If he says the sky is blue it immediately becomes red to correct the aberration to the cosmos that is his word.

What election?

Putler would love it. He knows he can call on the seppos now.

They don’t need to be drafted for Russia, they’ll just be deployed alongside/on the western front.

Your account of censorship densities means very little to me. You are an enemy asset who doesn’t realize that “ya’ll” immediately makes me tune out the bulk of what you said. As in, I’m not even going to skim any more of it.

They don’t need to be particularly smart, each to each, in order to both want to and be capable of annexing somewhere.

Cisgender.

How quickly can that infrastructure be moved to Hungary?

They’re not just not coming to the defence, they’re mobilizing for war. It’s very clear.

I agree with that being the better idea, in the governments’… limited defence I think it’s more a lack of comprehending the urgency than profiteering. I hope so at least.

So do you propose you and I start an arms cooperative this afternoon? I don’t exactly disapprove, it’s what I might have done in the 50s, yet we’re out of time.

The founders argument is misleading, though I find no fault in the rest of your sentiment. Still, the perfect is the enemy of the good. If they issue Eurobonds I’m buying them whether it’s going to deepen liberalist hold over the west or not, and the one thing I think we can count on is that they won’t sell to Russia or the United States.

And yet, you argue for it whether you want to confess to that or not.

The point in it is to create a permanent peace. You asked for a solution and I gathered you hadn’t heard that one before. I think your opinion on war is similar to Putin and Trump’s, in that you talk directly or otherwise in favor of a pyrrhic peace that only empowers the aggressor. The better solution, the solution available to any victim being cornered and no-one else to come help them, is to throw a damn punch, ideally a crippling one. There’s no moral equivalency between an aggressor forcing their target to capitulate and a defender forcing the aggressor to capitulate, that’s what makes your implications of such an equivalency false. I think you might be a Russian agent, (in spirit at least hence the hyperbolic image of you cowering in some oblast) because you cling to an anachronistic pacifism and stall genuine conversation and preparation for what’s to come.

And it is coming, I think you know that.

False equivalency. The war was started pointlessly but to end it once and for all isn’t pointless in the least. You conflate the two sides in this, Russia chose it so they can lose for it instead of us. The latter means annihilation, stopping that is what we have to gain.

How about counter invasion, or would that damage your flat in Moscow? You are correct, they will build up momentum in the long term. This is why in the mid term they should be rebuffed and eventually reorganized into several smaller democracies. It’s the only way to end this great power nonsense. No amount of diplomatic talks is going to do better than re-armament even if it does fail in the long term, that it’s not a sustainable solution doesn’t mean a better one exists.

What are you really going on like this for?

Catches the mood doesn’t it? I don’t know how defence is meant to increase without national level procurement directives, purely because that’ll happen this year.