Coming to a decision
Recently on this blog and elsewhere I’ve seen variants of the question “doesn’t it bother you that on the issue of Ukraine you are in some sort of agreement with Democrats?” – only it’s often asked in a way that isn’t so polite.
Here’s a polite version: “It should give a person pause that Soros, Adam Schiff, the Clintons, the Deep State and everyone else you don’t trust is so intensely against Russia.”
It gives me nearly zero pause and I’ll tell you why. That’s not the way I evaluate a situation. I do my own research, trying to use sources other than just political pundits or politicians. I actually haven’t read a great deal of what the left has to say on this question, although I’ve read some of it. I don’t think politicians on either side influence me much one way or the other to either agree or disagree with them, although I’m aware of what they generally are saying.
On most topics – and that certainly includes Ukraine and Russia – I attempt to learn as much as I can of the facts (not always easy to ascertain the truth, though) and come to my own conclusions. I also try to read about the history of the conflict, whatever it might be, and often seek out relevant articles that were written before the specific incident or incidents began, in an attempt (not always successful) to get some less-political background.
In the end, I come to a conclusion that is always open to change if new and relevant and reliable information comes out. Sometimes I end up disagreeing with most people on the right. More often – much much more often – I end up disagreeing with most people on the left. But I never reject a position because people I’ve disagreed with most of the time take that position. Nor do I adopt a position because people I usually agree with take that position.
I believe that’s part of the reason I was able to make a political transition. I’m not interested in bandwagons or groupthink, whether positive (agreement) or negative (disagreement). I didn’t start a blog to be a tool of any side, although since my philosophy and outlook skews more to the right I naturally will wind up agreeing with the right more often, even when using my own independent judgment. But I care little what the people listed in that commenter’s quote think about this issue, pro or con, and I certainly don’t use it as a guide to my own opinion.
Very well said NEO. I agree.
It is hard not to be influenced by comments and articles. I don’t always take them with the full Salt Shaker that I should, but I think I try.
@neo: The problem right now with trying to learn anything about current events is that there is unquestionably a great deal of coordinated effort in the media to setting a narrative early that somehow benefits Democrats and reporting only what fits that narrative.
You saw this with clearly Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh and that’s why I started reading you. As a result of that false narrative lots of people think Moore and Kavanaugh are perverts and that Kavanaugh has a drinking problem. Even though there are no real facts behind either.
It’s worth remembering that the people who make our news and the people in power in Washington DC are closely related: married, been to the same schools and universities, worked together, blood relatives, etc.
Most recent example: ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC are trying to hire Jen Psaki.
I do think some skepticism is warranted. Especially with the documented pro-Ukraine fakery that’s been coming out, e. g. photos from Syria or from 2014 passed off as current from Ukraine.
Like I said before, I believe Russia invaded Ukraine and that Ukraine has not yet surrendered. I’m suspending judgement on pretty much everything else until more facts come out.
Just on the timing and who-invaded-who it sure looks to me like Putin is the aggressor and the world needs to figure out how to deal with him. But I don’t have enough facts I can count on to have any reasoned opinion on what that might look like. Too many people I know are lying to me because it benefits them in some way, I know that because they’ve doing that all this time and there’s nothing magic about a war that makes them honest.
It’s frustrating but unless I want to be a chump I don’t know what else to do, but try to wait. It’s not like Putin’s invading my neighborhood (and if he did I wouldn’t have to wonder what to do right) and it’s not like anyone in power is waiting for my advice.
Would it be fair to say that when your opinion aligns with many prominent leftists, it is for different reasons? You are coming from a neoconservative outlook, they are not.
I also see the left just falling for straight-up propaganda; e.g. the little feel-good stories from the beginning of the Ukraine conflict that quickly unraveled, and recklessly falling into lockstep with whatever the dictated opinion of the day is, just like they did/do with Trump, COVID, the Russian collusion hoax, J6, whatever Florida senate bill the Dems have chosen to lie about this week, etc. You are more cautious.
What bothers me is the speed of COVID COVID COVID to “Let’s cancel the Russians”, without 5 seconds of rational thought or any dissenting voices. The stuff that is going on is like “BLM is the greatest thing since sliced bread”. Does anybody really think that cancelling McDonalds in Russia, or Coke is going to have any effect on Putin or the oligarchs who run Russia? If it hits the man in the street what is he supposed to do about it – this isn’t a state where public opinion matters. The last year or two has really disenchanted me about Americans’ ability to maintain a free country. It looks to me as if Obama did succeed in importing the Chicago way of grift graft and gaslighting to the whole country. And in addition, we have a large and growing contingent of people who seem to be unable to manage their lives independently in a technological society.
Russia is attempting to conquer the Ukraine. That’s not a ‘narrative’.
Frederick,
Yes, one of the most annoying things is when you say you aren’t sure what is actually going on you immediately get NONSENSE thrown back at you and accused of being some Putin apologist as if some random commenter (me) actually has some power over any of this.
Honestly it drives me away from following stuff too closely because there is nothing I can do about it so why get into some argument with another rando who also can’t do anything about it but is filled with self righteousness. Life’s too short to waste too much energy on this kind of thing but maybe that’s just my way of thinking.
Neo, have you read William Deresiewicz on “Escaping American Tribalism”? He is another “changer” who starts his article with his initial enthusiasm for NPR (as it was in the 1980s) and his disillusionment with it after the George Floyd riots– and then moves into an account of his introduction to some independent-minded podcasters: ” [I] learned of the emergence of an alternative ecosystem of independent-minded journalists, experts, and thinkers, many of them exiles, voluntary or otherwise, from the established media. They are free of institutional allegiances. They are unintimidated by the Twitter mob. They are committed to free inquiry and free speech. They are unafraid of debate. For the first time in a good long while, I feel myself reflected in the public sphere. . . . So why do people leave [tribes]? How do they change their minds? Different ways, I think. There is the lightning conversion, the stunning realisation that everything you’d previously thought is wrong, and everything you’d thought is wrong is right. . . . There is the opposite experience: the feeling not that you have changed but that your tribe has — something that many are feeling with respect to one or other of the major political formations. There is the slow accretion of countervailing information that eventually leads (gradually, then suddenly, like Hemingway’s bankrupt) to a change in one’s view of reality, the way a scientist changes their mind. . . . History is changing, fast. Stabilities are fracturing; intellectual borders are shifting. New movements have emerged, impelled by hidden emotional currents, impelled in turn by forces economic, technological, environmental. But history, I’ve learned, isn’t just something that happens out there. The upheavals it causes are psychic, as well. I had read about this with respect to people in the past, but now I find that I am living it. But that is the thing about history: we always think of it as happening to others, until it comes for us.”
