I’ll give you two responses then; one brief, one not so brief that explains my thought process for the closure of this discussion.

1. Okay. Have a nice rest of your day.

2. Who knew geopolitics is complicated and cannot be distilled to bite-sized brevity? Wouldn’t it be convenient if this all fit on a 3x5 index card? I put effort into my comments and especially when I generally have respect for the person with whom I’m discussing.

Let’s cut to the chase. In such discussions, we basically have 3 options:

• Cooperatively and mutually pursue the truth and enlightenment. (e.g., “Yeah that’s possible and I agree with A and B, but I think…”)
• I convince you of my position.
• You convince me of your position.

You’re not venturing down a path that is convincing to me, and I’m apparently not convincing you with my strategy — either because (a) my transmission is poor, (b) reception is poor, or © I’m wrong and cannot see it. But unfortunately the arguments presented to me have not been compelling for me to see better logic.

Ultimately that you perceive me to be gish gallloping and I perceive you to be sealioning me means this discussion has been exhausted. I have no problem with healthy skepticism; but when you’re trying to deflect sound reasoning (at least uncontested) by requests of evidence that aren’t even necessary but rather proven by logic itself (what “reputable” military strategist DOESN’T use probability and proportionality in risk assessment!???), then that to me signals lazy posturing than it does healthy skepticism . You see the problem is you aren’t just remaining a neutral skeptic; you’re taking the opposite stance but not backing up your position in any remote way — neither with evidence, nor logic & reason I have at least done — that your position is the less risky of the two proposals.

So I suppose with that we leave it here and I’ll oblige you with the last word. Have a nice day.