I don't understand why people are discussing the report as if it's an abstract, inaccessible thing when it's not only
readily available but it isn't even particularly lengthy making it a very accessible read; there's no need to provide an uninformed perspective here.
The report, broadly speaking, covers a few areas which are grouped under 'launching attacks from heavily populated areas,' the 'establishment of military bases in hospitals', and 'the establishment of military bases in schools'.
The report is very explicit that while there are demonstrated and reported examples of how this explicitly resulted in "putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated area [...] not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military."
Contrary to certain posters claiming the report states Ukranian soldiers should "march out into the fields and get bombed", it specifically highlights cases where "viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas" (wooded areas being
one suggestion). The report does not state an expectation that military operations should "leave civilian centers unprotected from fire" or "abandon the cities" but it does state that "military who located themselves in civilian structures in residential areas [had not] asked or [had not] assisted civilians to evacuate nearby buildings – a failure to take all feasible precautions to protect civilians".
It, similarly, contrary to the user who stated it "was made without consultation with the AI people on the ground in Ukraine", highlights instances documented by Amnesty researchers where "Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as
de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital." where "using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law". The report does not outright condemn or necessitate a non-usage of schools, however it does draw attention to how "if they do so, they should warn civilians and, if necessary, help them evacuate."
It's concluding statement puts the entire report, again (after opening with similar context setting), in a very clear context "The Ukrainian military's practice of locating military objectives within populated areas does not in any way justify indiscriminate Russian attacks. All parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects and take all feasible precautions, including in choice of weapons, to minimize civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks which kill or injure civilians or damage civilian objects are war crimes".
The actions it suggests are not to abandon cities, but to either "
ensure that it locates its forces away from populated areas, or
should evacuate civilians from areas where the military is operating" and explicit for "Militaries [to] never use hospitals to engage in warfare, and should only use schools or civilian homes as a last resort when there are no viable alternatives".
Regardless of whether you agree with the reporting and documentation of instances of military personnel engaging in these types of behaviours when they are the victim of a genocidal and unjust conflict led by an autocratic leader, there's no need for people to make falsehoods about what exactly is detailed in a publicly readable report.