Yeah but the point is like, when the west has invaded anything they've gone in FULL POWER. They wipe everything out, the destroy all power infrastructure, they shut down the ability of entire cities to function, they utterly and totally cripple the opponent regardless of civilians.

Russia on the other hand has not done that remotely at all. Kyiv has a functioning economy, so does the rest of Ukraine not currently directly on the front line of artillery fire. They have occupied the power plant but they're running it and continuing to supply western Ukraine (controlled by the Ukrainian gov still) with electricity.

Obviously this might change in the future (plenty of room for them to escalate if they want to) but anyone making these claims about civilian targeting has either no idea how the west conducts itself when it does an invasion or is genuinely lying for alternative agendas. Yes it can always be better, but they're 100% being gentle.

I wonder whether these people have seen a western war. Whether they truly believe what they're saying or not. If they truly believe what they are saying then the next invasion the west conducts is going to look like a horror show 100x worse to them. But I'm pretty sure many are saying this kind of thing knowing full well it's not the truth.

And they are targeting civilians’ hitting mall, train stations, and even normal workplaces. All of these hundreds of km from the front. Im not even talking about the crap they do at the front or in occupied areas.

Yes and we have video of ukrainian military in a lot of them. It's impossible to verify particularly well what strikes occurred for what reasons though at this point in time, we simply do not know what was being stored in these locations that Russia believed was worth striking. The argument that they were just yolo blasting a civilian location for absolutely no reason with a missile costing 60million dollars needs a bit of critique though.