The article is followed by an end note in which the author explains that he originally wrote the piece for a different publication; it was initially accepted, but the editor-in-chief wrote Deresiewicz two weeks later that he had become uneasy “with associating [the journal] with many of the assertions you make…. [T]here is too much in your piece that I could not defend.”
Anyway, here it is:
https://unherd.com/2022/03/escaping-american-tribalism/
Russia is attempting to conquer the Ukraine. That’s not a ‘narrative’.
Why? Why now? And why is the United States Government and the US media so absolutely focused on it?
Forgive me if I don’t look at this so simplistically.
@Art Deco:Russia is attempting to conquer the Ukraine. That’s not a ‘narrative’.
“Attempting to conquer” is a statement about intentions and motivations, hence “narrative”. Only Vladimir Putin can express that sentence as a fact, assuming he’s decided to be truthful and assuming that he’s identical to “Russia” in a “l’etat c’est moi” sense.
Some narratives are well-supported by facts and are likely to be true narratives. I agree with you, the available facts I can trust support this narrative better than any other I can construct.
But we shouldn’t fool ourselves about what the difference is between a fact and a narrative. A narrative is a framework for arranging facts, and this framework may describe something true or something false, but is not itself factual.
It’s the difference between seeing an apple fall (a fact) and the Theory of Gravitation (analogous to a narrative). Both are true, but both are not facts.
Very well put, Neo. It’s not WHO is saying things but whether what they’re saying is true.
Fredrick:
Vlad to Ukraine –
“Let’s not argue about who killed who. This is supposed to be a happy occassion!”
Swamp Castles of the Don.
Apologies to Monty Python.
@Kate:It’s not WHO is saying things but whether what they’re saying is true.
When people who have forfeited your trust over a long period of time do decide to tell you the truth, it’s not out of place to wonder why they are doing so and what they might be trying to get out of it, is it?
In this case it may be as simple as they’re still stuck on the Trump-Russia fiction they were peddling and hoping that it will tar Trump for 2024 as well as giving Biden something to retroactively blame high gas prices and giving them something besides COVID to cover.
I think the worst thing I know I’m seeing is too much credulity given to pro-Ukrainian propaganda. (The Ukrainians don’t have much else to fight with, so I’m not condemning them by saying it’s “propaganda”.) There could be a sudden capitulation soon which the media doesn’t see coming because they’ve convinced themselves Ukraine is really winning. I hasten to add I don’t know Ukraine ISN’T really winning but the probabilities seem against it.
I Callahan:
You write:
Are you implying that those who disagree with you are all thinking simplistically? Are you implying that they don’t ask themselves “why now?” or “why is the US media so focused on it?”
I certainly have considered those questions and I’ve written at some length on the “why now” question, as have many people here.
What’s more, I don’t think there’s any mystery about why the US media – and much of the western world, actually – is very focused on it. It’s very dramatic and the first war in Europe in a long time, as well as being a war initiated by Russia. It seems to me very obvious why the MSM would focus on it even in the absence of reasons such as distraction from all the other messes Biden has generated. Of course, that motive is probably a contributing factor as well.
PA Cat:
Thanks for that link. Sounds interesting.
@om: Not sure why you’re directing your comment to me, but disagree very strongly that Putin’s attack on Ukraine could be compared to “a happy occasion.”
The general rule of thumb should—at this stage of the game—be, as Frederick wrote above, that the Democrats (and their supporters, especially in the media and academia) have no sense of Truth as something to be pursued to truly understand a situation in all its possible facets (which really can’t be done in any event, or not usually, or not for most of us).
The difference lies in that, for them, “Truth” is an ideological TOOL; something to be created, manipulated and exploited to advantage, whatever that may be deemed to be AT THE MOMENT. As such, their truth can be changed quickly—“turn on a dime”—should their needs and goals change.
Understanding the manipulative, exploitative character of Democratic Party-held positions—understanding the Democratic Party’s perverted motivations—should help insulate oneself from doubt when one finds a convergence of one’s views with those of the Democrats’.
To be sure, one should always be skeptical in any case. And ready to change one’s views, but NOT for ideological—or ideologically imposed—reasons. Or because of peer pressure. It’s not always easy, of course….
The difference is that the Democrats have given ample and consistent proof that they are TOTALLY unable to do this.
One of the best of all conservative websites (TheConservativeTreehouse, run by a very bright as well as highly analytical and well-informed Floridian, who has been, for years, almost always correct in his assessments) has taken a very courageous contrarian stand on this topic, questioning, inter alia, the fabrications around Zelensky (whom some liken to Fauci), as well as, most recently, yesterday’s stunning admission, in Congress, by Victoria Nuland (who has been wrong about everything for two decades, as well as destructive in 2014’s meddling) that there do, in fact, exist “bio-labs” in Ukraine (funded by whom exactly?), an idea dismissed days before by the MSM as the fevered imagining of so-called “conspiracy theorists”. All is perhaps not as it might seem at first glance in this most complex of geopolitical situations.
shadow:
I am coming from a mostly conservative outlook with a dash of slight libertarian thrown in – that is, a classical liberal outlook.
There is no “neoconservative outlook” except as people use that as a pejorative to mean “someone who wants to get the US into all sorts of wars.” That is not me and never was me, nor was it the original meaning of the word. It also seems to mean “NeverTrumper former GOP member,” which is also not me.
I used the term originally to mean “someone who used to be liberal and has become a conservative” – in other words, a NEW conservative. It also meant “someone who prefers that republican forms of government with protection of civil liberties spread to more countries” although I didn’t think that was likely to happen often or easily. Nor was war a good way to accomplish it.
“Attempting to conquer” is a statement about intentions and motivations, hence “narrative”. Only Vladimir Putin can express that sentence as a fact, assuming he’s decided to be truthful and assuming that he’s identical to “Russia” in a “l’etat c’est moi” sense.
This is an inane complaint. If he were not in the business of conquering the Ukraine, he would not be doing what he is in fact doing.
