You don’t treat apples and bananas the same despite the fact that they are both fruit.

And yet you can say that each one of them can be rotten, or spoiled, or ripen (or not), etc. Not sure what your point is. Also it seems you are trying to make an argument that two different agents cannot do comparable actions, which for me is completely absurd.

This is why we do not hold Ukraine to the same standards we hold Russia toward

We are talking the lowest possible standard: the war crime standard. We are not talking about wearing white gloves.

Because Russia is the invader and Ukraine is the victim.

This is not a valid argument, from my point of view. Being invaded does not automatically guarantee you the (moral) right to do absolutely anything, without restrictions to the population of the invading country.

That’s why people don’t bat an eye when a Russian airport is attacked by a drone but do when a Ukrainian city is leveled into dust

Again dishonesty. The reason for that is that one is an offensive action, the other is a defensive action. This has nothing to do with attacking people who are outside the conflict.

I don’t even think you read the article. I’m not sure most people here did… the whole incident was an accident and those drones were intended for the airport, but crashed into another building, rendering the basis of your complaint moot.

So, the drone was meant for the airport (according to Russian sources, which apparently now we trust), and reached a building. What's the big problem here. Also, who cares about this particular episode, it's a fucking empty office. I am talking about the whole principle of people cheering that a random building got attacked as a success on itself. Not "a failed attack on an airport". I am talking about the whole point that some people -like you- see it acceptable to do attacks on civilians, because Ukraine is defending itself, in general, not this episode (which is unclear, was the office a target, was it not, etc.) in particular.

What propaganda? Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years?

To make an example of propaganda, the one that pushes for collective responsibility. You can see many examples in this very same thread. It's a common war propaganda strategy where people are made guilty by association, to completely dehumanize the enemy, and by enemy I mean everyone, innocent people included. I totally understand it from Ukrainian side, because this is often needed to unite the population, but this doesn't make it reasonable, in my opinion.

Do you categorically deny what Russia has done over the past two years?

You need to be really in bad faith even suggesting that.

I don’t think we even need to continue. You are very sus and I don’t think you’re a legitimate user. I think you’re here astroturfing to defend Russia.

Ta-da. Russian bot.

I mean, you build your own imaginary arguments, then you use it to build a base for your own conclusions. What can I say, if this is not the result of the propaganda I don't know what is, where in less than 10 comments we go from "war crimes are bad" to "you are a russian bot that is used to condemn Ukraine".

I asked 2 questions, which are the core of the discussion here, and you dodged them, because having a fucking conversation on topic is too hard, better to talk about made-up arguments and ad hominem. I repeat them for your benefit:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. [bonus] 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. Do you disagree?

That's it, this is all what this conversation should be about.

If you want to simply make up arguments, go on. If you want to actually attempt to have an actual conversation without resorting to cheap rethoric, these are the questions that you should answer so we can actually confront other point of view. You are surgically dodging these very same points for a while now.