You seem to continue having difficulty understanding plain English. I said the exact opposite of what you think I'm willing to allow, which is quite the feat of misunderstanding.
I support any policy where the benefits outweigh the harms. How hard is that to understand? You support policies based on how closely they fit your unachievable libertarian dogma, whether or not they are destructive.
In an imaginary world where it is possible to ban Russia from using encryption without causing other harms that outweigh that benefit, I would support that. Such an imaginary world is too nonsensical to exist though, so it is useless to even consider.