Neo, what is your position?
I don’t think Russia should have invaded Ukraine. I’m in favor of helping Ukraine defend itself from that invasion as long as such assistance does not risk a wider war or direct conflict between the U.S. and NATO and Russia.
What I object to is the “narrative” that the U.S., NATO, and Ukraine were just going along, minding their own business and doing nothing to which anyone could possibly object, and then this CRAZY guy did this CRAZY thing for NO REASON whatsoever. I object to the idea that absolutely NOTHING about U.S. and Western European policy vis-a-vis Russia could possibly have contributed to ending up where we are. And I’m more than a little concerned that reflexively doing things to virtue-signal over Ukraine could possibly have massive negative consequences.
What kind of consequences? Well, for just one, the financial death penalty we’ve given Russia could push them into joining China in trying to end the U.S. dollar’s standing as the global reserve currency. For an idea of what that might mean, click on this:
https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/will-us-dollar-lose-its-reserve-status
Mike
“It’s very dramatic and the first war in Europe in a long time, as well as being a war initiated by Russia.”
And why have they paid so little attention to the civil war in Yemen, which has heavily involved Saudi Arabia and may have killed as many as 100,000 people since it started in 2014?
Mike
@Art Deco:If he were not in the business of conquering the Ukraine, he would not be doing what he is in fact doing.
Really don’t want to argue about definitions of words with you, but “war” and “conquest” are not the same thing. He may well be in the business of conquering Ukraine, but his war may have other aims short of or different from conquest. (The US for example never conquered Afghanistan or Iraq despite invading and occupying them for years; despite the enormous amount of ordnance and cost in money and lives, “conquest” never entered our minds, though I doubt those on the receiving end were much comforted by it.)
It could just come down to how you personally use the word “conquest” but I think it’s more we’re in True Scots territory. And that’s why it’s “narrative”.
MBunge,
@5:13 well said.
Frederick:
You write, specifically addressing me:
That is always the problem, and I’m very familiar with it. Why would you think I’ve forgotten this and need reminding? I’ve written reams on this blog and almost none of relies on “the people who make our news” – that is, the MSM. I find it very odd that you think I’m parroting the left because I happen to agree with some of their conclusions on the issue of Ukraine.
I find that somewhat patronizing, actually, and based on little to nothing except my agreement that Putin is using his fear of NATO as an excuse to follow a desire he’s had for many decades to reconstitute greater Russia after the debacle of the fall in 1991.I have documented the basis of my opinion, and it is based on Putin’s own words over many years, and Putin’s own actions, particularly from 2014 on.
I don’t know what about my post made you fail to see what I’m saying. Let me repeat once again that I don’t base my opinions on the MSM. I do my own research and use multiple sources, and I do a LOT of research. That is certainly true of this topic. I use logic and reason to come to conclusions that are my own.
“Forgive me if I don’t look at this so simplistically.”
How does one find nuance in tanks, artillery, and rockets?
It could just come down to how you personally use the word “conquest” and then we’d be in True Scots territory. And that’s why it’s “narrative”.
I’m not interested in playing games with you.
MBunge:
I was unaware that Yemen is in Europe.
Has it moved?
Americans identify with Europe far more than with Yemen. What’s more, there are often wars and uprisings and violence in that general neck of the woods (Middle East). There is little novelty in a war there.
Broadcast news thrives on identification and novelty, as well as violence and human interest stories.
Well said. If you’re reflexively opposing anything supported by people you hate, you’ve essentially outsourced your thinking and strategic judgment to the enemy and are just being a contrarian. You should always understand why you support/oppose something on its own merits.
That said – if I ever find myself agreeing with Soros, Hillary!, MSM, etc., I definitely go back and check my intellectual work – but it if it holds up, it holds up.
Neo, thank you for your stubborn independence of thought. This is one of the few places I know on the web — or it may be the only one — that I can trust to try to tell the truth. Not that you have any greater opportunities to know the truth than any of us do, but you remind us, over and over again, how hard it is to know the truth in situations like this, and I know you are not shading what truths you do get hold of in the service of some larger hidden agenda, as pretty much everybody else seems to be doing, one way or the other.
And why have they paid so little attention to the civil war in Yemen, which has heavily involved Saudi Arabia and may have killed as many as 100,000 people since it started in 2014?
Because the South Arabian states have suffered five separate insurgencies since 1957 and Saudi Arabia has no known territorial ambitions there.
@neo:Why would you think I’ve forgotten this and need reminding?
Never said, nor implied it. I was simply saying how I’m trying to navigate this given what is going on. In what sentence do I say I think you’re doing something wrong, or failing to do something right? In fact in what sentence do I criticize you in ANY way?
I find it very odd that you think I’m parroting the left
Kindly quote me saying this. I have not even THOUGHT it. I think you are confusing me with someone else.
I find that somewhat patronizing,
Why, when none of it is commentary on YOU?
I don’t know what about my post made you fail to see what I’m saying.
I see exactly what you are saying. I’m understanding it perfectly. I’m also pretty sure that you are letting assumptions about my motivations for commenting override the words I actually leave in the comments. I’m sure you’re not doing it on purpose.
For the record, my motivation in commenting at all is a desire to try to bridge the gap between the various perspectives offered in the comments, coupled with a childish desire to see my words on the screen.
Griffin:
My error then. I’ll take your name off my comment so it will just be addressing MBunge.
I’ve appreciated the debate that has gone on here about whether NATO expansion forced Putin to invade Ukraine. Various commenters have argued their positions and haven’t been canceled. (Except Z) That’s a good thing.
It’s interesting to me that people like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham have pushed the NATO expansion theory and are uncomfortable being anti-Putin with the Left. Tucker almost sounds like an isolationist. Hard to watch, but I want to hear what he has to say. He’s been correct about many other things.
I saw an hour-long Fox show that explored Putin’s history. Very interesting. It seems that he has been openly pushing the idea of rebuilding of the Russian empire since at least 2010. But few have taken him seriously because they perceive Russia as a poor, corrupt country that could never hope to stare down NATO or the West. I shared that opinion because my experience of Russia has not led me to believe they were a burgeoning superpower. Apparently, Putin has been taking the measure of western leaders and has calculated that they will blink when the chips are down. However, his calculation has proven wrong so far. His aggression has united NATO and many in the West as they weren’t just a few months ago. Where this will lead is hard to say.
