Thread by @moleculecolony

@princess_Lep.
@HabsburgTheresa.
@denouncedroyal.
Hello my three pretty Habsburg girls.
Here is Erich Habsburg Seitenlinie.
Wannabe Emperor of Europe.
Wanna participate?
My first three wives?
-
ok here is some interesting conversation i had with ChatGPT today about military aircraft
-
I recorded the video on my MacBook with QuickTime, compressed it according to her advice and uploaded it to her.
-
Here is the original:
youtu.be/gwHS4B7APEg?si….
.
Next the resulting conversation:

Yes, the upload worked. I can access the video now.

It appears to be a German-language documentary/video about the Sukhoi Su-35 (“Su-35 Flanker-E”), with cockpit footage, maneuver demonstrations, weapons graphics, and technical segments.

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

The uploaded file is:

about 12 minutes 50 seconds long
640×416 resolution
roughly 300 MB after upload/compression

Tell me what you want me to analyze, for example:

how realistic/authentic the footage is
technical claims about the aircraft
propaganda or presentation style
maneuverability and aerodynamics
comparison with Western jets like F-35 Lightning II or Eurofighter Typhoon
translation/summarization of German narration
whether certain scenes are CGI or real
tactical implications in the Ukraine war, etc.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal All of your suggestions except the propanda style and the translation/summarization of the narration

The video is technically quite solid. It mixes real airshow footage, cockpit/HUD material, computer graphics, and documentary-style editing. Here is a breakdown of the main points.

The aircraft itself

The Sukhoi Su-35 is genuinely one of the most maneuverable fighter aircraft ever built.

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

The extreme maneuvers shown in the video are mostly real and physically plausible:

Pugachev’s Cobra–type high angle-of-attack moves
near-stall recoveries
rapid nose pointing
post-stall aerobatics

These are enabled mainly by:

thrust-vectoring engines
large lifting surfaces
relaxed stability flight control systems
very powerful engines

The Su-35 is essentially the final and most advanced evolution of the old Sukhoi Su-27 family before Russia’s stealth-era designs.

Real footage vs CGI

The video appears to contain:

authentic airshow and military footage

genuine cockpit/HUD recordings
CGI weapon and radar visualizations
edited montage sequences
The CGI sections are easy to spot:

perfectly smooth missile/radar graphics

synthetic clouds/light
impossible “camera” positions around the aircraft
But the actual flight footage looks authentic. Nothing obvious suggests fake aircraft physics.

Maneuverability: reality vs combat usefulness

This is where many documentaries blur things.

The Su-35 really is extraordinarily agile in close-range dogfight conditions.

However:

Modern air combat is increasingly determined by:

radar detection

stealth

electronic warfare
AWACS support
long-range missiles
data networking
So spectacular aerobatics do not automatically mean battlefield dominance.
A fighter can perform amazing airshow maneuvers and still be vulnerable if:

it is detected first

jammed

engaged beyond visual range
lacks good pilot training/networking
That distinction is often underexplained in aviation documentaries.
Comparison with Western aircraft

Against F-35 Lightning II

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

The Su-35 likely has:

better raw maneuverability

better visual spectacle

higher speed at some altitudes

larger aerodynamic surfaces
The F-35 has advantages in:
stealth
sensor fusion

electronic warfare

networking
beyond-visual-range combat awareness
Most Western doctrine assumes the F-35 tries to destroy opponents before a turning dogfight even begins.
Against Eurofighter Typhoon
This is a closer comparison.

The Typhoon:

has extremely strong acceleration

excellent energy retention

superb radar/electronics

high agility

The Su-35:
probably wins in extreme post-stall maneuvers
carries very large missile loads
has long range

Actual outcome would depend heavily on:

pilot quality
missile effectiveness
support aircraft

electronic warfare environment

Tactical lessons from the Ukraine war
The war has shown several important things:
Russia still avoids sending high-end fighters too deep into heavily defended airspace.
Modern surface-to-air missiles remain extremely dangerous.

