but we still don't know who blew up Vlad's Nord Stream Pipeline to Germany, and it could easily have been Vlad himself -- so, a bridge to Crimea in exchange for Nord Stream Pipeline; sounds like a fair trade to me.This is an interesting sentence, even for a Neocon.
In it you say that altho we don't know who blew up Nord Stream, Germany blowing up the bridge to Crimea is a "fair trade"
Thank you for the NATO blood dance.
Russkiy Mirovich:
"you say that altho we don't know who blew up Nord Stream, Germany blowing up the bridge to Crimea is a "fair trade" Thank you for the NATO blood dance."
Naw, contrary to your suggestion here, I don't think Russkiy Mir/world is stupid, I think you guys are fully capable of grasping the concept of a hypothetical, which should have been obvious.
So, to repeat my hypothetical, we don't know:
- If Vlad the Invader blew up his own Nord Stream pipelines.
- If Germany intends to destroy Vlad's bridge to Crimea.
Therefore, I ask you yet again, Russkiy Mirovich, if
hypothetically, both of those are true, is it a fair trade, and if not, why not?
What say you?