There is propaganda spewing forth from both sides and it’s hard to know what to believe. There is, however, one thing I think you can take to the bank. Biden’s unwillingness to increase American oil production is part and parcel of the Green New Deal. In that fact, we can be sure that the Watermelons love what this invasion has done to oil prices. They love to condemn Putin and his war and hope to blame him for gas prices and inflation. The truth is that gas prices and inflation were rising rapidly before Putin invaded. The war has only added fuel to the inflation fire.
Biden could act to dramatically revive U.S. oil production. Buthe won’t because TPTB in D.C. won’t let him. They love high gas prices. They will not suffer. They don’t care. Net Zer and their Goddess Gaia must be served.
neo,
Thanks and I deleted my comment to you.
MBunge:
Regarding Ukraine, you ask me, “Neo, what is your position?”
Are you serious? Do you really think my position has been insufficiently explained? I’ve written reams on the subject, both in posts and comments. I assume you’re read at least some or even many of them. I would have thought I’ve said too much on the subject, rather than too little.
But if you want to refresh your memory, go back and read my posts of the last two weeks or so on Ukraine or on Putin, as well as my comments.
There is no “neoconservative outlook” except as people use that as a pejorative to mean “someone who wants to get the US into all sorts of wars.” That is not me and never was me, nor was it the original meaning of the word. It also seems to mean “NeverTrumper former GOP member,” which is also not me.
The term was coined around about 1979 to refer to a corps of academicians, lapsed officials, and journalists critical of the regnant dispositions of people working in and around the Democratic Party. The complaint was quite broad spectrum. Most of them allied with the Republicans after 1979, though some did not. It ceased to refer to a distinct body of people ca. 1992 when the conduct of the Cold War was no longer a salient issue and when a corps of Democratic pols in the northern states emerged willing to consider amendments to social policy.
Maetenloch:
Nice seeing you again.
@Art Deco:It ceased to refer to a distinct body of people ca. 1992 when the conduct of the Cold War
It had a revival in 2002 and 2003 as a term of abuse in the run-up to Iraq War. The people I saw referred to most often as “neocons” around then were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The list later got expanded to Rumsfeld, Cheney, and anyone associated with them. Eventually, like “fascist”, it came to mean “people the Left opposes”.
Frederick:
Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but you actually were specifically addressing me. You began your comment by writing me, neo (at least, that’s what I think “@neo” means) [emphasis mine]:
You start by addressing me and reminding me that the media has an agenda. Then you address me again, indicating that in the past I seemed to understand that, and then in the next paragraph you remind me that it’s worth remembering etc.etc., which seems to imply I need the reminder.
Perhaps that was not what you intended a reader to understand or what you meant to imply. But that’s certainly the way it sounded.
Mrs Whatsit:
Thanks!
As I have said before I agree that the accepted narrative is the most likely scenario but it is the ‘then what?’ question that I have a big problem with.
Far, far too many people just push things like ‘no fly zones’ and these draconian and often pure virtue signalling sanctions and other economic measures without asking what are the potential downstream problems with them.
‘Putin evil’ is not enough for me to do a lot of these things and I guess that differs from the accepted narrative.
All I know is that anyone who disagrees with me can only be a Deep State crypto-Marxist working towards the Great Reset! Either that or they’re a Putin apologist and probably a secret disinformation asset paid for by mother Russia! Or they’ve just been duped by one of those sides! Any claims of nuance and independent thought are all lies!
I mean… yeesh.
@neo:But that’s certainly the way it sounded.
I think you may have been pre-disposed to think it was meant that way. That’s not as important as our both now knowing it wasn’t.
Almost everyone who comments here seem to be decent and mostly sensible. But a lot of conversations among the group here lately have been going sideways by what I think is a focus on areas of disagreement, often coupled with aspersions. I was trying to stake out some set of assumptions I think we almost all have in common, combined with how I personally apply the assumptions to land where I do on the issue. Reasonable people can agree on many things and still come to different conclusions, but it’s harder to cast aspersions when you see the areas of agreement.
Many of your commenters would agree with you more closely about the situation in Ukraine if they weren’t convinced that they were being lied to about it or being taken advantage of in some other way. They have good reason to be wary, but “I believe everything I read in the news” is not best countered by “I believe nothing I read in the news”. However most of us are busy with lives and jobs and things…
Very good article here about applying rules which are usually right but are too simple and how relying on them can go badly wrong.
NEO notes: “PA Cat:
Thanks for that link. Sounds interesting.”
And it certainly is. I’d think others that you know might have sent that to you even earlier than today.
Neo–
You are more than welcome for the Deresiewicz link– I was only a few sentences into the article when I thought of you and your change story– so I hope you do find it interesting when you have time to read it.
I like you, Neo. You’re pretty cool.
Gerard vanderleun:
Great minds think alike.
The ‘then what?’ question is what I am interested in as well. Lots of smart, well-informed, intellectually honest people comment here. Would love to hear their thoughts because I don’t have a clue. The only thought I’ve had that doesn’t get often expressed is that this war is likely bankrupting them. Their economy is not large or dynamic. There is no way they can afford this. I see economic catastrophe in their future. Do we exploit that? Can we? Should we?
Mike Plaiss:
I think that’s also the motive for the sanctions – to cause financial pain. But it could backfire and cause a kind of “us against the world” solidarity in the Russian people, or cause desperation in Putin that he will make him act even more truculently. Because of his nuclear arsenal, that’s a huge cause of concern as well.
It’s like walking a tightrope, and our leaders are not very adept at that, I’m afraid.
Frederick:
I’m surprised to hear that you don’t think that addressing me several times that way in that comment made it sound like it was a reminder to me. I’m surprised you say you think I was “predisposed” to think that. Why would I be predisposed to think it? I don’t think that you and I have ever had that sort of exchange before.
At any rate, I’m glad you didn’t mean it that way.
I do think that emotions are high in general and that we’re all worn out and worried.
Griffin:
I’m aware that Zelensky has requested no-fly zones, but that is understandable.
But I don’t recall anyone on this blog suggesting them. Nor have I seen anyone on the right doing so, although I certainly haven’t followed everyone in that regard. I’m going to assume it’s people on the left who say it? Who is actually advocating them?
Looking it up now, I find this piece in the leftist Guardian. It does not suggest no-fly zones, but it does say this:
What horrible dilemmas this war presents.
