wrote: my 2 c
Ooh look, undiluted regurgitation of Russian talking points.
As the Russians know very well at this point, when HIMARS missiles hit a lightly constructed building like the houses they've commandeered as HQs, they're instantly blown all to hell, with fragments of building and body parts blown outward in every direction (but not much burn damage, unless they've hit an ammo depot with lots of secondary explosions). If the Russians need to review the concept, there are dozens of sites they can inspect. Or, you know, they can just wait until later this evening for another reminder.
But what the pictures from Olenivka show instead is a building that's been burned down and not blown out. The pictures also show HIMARS missile fragments that have already been displayed at other sites. Oh, and the Russians are preventing anyone from inspecting the site in person.
Warmongers: people like the current Russian leadership who invade peaceful neighbors.
Not warmongers: people like the Ukrainians who are trying to defend their country from invasion by an untrained mob of raping, pillaging murderers. There will be international criminal court proceedings for decades to come after this, and plenty of video evidence.
The difference really isn't hard to understand.
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: