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.
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.