It seems to me that constantly writing and thinking about something like this issue day after day after day and all the thought that goes into that is not a mentally healthy way to live.
One of the best things I’ve been able to do for myself is to stop worrying so much about things I can’t control and one way I do that is not marinating in the thing I’m starting to worry about.
Usually that means take a break shut the computer put the phone out of reach and just relax. It doesn’t solve anything but then neither did worrying so much about it.
neo,
Maybe nobody here but they are out there.
This dude today with Megyn Kelly. This is mission creep and that is a big concern of mine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYoqsyLk-Ak
I’m pretty comfortable with a chaotic outlook:
UA has been invaded. They could have handled the diplomacy better but they’ve been invaded.
The UA people have shown a lot of spirit and are justified in resisting and admirable in seeking independence and freedom.
UA has a horribly corrupt government and many bad acts have been committed by that group.
The same coordinated propaganda push being used by Dems/MSM/GOPe/Swamp has been deployed for Trayvon, Hand’s Up Don’t Shoot, 2020 Election Fraud, Covid and any number of other issues. The same deployment, once UA is settled, will be deployed against us some more.
The economic moves being made to punish RU will hurt the innocent all over the world and will likely ruin the US economy strategically and for a long time to come. Any nation could feel the sting of US sanctions and they’ll reduce dependence on the US Dollar to the lowest limit possible. With our debt burden, we’ve living in a house of cards. We don’t need to add stresses to the economy.
Final conclusion: I’m sympathetic to UA but I don’t think the US should get involved.
I don’t think Putin is mad crazy. I don’t think Putin is Hitler. From his point of view, a wave of authoritarianism is sweeping over the West. Oz and NZ for Covid “camps”, Canada declared Emergency Powers so they could more viciously punish truckers who parked illegally and set up bouncy houses, in the US a Presidential Election was stolen in broad daylight and political prisoners abused while the media averted eyes. Hitler is, arguably, arising in the West again and if you are Russia you might want to start putting on the brakes.
Frederick :
It’s worth remembering that the people who make our news and the people in power in Washington DC are closely related: married, been to the same schools and universities, worked together, blood relatives, etc.
Then may I suggest:
Sky News (UK)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoMdktPbSTixAyNGwb-UYkQ
At the end of the day, should Ukraine fall, the ONLY possible conclusion to be reached is that while the West did help out in many ways, it did not feel it necessary to do everything in its power to defend it.
There are reasons and rationalizations for not having done so. Perhaps even good reasons.
One hopes this Ukraine will resist the onslaught successfully; but if Ukraine does fall, it should not—and cannot honestly—be denied, simply because the West has “been there” in the late 30s and cannot, even if it would sorely like to, pretend otherwise.
There’s also:
Deutsche Welle News (Germany)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCknLrEdhRCp1aegoMqRaCZg
France24
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQfwfsi5VrQ8yKZ-UWmAEFg
Both English language and free on Youtube (as is the Sky News link I posted above).
Saw this article linked at another blog and I think the analogy has merit.
“World War I had no good guys, no winners, just mediocre, small-minded politicians unable to step back from the brink”
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2022/03/08/reliving-the-nightmare-of-1914-were-doing-it-againi-n1564934
I like this concluding sentence also–
“This essay was solicited by the editorial page of a major US newspaper, and then rejected because it did not fit its prevailing narrative.”
This is (imo) not the time to be swept up by War Fever. The analogies being drawn to link Putin to Hitler’s aggression are false, in my view.
@NorthOfTheOneOhOne:Then may I suggest:
Sky News (UK)
I wish it were that simple! What’s true of our media is also true of theirs. If you’re lucky then their biases and blind spots on topics would be different from the media here on stuff you cared about.
I’m not too far from Canada and in pre-COVID days would visit frequently. The anti-Trump hysteria was worse than our media, if you can imagine. Where were they getting it from and why were they all on the same page?
That’s a very nice excerpt from the Guardian Neo. Thanks.
GOP members in favor of a no-fly zone? Adam Kinzinger and Sen. Roger Wicker. OK, Kinzinger is not a serious person. I don’t know Wicker at all.
A no-fly zone implies control/superiority of an air space. In this case a large one. So that begins by killing all of the enemy’s air defenses, which as your Guardian piece mentions, means attacking positions in Belarus.
A more modest proposal would be to lob cruise missiles at the Russian supply convoys outside Kyiv and elsewhere. Except, … cruise missiles are extremely cost and munitions ineffective, and I think previous presidents have used up a lot of our inventory of them. A quick look says that those missiles can carry a single 1,000 lb. bomb and have a range of about 1,000 miles. Is that enough of a standoff?
Their economy is not large or dynamic.
Their economy is large and it has been quite dynamic for 20 years. Also, government policy choices have been more prudent in that time there than here. One part of the tragedy here is that for all his disagreeable aspects, Putin and his camarilla have made satisfactory choices in regard to the country’s political economy. So much has been trashed with this military operation.
JimNorCal:
Putin’s actions are analogous in many ways to Hitler’s reasoning re the Sudentenland as well as the Soviets re their invasion of Poland (in concert with the Nazis) in 1939. Those analogies can be correct without also arguing that it justifies our going to war.
I wonder why so many people fail to separate the analogy to a method and argument used by Hitler and the issue of what to do about it. The analogy has not been used by anyone on this blog, so far as I have seen, to justify our entering a war. Who is “swept by War Fever” here? In an earlier comment, I said that I don’t even see many people elsewhere advocating a no-fly zone. I don’t watch TV news nor am I active on Twitter, and I’m assuming there are some people swept by “War Fever,” but I don’t count the boycotting of vodka as being in that league. Is there some huge mass of people advocating that we send troops or otherwise fight a war?
PA Cat, fascinating piece. Thanks for the link.
https://militaryland.net/ukraine/invasion-day-14-summary/
MiltaryLand’s day 14 summary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine includes this paragraph:
“The situation in the area [Kyiv Oblast] was relatively calm. The enemy continue to amass its forces in direction of Bucha, Hostomel and Yasnohorodka. The civilian evacuation from Irpin continued today. According to British/US intel, Russian forces will launch a massive attack on Kyiv no later than Sunday.”
Sounds like we’ll soon see whether the Ukrainians can defend Kiev.
