The paragraph explicitly states 1) Russian aviation and TOS-1 Buratino targeted residential areas with bombings.. 2) Russian commanders prioritized capturing the city swiftly, disregarding the safety of civilians. 3) Russian commanders provided false information to their subordinates regarding the presence of civilians in residential areas.

You can get some insight into the situation from the text, I believe. It's just one data point but there  are countless evidence like that provided by Russians themselves. And nothing that kind of magnitude from Ukrainian sources.

But ofc you can not really answer "Why are there so many destroyed homes in Mariupol?". Each side should provide a spreadsheet indicating the number of houses destroyed with video confirmations to really answer the question :)

Well, I think I have nothing to say anymore. Have a good day!

@ChristianKl So, how are things with crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine? This one is from Wagner's channel.

https://t.me/grey_zone/19363



 

Yes, they didn't. And I think the story about the Ghost of Kyiv is net negative. But not all propaganda is equal. One thing is to lie about a mythic mighty pilot to comfort people (which is still bad imo) and completely other thing is to say that Ukrainians destroyed Mariupol, killed people in Bucha or spend millions to vilify Ukraine and poison EU in information space.

https://www.civic-synergy.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Words-and-Wars.-Ukraine-Facing-Kremlin-Propaganda.pdf

I'd like to object that it's rational. Sooner or later any lie will be revealed and the reputation/trust will be lost irrevocably. Without trust Ukraine will lose external and internal support and then the war. The risks are just not worth it.

I'm not calling on the Ukrainians to prove anything anywhere in this post. 

Yeah but by assuming things (directly or not) you are framing the discussion in a way which significantly influences perception of the topic. 
 

I'm able to distinguish my epistemics from claims for what people should do and don't mix that together. We are arguing here on a rationality forum and it's helpful for rational reasoning to be able to think clearly about what's true.

I can substitute should with is it rational if it drives the point home better :)
Or I can expand shoulds to should we dilute our attention and efforts with statements which are most certainly false to find the truth.

Anyway I see we are kinda stuck here and I have nothing more to add.

throwaway62654 stated that Russians destroyed Mariupol.

One doesn't have to be an expert to see which side caused more death. Mariupol. All war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine pale in comparison to an entire city leveled to the ground. While people were still there.

You opposed and made the statement about possible involvement of Ukrainians.

Leveling Mariupol to the ground is a war crime that's allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine. I first heard that claim from a Russian friend who sourced it through a relative of a friend who was on the ground. Russian media is also making the claim. It's unfortunate that EU censorship makes it harder to know that this is what Russian media is saying and thus to know what "war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine" involve.

Neither of the two makes me confident that Ukraine is responsible, but it certainly falls into the category of war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine.

According to Russian sources all the war crimes are done by Ukrainians. Does it make Ukraine a subject to praesumptio culpae? Is it a reasonable framing? Should we from the beginning include Ukraine into that category? Should Ukraine always prove that it didn't do all the horrible things while being invaded?

I can write an article that Mariupol was allegedly destroyed by North Korea (sorry for using absurdity). Will you include North Korea to the list of possible actors? Will it be useful? If not than what is the difference?

1. The new "authorities" of Crimea de facto refused to pay for water supply of the peninsula - to this day the issue of repayment of debts of water users of Crimea to the Office of the North Crimean Canal in the amount of 1.7 million hryvnia in 2013 remains unclear.
2. In 2015 Ukrainians proposed a new supply contract in accordance with international instruments, most notably the UN General Assembly Resolution of March 27, 2014 but Russians refused.
3. Crimea is occupied, so international humanitarian law applies to its territory. Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention "Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" obliges the occupying state to provide the local population of the occupied territory with food, medicines and other necessary things, in particular water for drinking and domestic needs.

Then why are you spreading unconfirmed claims? That is not nice. 
The city was encircled by Russians on 1st March. Could you explain me how and why AFU destroyed half-million city just in one week? :)
If you're really honest here do at least some fact-checking.

Leveling Mariupol to the ground is a war crime that's allegedly perpetrated by Ukraine

So, Do you think after Russians had encircled the city Ukrainians somehow were able to destroy it? :) 

P.S.: It is so shocking to see such statements in LW that I even registered here after 10 years of read-only.