> You are "reading between the lines" and seeing statements that aren't actually there, then claiming bad-faith communication on others
You simply claiming that does not make it so.
>Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.
Yes, there was no disagreement on this point. The point is that "Putin will view X as a provocation, so we shouldn't do X" is an unconvincing argument, because Putin has already claimed his own actions were provocations against him. There is no world in which Putin will not either find or invent a pretext to do what he wants, and call it a "provocation".
No matter what anyone says or does, as long as Ukraine still exists as an independent country, Putin will say, it is engaged in "provocation" which necessitates eliminating Ukraine as an independent country.
You simply claiming that does not make it so.
>Finally, saying what you think another is thinking or going to say, as in Putin's actions and motives, is very far from SUPPORTING those actions and motives.
Yes, there was no disagreement on this point. The point is that "Putin will view X as a provocation, so we shouldn't do X" is an unconvincing argument, because Putin has already claimed his own actions were provocations against him. There is no world in which Putin will not either find or invent a pretext to do what he wants, and call it a "provocation".
No matter what anyone says or does, as long as Ukraine still exists as an independent country, Putin will say, it is engaged in "provocation" which necessitates eliminating Ukraine as an independent country.