TommyJay:
It is 935 miles, great circle from Athens to Kyiv, so maybe submarine might be able to launch from the Ionian Sea. That avoids launching from the Black Sea.
Or you could launch conventional ALCMs from airborne assets.
Rank speculation alert.
Tommy Jay:
Rank speculation continues. The distance from Trieste to Kyiv is 840 miles, so a launch from the upper Adriatic Sea is another “option.”
But a launch from the Baltic Sea, 600 miles or so, would truly toast Vlad’s cookies. Might rattle the Russians in Kalinigrad.
And there is this as well:
https://redstate.com/streiff/2022/03/09/nato-sends-patriot-air-defense-missiles-to-poland-and-slovakia-n533670
Patriot, not Ageis Ashore, or THADD.
I see little to no disagreement from the Republican Party with the Democrats on Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine. The only substantive criticism of the Democrats by the Republicans is on Biden’s refusal to increase domestic energy production.
“In the end, I come to a conclusion that is always open to change if new and relevant and reliable information comes out.” neo
I hesitate to disagree but on the primary reason for Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, I must. That it is an honest, sincerely reached conclusion, I have no doubt.
“Does anybody really think that cancelling McDonalds in Russia, or Coke is going to have any effect on Putin or the oligarchs who run Russia?” fiona
Of course not. The expectation is that if the ordinary Russian is hurt enough, then it may lead to someone in the right position taking Putin out, expecting that the public will support them with the Oligarchs provided a way out.
The Western Global Elite, who are heavily influencing this affair wish for a new Russian leader, one in the vein of a Zelensky, someone whose corruption is ‘amenable’ to highly placed western ‘interests’. They lust for control of Russia’s vast resources. Not to mention Russia’s $600+ Billion in Foreign Currency and Gold reserves.
je,
US biolabs in a country as corrupt as the Ukraine raise huge red flags for me too. China is claiming there are hundreds more around the world. Why so many? Not likely but I’d love to see what someone truly knowledgeable on this has to say about whether it’s scientifically necessary. That it’s dangerously unwise seems obvious. One lab in Antartica seems reasonable.
“This is an inane complaint. If he were not in the business of conquering the Ukraine, he would not be doing what he is in fact doing.” Art Deco
Pot meet Kettle.
J.J.,
I agree that Biden et al don’t care how high goes the price of gas. The climate freaks see it as a plus. But given the certain political blowback democrats face in just 9 months I have to wonder why it is of so little concern for them. Could Joe’s party be facing another stunning victory?
“The ‘then what?’ question is what I am interested in as well.” Mike Plais
We’re living in “interesting times”. A historical turning point. Pretty sure it’s going to be a much bumpier ride.
“I hesitate to disagree …” with neo on Putupon’s reason for invading Ukraine.
LOL
There doesn’t seem to have been any hesitatancy.
since day one of the invasion. Is this a new meaning of hesitant?
At least are using the word invasion and not parsing war or conquest. This is supposed to be a happy occassion or invasion. A true de-Nazification of what once was a nation.
The current leftist narrative on Ukraine is just a tactic used 1. to distract from other disasters Biden has brought about 2. to continue the Russia collusion hoax, 3. to try and sound patriotic and principled. We know, if there was a Republican President, 1. the “peace” movement would immediately revive, 2. it would be “blame America first” (ripping it from Tucker Carlson’s hands) 3. we’d be hearing about the military industrial complex and warmongers.
Neo seems to have attracted “smart, well-informed, intellectually honest people” to her blog. You, Art Deco, are clearly one of them and I’m pleased you engaged on my comment. In fact, I was almost goading you specifically to engage, which is why I’m calling you out a bit. But before I go there,
“Large and dynamic” are subjective terms, perhaps we can agree to disagree, compared to what they were 20-30 years ago? Absolutely. Compared to the US and EU, absolutely not. Putin seems to have US-envy, spend a trillion fighting a war here, another trillion on the next, and shrug it all off with no Ill effects (at least so far). I stand by my comment, “There is no way they can afford this”, especially if it drags on.
“Also, government policy choices have been more prudent in that time there than they have here”, yes, you are right, point conceded. In fact I have spent great time and energy trying to convince others that the wealth, and dynamism, that has been created in developing markets has been very real and not to be taken lightly.
All that said, you’ve engaged my minor points and ignored the only thing I really care about – What Now? I don’t ask to put you on the spot or to score points, but because I am genuinely interested in your opinion. I love this blog, but the mental masturbation around the causes of this (did nato provoke or not) have grown tiresome. It is time to move on. To all of you who care to engage, what now?
In the end, I come to a conclusion that is always open to change if new and relevant and reliable information comes out.
neo:
Well, there’s your problem!
Mine too. It gets me into trouble.
om,
When have I ever before stated that neo had failed to be open to changing her POV when relevant and reliable information emerged?
She has repeatedly affirmed her willingness to rethink her position when the need to do so became evident. In this one instance do I find that to be questionable and it is her heretofore demonstration of that willingness that led to my hesitancy in expressing my disagreement on a personal quality. I certainly meant no offense and so stated.
Disagreement conducted in a civil manner demonstrates respect for those with whom we disagree. I’d advise you to try it some time but after multiple attempts, I’ve been forced to conclude that you enjoy trying to tear down others. Clearly you fail to grasp that in playing that game it diminishes you rather than I.
Geoffrey:
You have not been hesitant, to disagree with neo on this topic. You have been persistent, unrelenting in your disagreement, to the point of temporary exasperation. And painting yourself as “hesitant’ is not credible IMO.
I’d advise you to consider that you are, in this regard, wrong. Add it to your list.
Mike Plaiss: “What now?”
The $64 question. I’ll take a stab. (Fool that Iam.)
Three possibilities that I see.
1. The invasion lasts for some more months. Russia destroys a lot of infrastructure and kills a lot of civilians. But they finally run out of money and have to make a deal, which won’t be as good as the one they could make this weekend.
2. Russia is already out of money and makes a deal this weekend.
3. NATO manages to blunder into a hot war with Russia. If neither side uses nukes, Russia is defeated in a month. If Putin is crazy enough to use nukes, it will be a short and devastating war with no winners.
There are other possibilities, but I’m a simple-minded man. If 1 or 2 occur, the UN will gather together and help Ukraine rebuild. And Putin’s Russia will be a pariah nation except among the usual dictators. No way that Russia comes out of this in better shape.
