Labelling contrary facts or opinions as "Russian Talking Points" does not make them so, nor make them invalid.
It's smear, not refutation.
We have seen definitive, clearly self-serving conclusions from a UDF spokesperson, British "Intelligence", and some anonymous US "experts". The evidentiary basis for which seems reliant on review of a published photo and an incorrect assumption that the Ukraine side has only one type of HIMARS ordinance.
In past, we have seen many False Flag claims, many baseless or ludicrous, such as were repeatedly made when the Ukraine side asserted Russians must have attacked their own Oil Storage facilities.
This is not to exclude possibility of a False Flag attack on the barracks - but as they said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - not just absence of accepted proof.
Circling back to "British Intelligence", if seeking an unbiased opinion, we might as well consult Russian Intelligence.
From the beginning of the conflict, it's been made clear these agencies are projecting deliberate bias and cannot be trusted as reliable sources: