Stop being disingenuous.

You offer this quote from a comment of mine:

“In an earlier comment, I said that I don’t even see many people elsewhere advocating a no-fly zone.”

Then you give some examples of people who advocate it.

You write this:

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.

However, the relevant quote from my comment (that you conveniently truncated to suit your argumentative purposes) was this:

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?

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’m going to assume it’s people on the left who say it? Who is actually advocating them?

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:

…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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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 … )

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.