If 1 or 2 happen, oil prices will go below $100 a barrel, but the AGW cult will do their best to prop them up, while claiming Biden delivered a miracle. No way the U.S comes out better until Biden and the Dems lose power.
Oh my, my crystal ball is getting hazy and now it’s gone dark.
🙂
j e,
I enjoy your thoughtful and well-written comments.
Re Sundance, I read him every day and appreciate his passion and perspective and agree with much of the latter. That said, he seems to me recently more unhinged and hair on fire.
I don’t recall the specifics, but I lost a little respect a couple months ago when he drew a patently false conclusion from some Covid vaccine info, apparently through misunderstanding the info. One could call him a knee-jerk conservative.
Also, by his reckoning we were due major empty shelves and shortages in mid January. They may be coming, but I’ve been able to buy everything I wanted so far.
One last thing, Sundance has never written a critical word about Trump that I know of. I support DJT, but he has never come close to walking on water!
PA Cat, I want to thank you for that link, as well.
HOWEVER: One thing that sticks out, for me at least, is that the author of the piece finally throws his hands up and concludes that he’s been lied to consistently and thoroughly by those he once listened to religiously—so far, so good.
BUT HE STILL finds it necessary to trash Trump and Trump supporters.
STILL.
Doesn’t it occur to him that the same people who were lying about EVERYTHING—which he finally, at long last discovered—were also likely to have been lying about Trump?
…And that those LIES profoundly—and foully—SHAPED his own view of the man?
(He’s not the only one in this category, certainly. It’s a question I’d like to ask Bari Weiss, as well. And others: WHY HAVEN’T YOUR CHANGES IN OUTLOOK ALSO RESULTED IN A REASSESSMENT OF TRUMP?)
This selective outrage—the INABILITY to “follow through” on one’s conclusions—is truly exasperating.
And the country is paying—dearly—because of it.
To add to my comment above, it seems to be currently fashionable for all the “best people” to describe the Trump administration as “CHAOTIC”—as a terrible leader—while somehow(!) neglecting to mention that Trump’s presidency was—even before its inception—CONSTANTLY under attack, sabotaged and hog-tied by the Democratic Party machine and its loyal media lapdogs, and led by the Democratic candidate for president ably and willingly assisted by the outgoing (and spectacularly devious) president with tentacles reaching all the way down to the far-flung apparatus of government institutions, which comprehensive campaign of subversion resulted in the scurrilous allegations known as the Russiagate hoax.
“Chaotic”, they say (with no sense of irony at all…but a whole load of willful ignorance).
om,
Nice try at deflection. My hesitancy to disagree with neo was in relation to her assertion of having a mind open to change when presented with new, relevant information that gave a fresh perspective on the subject.
In regard to Putin I have found her unwilling to do so. The many acknowledged specialists and highly placed officials that I have cited that expressed my assessment long before myself but of whom I was not previously aware, have been dismissed by her with unsupported assertions that NATO is a “peaceful” alliance. That is not direct rebuttal of those cited specialists and official’s very specific warnings about Russia’s Ukrainian red line status.
My willingness to disagree with neo on Putin’s primary motivation for his invasion of the Ukraine is an entirely different matter than whether she typically keeps an open mind, one willing to consider new information.
You purposely confuse the two.
My persistance in this matter is not a case of stubborness and an unwillingness to admit to being wrong. My insistance reflects a lack of persuasive rebuttal from anyone here on the matter of NATO’s insistant desire to place itself upon Russia’s border.
Along with NATO’s political leadership’s refusal to recognize Russia’s “red line”. An existential, “core interest” for Russia,
a condition recognized by any competent strategist.
NATO’s military certainly has competent strategists, so given the many warnings against NATO seeking to advance into the Ukraine, it has to be intentional. In which case I can only imagine that NATO’s political leadership is gambling that Putin will cave.
As for my unreasonable persistance, you, Art Deco and neo have matched it. You’ve all made lots of assertions about Putin’s true motivations and you’ve based them on Putin’s expressed beliefs as proof of his territorial ambitions. You call him a liar but pick and choose which of his words are lies and which are not.
When I have pointed out that his aggression has been limited to securing Russia’s borders, all I get in response is the sound of crickets.
The conditions that existed prior to Putin’s seizure of part of Georgia and annexation of the Crimea are readily available but ignored or dismissed as an irrelevance.
A refusal to engage on specific points of disagreement is an indication of an inability to respond factually.
Thanks Neo, for thousands of days of posts which, as far as I can tell, say what you honestly think AND give reasons for those thoughts.
I do wish for more concrete predictions, even tho my own “80% chance that Putin avoids invasion” seems “wrong”.
Real life is full of uncertainty of the future, but also too often of the relevant recent past (or further). Even when I don’t have time to read the usually great comments, like today, you have my total respect about your thoughts and analysis, and it’s an intellectual highlight to read them.
And often fun to read about Bee Gees and especially other music and diversions.
If usually silly folk agree with you, finally!, that’s to their infrequent credit.
Putin is the bad guy. Now I have to listen to Mearsheimer because my sons are arguing his side, and think I need to hear it. I’m just choosing one of the most recent hours. I know he’s about to say, in detail, how the US is pushing Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppD_bhWODDc
(So I’ll lie down and listen for an hour or so … )
Geoffrey;
You seem to be saying that I am deflecting and being dishonest because of the subtle context and nuance of “hesitant to disagree with neo” in your typically verbose commet.
Regarding “restoring Russias borders,” many people have pointed out to you the falsity of that to no avail. Why bother when you are dug in and obstinate. Ukraine had internationally recognized borders that Vlad has chosen not to accept.
Who is being dishonest old boy?
om,
There was no “subtle context and nuance” in my “hesitant to disagree” with neo’s assertion of a mind open to persuasion by new relevant information on the issue of Putin’s invasion of NATO. I specifically stated that I had found her to consistently demonstrate an open mind on all but that one issue.
I did NOT say “restoring” Russia’s borders. That’s a deliberate misquote. I said “securing” Russia’s borders. Specifically in regard to NATO’s repeated announcement of its intention to place itself upon Russia’s border in both Georgia and the Ukraine.
Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders are not a free license for NATO to violate its agreement with Russia, a singular point which you refuse to address with anything other than hyperbole.
