When you’re in a position of power and trying to coerce your long term ally into submission, while simultaneously colluding with your historical enemy (who is actively attacking your prior ally), and you are threatening to remove aid from them if they don’t submit?
Then say “Do you want WW3?” twice… this constitutes a threat. An indirect threat is still a threat.
You trying to dance around the semantics disingenuously, is really what warranted my prior response—there was seemingly no chance at any understanding coming from engaging.
Likely still not the case…but hey, let’s try a thought experiment.
Let’s say I own a vehicle and I’m helping out a friend—letting them borrow it to commute to work. Without this vehicle they will 100% lose their job and livelihood, thus putting me in a position of control/power.
I request them to start paying for maintenance and bringing the car to a mechanic at specific times even though it will conflict with their job. Concerned about their livelihood, they decline and ask for more flexibility.
Knowing they 100% need this car to maintain a job, I give them an ultimatum of doing it at the specified time or I take the car away.
In my threat to take the car away, am I threatening that they will be fired?
I did not disregard your analogy and I answered your question.
Donald Trump made no threat, whether direct or indirect, of WW3. He warned Zelensky that should he choose to continue escalating, Zelensky risks triggering WW3.
If I see you play with fire near the fireplace, and I tell you that you are running the risk of lighting your house on fire, I have not threatened with lighting the house on fire.
Removed by mod
My bad, I thought you were interested in having a real conversation but instead you’re happy to resort to character attacks.
Context is important here.
When you’re in a position of power and trying to coerce your long term ally into submission, while simultaneously colluding with your historical enemy (who is actively attacking your prior ally), and you are threatening to remove aid from them if they don’t submit?
Then say “Do you want WW3?” twice… this constitutes a threat. An indirect threat is still a threat.
You trying to dance around the semantics disingenuously, is really what warranted my prior response—there was seemingly no chance at any understanding coming from engaging.
Likely still not the case…but hey, let’s try a thought experiment.
Let’s say I own a vehicle and I’m helping out a friend—letting them borrow it to commute to work. Without this vehicle they will 100% lose their job and livelihood, thus putting me in a position of control/power.
I request them to start paying for maintenance and bringing the car to a mechanic at specific times even though it will conflict with their job. Concerned about their livelihood, they decline and ask for more flexibility.
Knowing they 100% need this car to maintain a job, I give them an ultimatum of doing it at the specified time or I take the car away.
In my threat to take the car away, am I threatening that they will be fired?
In your example, you are threatening to take your car away from them. Your friend can still go to their jobs by some other means.
Besides, Ukraine is not an ally of the US, let alone a “long term ally”.
There is no dancing around semantics. Putin has threatened with WW3 several times but Trump hasn’t.
Way to completely disregard the analogy and the question I asked.
An indirect threat is still a threat no matter how much you try hard to get around it here.
I did not disregard your analogy and I answered your question.
Donald Trump made no threat, whether direct or indirect, of WW3. He warned Zelensky that should he choose to continue escalating, Zelensky risks triggering WW3.
If I see you play with fire near the fireplace, and I tell you that you are running the risk of lighting your house on fire, I have not threatened with lighting the house on fire.
Indirect threat is a threat. It’s understandable that this is hard for you as a pro Russian trump apologist.
It’s okay though, because the adults in the room got you covered.
Ah I see, instead of gracefully accept you’re wrong on this particular instance, you resort to personal attacks. Do better.