defencematters.eu reports:
Starobilsk Strike Raises Questions Over Russian Claims and Possible Military Use of College Site
This whole report is typical of unbalanced narrative construction.
This is nothing to do with whether you believe Russia or Ukraine is right in their claims about the student dormitory block strike but about whether these incidents are reported in a balanced way.
- The article begins: Moscow says 21 people were killed in a Ukrainian drone strike on a college dormitory in occupied Luhansk. But ends with: What is established is that 21 people died in Starobilsk, which is a little different from 'Moscow says...' for which the subtext is clearly 'well they would wouldn't they?'
- It is not clear which 'occupiers' of 'occupied Luhansk' are being referred to: The Russians or the Ukrainian state occupiers sent in by an illegally installed government following the Maidan coup. Using the loaded term 'occupiers' is a classic tell since it assumes that everyone reading the article will view the Russians as 'occupiers' again with a subtext of 'they deserve what they get'.
- The headline could equally have read: Starobilsk Strike Raises Questions Over Ukrainian Claims and Possible Military Use of College Site - but it doesn't because this does not fit the narrative agenda that anything Russia claims is suspicious. A balanced headline would have read something like: Competing claims over military use of Starobilsk college dormitory.
As the article itself concludes:
What remains disputed is whether the college was functioning solely as an educational site, as Moscow claims, or whether it had also become connected to Russia’s drone warfare infrastructure in occupied Luhansk. Until the alleged documents, casualty lists, site conditions and military claims can be independently examined, the incident should be reported with caution.
No mention of '...until the Ukrainians can provide proof that the site was used used for military purposes...' - so the burden of proof appears to be on the Russians who were hit by the strike. A bit like the Iranian school hit - it was Iran that needed to prove all those schoolgirls that died were not attending school at a site engaged in military activity not the USA/Israel proving that the school was used for military purposes.
This is the problem with all these 'civilian strikes' claimed by both Russia and Ukraine - the burden of proof should be on the striker not the struck.
If one guy punches another and is accused of assault then it is the guy who threw the punch that needs to prove he had a justifiable reason for throwing the punch not the guy was punched having to justify why he shouldn't have been punched.