As for my verbosity, that has been a futile effort to specify of exactly what my position consists and the reasons why I hold that view.
My comments, whether defined as “verbose” or clarifying doesn’t change the strategic legitimacy of them.
A fair review of our interchanges cannot but reveal where the dishonesty lies.
Geoffrey, it is tiresome, your parsing of your words and defensiveness. If you wrote clearly and succinctly it wouldn’t be a problem. 🙂
Tiresome and obstinate.
They aren’t Russia’s borders to secure when it involves taking land from another country. Not a hard concept, except to you.
1. Neo, sorry but I don’t read everything you post and I don’t think spelling out my position and asking you to clarify exactly what part of it you agree or disagree with is out of line at any point in a discussion.
2. “In an earlier comment, I said that I don’t even see many people elsewhere advocating a no-fly zone.”
Here’s a U.S. Congressman calling for a no-fly zone:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/3/9/22970078/rep-mike-quigley-calls-for-sending-ukraine-fighter-jets-establishing-no-fly-zone
Here’s a former U.S. ambassador to NATO calling for a no-fly zone:
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/volker-calls-for-limited-humanitarian-no-fly-zone-over-kyiv-western-ukraine/
Here’s another U.S. Congressman calling for a no-fly zone:
https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010657/gop-rep-adam-kinzinger-calls-for-us-enforced-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine
Here’s a Wall Street Journal editorial by Joe Lieberman calling for a no-fly zone:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/case-for-no-fly-zone-ukraine-russia-offensive-defensive-bombing-civiliians-airpower-nato-human-rights-violation-war-invasion-11646837093
Here’s a poll saying 74% of Americans support creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-americans-broadly-support-ukraine-no-fly-zone-russia-oil-ban-poll-2022-03-04/
Here’s an official online petition to the UK government to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/609437
Here’s a news story about more than two dozen “foreign policy experts” calling for NATO to create a partial no-fly zone over Ukraine:
https://news.yahoo.com/foreign-policy-experts-call-for-limited-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-142427349.html
Here’s a news story where a former NATO SUPREME COMMANDER calls for a Ukraine no-fly zone:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/01/calls-grow-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-heres-what-it-would-mean/
Fortunately, there are lots of non-insane people opposing a no-fly zone but you being apparently ignorant that the idea has significant support makes me think you’re not as well-informed on this subject as you think you are.
Mike
Things sure have changed since Eisenstein shot the “Odessa Steps” sequence in “Battleship Potemkin” (A film about a naval mutiny in the Russian port city and the Tsarist terrorizing of its citizens).
[i]Their economy is not large or dynamic.
Their economy is large and it has been quite dynamic for 20 years. Also, government policy choices have been more prudent in that time there than here. One part of the tragedy here is that for all his disagreeable aspects, Putin and his camarilla have made satisfactory choices in regard to the country’s political economy. So much has been trashed with this military operation.[/i]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is utter nonsense. Their GDP per capita is not in the top FIFTY in the world.
You’re flat wrong on that account. For what was one of the two biggest powers on the globe, their economy is a shambles. And whatever economy they do have, much of it is controlled by corrupt oligarchs.
That is utter nonsense. Their GDP per capita is not in the top FIFTY in the world.
The gross domestic product measured at purchasing-power-parity is $4.3 tn and the world’s 6th largest. It’s a high middle income country and, up until a month ago, more affluent vis a vis the United States than it has ever been. We can review every consequential macroeconomic datum you care to, static and dynamic and nothing you said would be sustained.
MBunge:
Stop being disingenuous.
You offer this quote from a comment of mine:
Then you give some examples of people who advocate it.
You write this:
However, the relevant quote from my comment (that you conveniently truncated to suit your argumentative purposes) was this:
Study that, please. I said I didn’t recall anyone here saying it (nor did you later provide any such person). I said I hadn’t seen anyone on the right saying it, and added the disclaimer that I certainly haven’t followed everyone in that regard. In other words, I write that it’s not something I’ve done a lot of research on. And, to follow up – because I’m assuming there ARE such people who are advocating it and I just haven’t followed that particular story that closely – I ask 2 questions, quite civilly:
I assumed people on the left, but was curious if that was the case. And then I asked generally who was actually advocating them. And you respond with a condescending, rude statement that you think I’m “not as well-informed on this subject as you think you are.”
Anyone who looks at my quote can see that I explicitly state that I’m not up on the subject, haven’t researched it, assume there is at least some support for the idea, and ask for names. So your insult is not only an insult, but gratuitous and inaccurate as well. You also use a truncated quote from me that is misleading and leaves out the important parts.
In addition, the names you offer are few compared to the HUGE number of people in office explicitly saying they don’t support a no-fly zone. And lastly, regarding polls on the subject, unless the poll explains the risks of a no-fly zone, it’s pretty worthless. In fact, that article you link says this: “It was not clear if respondents who supported a no-fly zone were fully aware of the risk of conflict, and majorities opposed the idea of sending American troops to Ukraine or conducting air strikes to support the Ukrainian army.”
The other links you provided are people who are a hawkish retired ex-Democrat (Lieberman), or seem to be on the left, or Kinzinger (the most left nominally GOP member of Congress), and/or support a limited humanitarian no-fly zone. I never had any doubt that a significant number of such people exist, but their numbers (except for the questionable poll) appear to be dwarfed by those who don’t support it.
In addition, you write:
You don’t? I interact more and at greater length and frequency with people writing comments here than most bloggers with a significant number of readers and commenters do, and attempt to respond to at least some of them. That’s in addition to writing blog posts, of course. I try to respond fairly often to people, but I can’t do it all and it’s unreasonable to think I will. I’ve responded a great deal to you already on this subject, plus comment after comment to others and many many posts on the subject as well. You have been part of many of those discussions.
Regarding Ukraine and NATO and Russia, that request you characterize as “asking you to clarify exactly what part of [my position on Ukraine and Russia] you agree or disagree” was actually the open-ended question from you: “Neo, what is your position?”
Yes, it’s out of line when I’ve written a huge number of posts and comments on that very question, and when you’ve commented on quite a few of them. Clearly, you are familiar with my position, or should be by now.
I don’t object to criticism, but I don’t like wasting time on these games, as I’ve done here in order to respond to you. I don’t like misleading truncated quotes and accusations that don’t fit the facts. Please refrain from making them in the future.