Interestingly, that is not at all the view of real soldiers, involved in life-and-death, existential conflict. Damage to enemy civilians must be minimized and be proportional to the purpose. You can't nuke a town because someone threw a rock at you, for example. Remember that goes for both sides: If you nuke their town, then your civilians are likely to suffer the same or worse. Among real soldiers, the 'anything goes' mentality is the mindset of war criminals.

Russians aren’t soldiers, they are state terrorists. By purposefully attacking civilians they gave up their rights.

This is warfare. If the actions of the Russian military deny them all humanity and rights, then that is true of every side in every war. Morality and laws of war mean nothing; they will never apply by that standards. If they only apply to saints, what good are these rules?

What about the US and what they did in Iraq, such as at Abu Ghraib, or during the war on terror? Who meets your standards?

Could you clarify "they"? Do you mean all russians? Including the ones in jail right now for protesting the war?

During World War 2, did anyone think about those poor Germans thrown in jails for protesting the war?

I mean, sure, those aren’t the offenders. But because Russia is a terrorist state, targeting civilians instead of opponent’s military, any act against them - anything that hurts Russia - would be morally justified. It’s just a lesser evil.

> By purposefully attacking civilians they gave up their rights.

The scope is pretty well-defined.

Then giving out personal information unlimited to that well-defined scope is not justified nor well defended by this argument. You can't have it both ways.