There's a fundamental difference between "Kyiv is mother of all Russian cities and thus its superior culture needs to be preserved" and "Kyiv is mother of all Russian cities and thus must be destroyed so that the bastardised Russian derivatives don't look too bad in comparison".
Also, you don't see a problem with using a name promoted by the regime ("Kiev") instead of the proper one?
'So you'd be fine with people using names like Koenigsberg, or Theodorichhafen, or Ostland?'
You seem to be confused.
Kyiv and Kiev are different spellings of the same name. Kiev is traditional for English and Russian, Kyiv -- for Ukrainian language.
Ironically, "a 2015 study by the International Republican Institute found that the languages spoken at home in Kyiv were Ukrainian (27%), Russian (32%), and an equal combination of Ukrainian and Russian (40%)" [0].
And going back in time: "According to the census of 1897, of Kyiv's approximately 240,000 people approximately 56% of the population spoke the Russian language, 23% spoke the Ukrainian language." [0]
What you’re quoting was true before the invasion. Now Russian is obviously associated with Rashists, and so even Russian-speaking Ukrainians are switching away from invaders language.
As far as I can tell from this clipped fragment, these two talk about absorbing the Ukraine into Russia (or splitting it with Poland and Hungary, this idea is occasionally aired too) and 'denazification'. If you object to calling neo-Nazis 'helminth', I'd agree because no human should be dehumanized.
So, unless you really find a call for the destruction of the Ukrainian cities, please don't make me watch any propaganda.
'Bucha and Mariupol didn't commit themselves.'
Bucha wasn't destroyed and Russian propaganda worked hard to convince Russian population that Bucha is fake news.
The extent of the damage done to Mariupol (a city with 95% of Russian speakers, btw) was hidden by propaganda for some time and then they started showing the city and talking how Russia would rebuild it.
Mariupol was held hostage by infamous neo-Nazi Azov regiment [0] which like other Ukrainian forces operating in the Eastern Ukraine use civilians as human shield:
'Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians
Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals
Attacks launched from populated civilian areas' [1]
> Mariupol was held hostage by infamous neo-Nazi Azov regiment [0] which like other Ukrainian forces operating in the Eastern Ukraine use civilians as human shield:
I don't see any information in your link about your claim. Can you source a link fort your actual claim that "Mariupol was held hostage."
> 'Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals Attacks launched from populated civilian areas' [1]
I'd avoid using this link if you want to look credible, this report has been so panned and the backlash so strong that Amnesty International is getting a external review done of it.
> What do you think happens when you put your military bases in the city and put you forces in residential areas?
This sounds more like what the Russians are doing, but the Russians also commit genocide and force Ukrainians to fight for them via conscription in the Donbas Luhansk regions.
> It doesn't make it wrong though, does it? Truth hurts.
Just because someone writes something doesn't make it true thought? The backlash was harsh because the report was crazy and ignored a number of different people trying to provide feedback and context around what was happening.
> So you just dismiss any facts if they don't align with Western propaganda?
You have yet to establish them as facts, and id be more wary of Russian propaganda than anything else, its a good thing its become so transparent now.
That Mariupol was empty of Ukrainian forces and Russians just shelled it because... what? Or that Russians had entered undefended Mariupol and then Ukrainians shelled it?
How do you explain that Mariupol suffered so much damage?
"Just because someone"
Amnesty isn't 'someone' and their previous reports condemning Russian actions were considered credible.
"its a good thing its become so transparent now"
If you define anything that doesn't align with Western propaganda as 'Russian propaganda' then, yes, it's very transparent and simple.