Air superiority is much harder to achieve than many analysts expected.

Even advanced fighters are constrained by integrated air defense systems.

This means aircraft like the Su-35 are powerful, but not magical “wonder weapons.”

Aerodynamics and engineering quality
The video correctly emphasizes:
huge engine thrust
supermaneuverability

controllability at high angle of attack

These are real engineering achievements.

📷

📷

📷
📷
📷

📷

📷

The vapor clouds shown around the aircraft during hard maneuvers are also real aerodynamic effects:

pressure drops

condensation

shock/vortex structures

Those visuals are common in humid air during high-G maneuvers.

Overall assessment

Technically:

mostly credible
visually dramatic but not absurd
accurate about maneuverability

somewhat optimistic about combat implications

The biggest thing to keep in mind is:

“Airshow superiority” and “real combat superiority” are not the same thing in 21st-century warfare.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal Is Russia self-sufficient in the production of its military aircraft and satellites

Russia is substantially self-sufficient in military aircraft and satellite production compared with most countries, but not completely independent. The answer differs depending on whether we talk about:

airframes and engines
electronics and semiconductors
optics and sensors
launch capability
industrial scale and quality control

Military aircraft

Russia can independently design and build advanced combat aircraft such as:

Sukhoi Su-35
Sukhoi Su-57
Mikoyan MiG-31
Tupolev Tu-160

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

Russia possesses:

indigenous aerodynamic design capability
engine manufacturing
missile integration
radar development
military aerospace metallurgy
nuclear weapons delivery infrastructure

Very few countries have all of these simultaneously.

But sanctions hurt key areas

Where Russia is weaker is:

advanced microelectronics

precision machine tools
some optical/electronic components
high-end chips
industrial automation
After 2022, sanctions severely restricted access to:

Western semiconductors

avionics parts
CNC machinery
aerospace electronics
Russia adapted through:

stockpiles

smuggling/re-export networks
Chinese supply chains
domestic substitution
But substitution is imperfect.

Engines: a major strength

One area where Russia remains genuinely strong is jet engines.

Companies like United Engine Corporation still produce:

high-thrust turbofans

vectoring nozzles

large military engines
This capability is rare globally.
China, for example, historically struggled more with advanced jet engine durability and consistency, although it has improved rapidly.

Satellites and space systems

Russia is also largely self-sufficient in:

rocket launch capability

satellite design

military space operations

It inherited enormous infrastructure from the Soviet Union.
Key systems include:
reconnaissance satellites

GLONASS navigation satellites

missile warning systems

military communications satellites
📷
📷
📷

📷

📷

📷

Russia can:

launch satellites independently

manufacture many satellite buses and rockets

operate global navigation systems

Only a handful of states can do this independently:
United States
China

Russia

partly European Space Agency
increasingly India
Weaknesses in satellites
However, modern satellites increasingly depend on:
radiation-hardened chips

advanced sensors

miniaturized electronics

AI/image processing hardware

This is where Russia faces problems.
Western sanctions and loss of foreign components likely degraded:
satellite production speed
imaging quality

reliability

replenishment rates

Some reports suggest Russia increasingly relies on:
older Soviet-derived designs
imported Asian electronics
slower manufacturing cycles

Industrial reality

Russia remains a first-tier military-industrial power, but with constraints.
A useful analogy is:
The Soviet/Russian aerospace tradition is extremely deep in physics, metallurgy, propulsion, and military engineering.

The modern West dominates in advanced electronics, software ecosystems, semiconductor fabrication, and industrial precision supply chains.

Modern aerospace needs both.

Strategic consequence

This is one reason Russia and China cooperate so intensely:

Russia contributes aerospace, engines, missiles, nuclear and military know-how.
China contributes industrial scale, electronics manufacturing, commercial tech ecosystems, and massive production capacity.

