Ukraine fights Russia. "But what about US nuclear brinkmanship in completely different places?"
Would you BTW answer how many times one needs tp be invaded until one should be blindly trusted? I'm truly curious. You mentioned 3 times in 150 years. Is that more or less it?
Holy whataboutism indeed. In a war between Ukraine and Russia, we are supposed to blindly believe Russia, because the US is doing bad stuff with nukes in a differen part of the world?
BTW, after how many invasions does one get the "everyone must believe what I say" card? I mean, Ukraine has also been invaded a few times now.
Well, if the owner's word is enough as evidence on it's own, Russia has committed quite a bit of warcrimes in Ukraine. Will be interesting to see how they could possibly weasel out of a conviction considering the rock-solid "trust-me bro" evidence also provided by Ukraine.
Maybe one should not blindly trust the word of one of the warring parties?
"At a plant", or "near a plant"?
Also, why couldn't a drone strike be precursor to capturing and securing the plant? E.g. destroy guard posts in front of the plant in a controlled manner to reduce the risk of uncontrolled firefights during the capturing?
Whether it's a good thing or not depends entirely on your philosophical views. There is no objectively correct answer, and which arguments may convince someone very much depends on the values and perspectives of the person you are trying to convince.
It seems like a quite pointless discussion since you both seem to have already decided your minds.
They don't accept your sources? Why? If they really are valid and they just cherry-pick sources, then there is no way of convincing them.
On the other hand, you also just seem to dismiss their counterarguments without much thought. If they can give a counterargument for your every argument, then maybe your arguments actually aren't good?
Asiatic hordes? Aren't the majority of Russians european?
There's no need to argue. We can just check what the Ukrainian position is. As Ukraine has been invaded by Russia at least 3 times within the last 150 years, it means no proof is needed (by your logic).
It's unclear to me what happens if two countries have been invaded 3 times, but tell different stories. Do we believe the one that has been invaded more in that case?