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.
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.