I'm happy to follow up on anything I say but I ask you to consider if framing my response as weird before you've heard it or if using terms like "tin foily" are in keeping with site guidelines about arguing in good faith.

> Your prior is that Denmark wants a shooting war with Russia?

No, I didn't say this.

> let's make the obvious point and take Russia off that list of actors: they literally can't even win a shooting war against Ukraine.

You're assuming that the intended result of this apparent campaign is to actually start a war between the EU and Russia. But it could just as much be to create enough fear of one amongst EU voters that there is increased pressure towards bolstering military qualities within the EU, which in turn creates complications and financial burdens that could result in support for Ukraine being--even if unintentionally--weakened.

> Maybe you can make a brinksmanship/extortion argument, but not a "actors want a war" one from their perspective.

Yes, I could, if you could let me do so without calling me weird before I open my mouth.

> You're assuming that the intended result of this apparent campaign is to actually start a war between the EU and Russia.

Your original framing of your question was: "Does anyone else feel like there are actors now trying to manufacture consent for a war with Russia?"

So, yes, that's exactly what I assumed you meant. Because it's what you said. (Absent, again, a bunch of exposition that wasn't delivered).

And you still haven't clarified what "actors" you're thinking about. I stand by the criticism of this as conspiracy logic.