You won't. There's a larger objective. It requires immediate attention. If they do. It's because they're pressed. It could mean them applying for more immediate Nato membership or having Nato arms supplied to it. Or its separatist region under direct attack. Logically. Not dumb Ukrainian propaganda screaming for direct war.

There's still perhaps the diversion. Where yeah. Why not put mobile ballistic launchers in it? Because it could lead to direct war. It's chess still. Piece for piece into positions of play to win the objective or checking an enemy into terms. The breakaway region in Moldova isn't going anywhere. What gain is Moldova if it presses them into further unrest, potentially unleashing Nato. It would be nukes. They can still gain what they want before then. It was objectively parts of the Ukraine. Or ask them.

But logically what is it, if you're playing that board what would you do. You'd be launching nukes already. Instead of actually playing strategy. It seeks gain not complete loss.

Reiterate why you'd open another flank, prior to any other escalation? Instead you'd use any flank to gain objectives if required. Right?

Now go back to bullshit school. Again they could roll over on Moldova. But wouldn't it flare up while they're in active war. Nato fasters backdoors every citizen with brand new zingers. They haven't even got a land supply route to it, outside of the sea or air. Hmm let me think. Bombs away. No, fucko, plenty of game before then.

You won't. There's a larger objective. It requires immediate attention. If they do. It's because they're pressed. It could mean them applying for more immediate Nato membership or having Nato arms supplied to it. Or its separatist region under direct attack. Logically. Not dumb Ukrainian propaganda screaming for direct war.

There's still perhaps the diversion. Where yeah. Why not put mobile ballistic launchers in it? Because it could lead to direct war. It's chess still. Piece for piece into positions of play to win the objective or checking an enemy into terms. The breakaway region in Moldova isn't going anywhere. What gain is Moldova if it presses them into further unrest, potentially unleashing Nato. It would be nukes. They can still gain what they want before then. It was objectively parts of the Ukraine. Or ask them.

But logically what is it, if you're playing that board what would you do. You'd be launching nukes already. Instead of actually playing strategy. It seeks gain not complete loss.

Reiterate why you'd open another flank, prior to any other escalation? Instead you'd use any flank to gain objectives if required. Right?

Now go back to bullshit school.

You won't. There's a larger objective. It requires immediate attention. If they do. It's because they're pressed. It could mean them applying for more immediate Nato membership or having Nato arms supplied to it. Or it's separatist region under direct attack. Logically. Not dumb Ukrainian propaganda screaming for direct war.

There's still perhaps the diversion. Where yeah. Why not put mobile ballistic launchers in it? Because it could lead to direct war. It's chess still. Piece for piece into positions of play to win the objective or checking an enemy into terms. The breakaway region in Moldova isn't going anywhere. What gain is Moldova if it presses them into further unrest, potentially unleashing Nato. It would be nukes. They can still gain what they want before then. It was objectively parts of the Ukraine. Or ask them.

But logically what is it, if you're playing that board what would you do. You'd be launching nukes already. Instead of actually playing strategy. It seeks gain not complete loss.

Reiterate why you'd open another flank, prior to any other escalation? Instead you'd use any flank to gain objectives if required. Right?

Now go back to bullshit school.