I’m sorry but yes, you are drawing a false equivalency between Russia and Ukraine by holding them to the same standards and insisting there is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same.

How holding to the same standards is making an equivalency? By which definition...?

is a “qualitative similarity”, and they are not the same

How, taking a single episode, there is no qualitative similarity? How a building in Moscow (a civilian one - not necessarily this one) is different from one in Kyiv or Lviv? How the Vinnytsia missile in the park is different from the missile in Taganrog?

and the situations they are in, are inherently different and to disregard that is to be unjust, and you might not want to hear it, but you really are being unjust by doing that.

Yeah, indeed it is, but this doesn't mean that a missile on a building is a missile on a building. Even a person shot is the same thing, but of course I don't consider a Russian invading being killed the same as an Ukrainian defending being killed, similarly to how I don't consider a fascist killed in 1945 the same as a partisan killed. The difference is that when you are killing people who are outside the conflict, the nuanced difference of the role that each plays in the context is lost. This is my opinion, and I don't think that being born/living in a country that is invading another makes you less of an innocent than living in a country which is being invaded.

Ukraine launching a drone attack on a Moscow airport simply is not the same as Russia invading and committing genocidal acts against a sovereign nation

Of course is not the same, as this was not implied anywhere. Also, it is not Moscow airport (I explicitly mentioned that I would actually support attacks on infrastructure).

That’s why the others are upset at you, I think

I think that's because most of people are trying harder to find an enemy to disagree with than actually reading and understanding other people ideas. This is not surprising, is the regular war propaganda result.

then we have to judge it on the founding principle of all human rights: self-defense, and you are violating Ukraine’s right of self-defense by insisting it limit its military options, which Russia has proven it can and will exploit and take advantage of to harm Ukraine even more.

You are being dishonest here. Not attacking civilians objectives, i.e. not attacking people who are outside the conflict by definition, is not limiting military options. It has nothing to do with self-defense, unless you really want to claim that the random civilian is a threat - by existing - to Ukraine. I feel this is a crucial point of disagreement that needs to be solved, so let me be clear: I think that any military target, outside or inside Russia, that can help win the war is a fair and justifiable target to attack. I think that civilian targets, that by definition are not involved in the war, are not. Do you disagree? If that's the case, you need to explain to me how that is helping winning the war and also why you think the Geneva convention is wrong.

Yes you are, because the result of what you are asking for, ultimately, boils down to them either committing Act A or accepting death, and in this war among many others, yes, that is exactly what’s happening.

No, I think you are creating a false dichotomy to help your argument. I think (and hope) Ukraine can win the war without attacking civilian objectives. So far I still need to understand from you why do you think this is instead necessary, and the alternative of not doing this is to surrender.

You might not have been watching the news, but the rest of us have, and Russia is actively trying to commit genocide against Ukraine.

I appreciate the attempt to patronize, but as I said in another comment, my fiance' is Ukrainian and her whole family is there. I am well aware of what's happening.

It is obviously a choice between doing everything possible to ensure one’s own survival or accepting imminent death.

I repeat that this is a false reasoning. If Ukraine tomorrow started dissecting children it would be up to you to demonstrate that this is necessary for survival, as I wouldn't morally justify. I took an extreme example intentionally to convey the point, but the idea is the same. You are accepting by default that any action is justified a-priori, I think instead that defending yourself is absolutely your right, but this does not automatically removes any restriction to what you can (morally) do. Specifically, I think that upholding the Geneva convention is still a reasonable constraint, even when Russia is constantly violating it.

I don’t think you’d be willing to tell your family to accept imminent rape and murder from burglars because of your extremist views on gun control, for instance.

This is again the result of the flawed dichotomy, it's in no way a representation of my stance.

Well, in this case, you have to, not only because it is a tactic that has been very effective throughout all of human history, but because it’s what your opponent believes and you’re not adequately addressing their concerns.

Is it? I thought that World War II was a good enough example of how that doesn't work. And isn't this very same war an example of that? Did Ukrainian people surrender once they were attacked or they united in the face of the enemy? Could you make some example of how that's an effective tactic and why this effectiveness should prevail over the common principle of not doing, stated in the Geneva convention?

in this case, you have to [...] By refusing to

Thankfully I did that too, suggesting two possible arguments for that. I see you completely ignored that though, I guess it was more important debating the possibility of developing connections.

And over the past 70 years, things changed completely. Now we have advanced technology like drones, and cluster munitions, and F-16s, and nuclear weapons.

The advancement of weapons if anything should enable the possibility to carry out war in a more precise way, with less "collateral damage". I don't know why I feel that your argument is instead the opposite?

and you’re doing it indirectly by condemning Ukraine by using means it was given by the same countries that made the Geneva Conventions and other treaties in the first place, with their blessing to use against Russia to save itself.

Eh? There is nothing wrong with using drones to attack. Why you are mixing tools and targets? Let me be clear. Do you think the principles stated in the Geneva convention are wrong and outdated? Do you think that people not involved, or not anymore involved, in a conflict should not be treated humanly and constitute targets for attacks? I would like at this point for you to say it clearly, because there is no need to beat around the bush. I think that is a right principle, disregard the modern weapons we might have, and I think it is still right to apply it today.

to condemn Ukraine

I did not "condemn" Ukraine. I raised concerns about the people celebrating this as a victory. Again, you are projecting on me a boxed set of opinions that are easier to attack for you.

And the rest of the world has decided that it is moral for Ukraine to use those drones to do such a thing. The gavel has been swung and not in your favor, I fear.

And...? Who is "the world" and who "ruled" already? And why would it matter for what I think? The very same fact we are having this conversation is proof that this is not so clear cut.

Then you clearly haven’t been paying attention, because that is what has been happening.

You keep using these sentences that somehow are supposed to be self-evident. I mean, no. You have to support your claim that if you don't attack civilians you have the nuclear annihilation and the genocide can't be stopped. You can't simply cut any part where you need to support your claims with "you haven't been watching news", "you haven't been paying attention" and the like.

Russia lost any benefit of the doubt or meaningful consideration it would have otherwise had because of its actions, and if we are to make a fair and just world, you and people like you must accept that.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING? What is "Russia" in your sentence? The government? The country? The entire population? Should I go and shoot to my Russian colleague living in Portugal because he is making a genocide? Rather than grand abstract sentences I would appreciate more clarity.