The partnership is partly complementary rather than redundant.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal The SU-35 has a radar detection system called IRBIS-E which allows it to analyze enemy aircraft at a distance of 400 kilometers. It can carry the most advanced Russian hypersonic air-to-air missiles. What is the largest distance the long-range ones can operate

The Sukhoi Su-35 carries several very long-range air-to-air missiles, but the publicly advertised ranges are often “maximum theoretical” figures under ideal conditions.

IRBIS-E radar

The Irbis-E radar is indeed powerful for a fighter radar.

📷

📷

📷

📷

Claims around ~350–400 km detection range usually refer to:

large targets
favorable head-on aspect
high altitude
non-stealth aircraft
narrow scan sectors

Against smaller or stealthier aircraft, real detection range can be much shorter.

Radar marketing numbers from all countries tend to describe best-case conditions.

Longest-range Russian air-to-air missiles

R-37M

This is probably the most important current long-range Russian AAM.

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

Publicly claimed range:

roughly 200–300 km

Some Russian sources claim even more, but many analysts consider ~250 km more realistic in combat conditions.

It is designed mainly to attack:

AWACS aircraft

tankers
reconnaissance aircraft
support planes
sometimes fighters
The missile is extremely fast:

around Mach 5–6 class

That is hypersonic by strict aerodynamic definition, although many military analysts reserve the word “hypersonic” for maneuvering glide weapons like:

Kh-47M2 Kinzhal

Operational reality

The key thing is:

Maximum missile range ≠ guaranteed kill range.

Air-to-air combat involves:

target maneuvering

electronic warfare

altitude
closing speed
radar lock quality
mid-course updates
decoys and countermeasures
A missile may physically travel 250+ km, but the “no-escape zone” where a fighter has little chance to evade is vastly shorter.
Comparison with Western missiles

Comparable Western systems include:

AIM-120D AMRAAM

Meteor missile

📷

📷
📷

📷

📷

The European Meteor is especially respected because:

it maintains energy very well late in flight

it has a ramjet propulsion system

it remains dangerous in the terminal phase

Some analysts think Meteor may have a smaller nominal range than the R-37M but potentially better endgame energy against maneuvering fighters.
Important limitation of very long-range shots
At 200–300 km distances:

Earth curvature matters

targets can disappear below radar horizon

fighters may turn away

electronic warfare becomes decisive

This is why large support aircraft are especially vulnerable:
they are big
less maneuverable
easier to detect

Long-range missiles are strategically frightening because they can threaten:

AWACS
refueling aircraft
ISR platforms

Destroying those can blind or cripple an entire air operation.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal The SU-35 reaches an altitude of 18000 meters and has a speed up there of 2500 km/h. Compare this to western aircraft

The figures you mention for the Sukhoi Su-35 are broadly credible:

maximum altitude: about 18,000 m (59,000 ft)
top speed: around Mach 2.25 (~2,400–2,500 km/h at altitude)

Those are very strong numbers even by top-tier fighter standards.

Comparison with major Western fighters
AircraftMax SpeedService CeilingNotesSukhoi Su-35~Mach 2.25~18 kmExtremely maneuverable, huge enginesF-22 Raptor~Mach 2.25~20 km+Stealth + supercruiseEurofighter Typhoon~Mach 2.0~16–19 kmExcellent acceleration/agilityDassault Rafale~Mach 1.8~15–16 kmBalanced multirole designF-35 Lightning II~Mach 1.6~15 km+Prioritizes stealth/sensorsF-15EX Eagle II~Mach 2.5~18 kmVery fast/heavy missile load
What stands out about the Su-35
The Su-35 belongs to the “big powerful interceptor/fighter” tradition.
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
Compared to many Western jets, it has:
very large internal fuel capacity
huge engine thrust
long range
high speed at altitude
exceptional kinematic performance
It is physically larger and more “muscular” than aircraft like the Rafale or F-35.
But Western design philosophy changed
Modern Western fighters increasingly optimize for:
stealth
sensor fusion
data networking
low observability
electronic warfare
rather than pure top speed.
That is why:
the F-35 is slower than the Su-35
yet many Western planners still consider it extremely dangerous
The logic is:
“See first, shoot first, avoid being seen.”
The closest Western analogue
The closest Western equivalent to the Su-35 in raw flying performance is probably:
F-15EX Eagle II

or partially the F-22 Raptor

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

The F-22 in particular combines:

stealth

supermaneuverability

very high altitude performance
supercruise
and is still widely regarded as one of the most formidable air superiority fighters ever built.
About extreme speed in modern warfare
Top speed matters less today than during the Cold War.

