When you talk about bias as an adjective, you can have a biased person or biased communication . Humans are vastly complex so you can't have unbiased humans without omniscience.
Language and data however are different. You can have unbiased communication and data.
The statement 2 + 2 = 4 in the base 10 number system is unbiased.
To say unbiased language does not exist is saying that truth does not exist.
I'll clarify myself - all communication of imperfect knowledge is biased. I'm afraid we're falling into a overly pedantic semantic quibble though.
The context we're talking about is how much we can understand about a war. I understand that Russia invaded Ukraine, and that nothing Ukraine's done even begins justifies a full on, bloody invasion.
Sorry if you saw my point is off track. I was commenting more on the nature of bias given the topic of the submission.
I do think understanding biases important in determining how you act. Both in this crisis in future ones, and hopefully hopeful and avoiding future ones.
When it comes to the Ukrainian crisis, I think a major bias in the common understanding is neglecting the choices the US made that let us do the current state. That's not to say that it is the US's fault, but I think it is reasonable to ask how we got here and could it have been avoided with different choices. Should it have been avoided if it could have been?
So far, the war has been one of the best things to ever happen to US geopolitics since the Cold War ended
This is important because, as another commenter in this thread said, we always have an imperative to act amid imperfect information.
edit: Obviously you can choose to not act, but inaction seems like the opposite of empowerment to me.