he isn't in charge of the "special operation" then. Might have something to do with him being a drunk troll, although it's cute how you think that Medvedev was in charge of anything in 2008 when Putin let him sit on the throne for a few years.
Do they (Oryx) also always "tell the truth" like the American press?
Their data is not based on opinion - they provide photo/video evidence, which is a lot more than you get from Konashenkov (or UA General Staff for that matter).