Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Your original argument was that this conflict was opened by kidnapping the head of a state.

Faced with a counterpoint, you’re arguing it’s not like a much more serious invasion.

True, but that’s not invalidating the fact that it was not opened by a kidnapping.

Have you heard about the expression “moving the goalposts”?