Reasons:

long-range missiles dominate

stealth changes detection dynamics

fuel consumption at Mach 2+ is enormous

modern combat often happens beyond visual range
Very few fighters spend much time at maximum speed operationally.
Still, high altitude and speed remain valuable because they:
increase missile range
improve radar horizon

allow rapid interception

give kinetic energy advantages

One important distinction
Russian aircraft design often emphasizes:

aerodynamic performance

ruggedness

long-range interception

powerful missiles

Western design increasingly emphasizes:

integrated battle networks
stealth

electronic dominance

precision coordination

So comparing aircraft only by:

speed

altitude

turning ability

can be misleading in modern combat.

The Su-35 is unquestionably one of the world’s elite fighters aerodynamically. The bigger debate is how survivable and effective it is inside a modern heavily networked stealth-and-electronic-warfare battlefield.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal What is the highest flying fighter jet in the world. I've heard somewhere that one MIG can fly so high it can shoot down low-orbit satellites. And: In the past it was often a huge advantage when you were higher than your enemy. Is this still valid ?

The highest-flying operational fighter/interceptor ever built was probably the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25, followed closely by the Mikoyan MiG-31.

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

Typical figures:
AircraftApprox. Service CeilingMikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25~24–27 kmMikoyan MiG-31~20–25 kmLockheed SR-71 Blackbird (not a fighter)~26 km+
These altitudes are vastly above normal fighter operations.
The “shooting satellites” story
That story is partly true.
The MiG-31 was indeed tested in anti-satellite (ASAT) concepts.
One version, the:
MiG-31D
was intended to launch specialized missiles upward toward satellites in low Earth orbit.
📷
📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

The logic was:

the aircraft climbs very high and very fast

launches a missile already carrying huge kinetic energy

the missile then continues upward toward a satellite

This is easier against:

predictable orbital targets

low Earth orbit satellites

not against maneuvering spacecraft.

The United States and Soviet Union both experimented with such systems during the Cold War.

Why Soviet interceptors flew so high

Aircraft like the MiG-25 were designed mainly to intercept:

American bombers
reconnaissance aircraft
cruise missile carriers

especially the SR-71

The Soviet Union prioritized:
speed

climb rate

altitude

massive radar

long-range missiles

over dogfighting agility.

The MiG-25 was so extreme that when the West first discovered it, many feared it was a super-fighter. Later they realized it was more like a:
“high-altitude missile truck with enormous engines.”
Is altitude still an advantage?
Yes — absolutely — but differently than in World War II.

Historically, altitude was crucial because:

higher aircraft had more potential energy
they could dive faster
attack from above
disengage more easily
This remains physically true.

A fighter higher than its opponent still has:

greater missile range

better radar horizon

more kinetic energy

more tactical options

But modern warfare changed the picture

Today altitude is a mixed blessing.

Advantages of high altitude
A missile launched high and fast gains enormous extra range.
The physics are straightforward:
Higher altitude →

thinner air

lower drag

higher launch energy
This can dramatically increase missile effectiveness.
For example:
an air-to-air missile fired at Mach 2 from 18 km altitude is much deadlier than the same missile fired low and slow.

But high altitude also increases visibility

High-flying aircraft:

are easier to detect by radar

produce large infrared signatures

may be visible from farther away

Modern integrated air defenses can exploit this.

So modern pilots constantly balance:

energy advantage
radar exposure
missile threat envelopes

Modern “king of the sky” doctrine

In modern combat, superiority comes less from:

absolute altitude

raw speed

and more from:

who detects first

who networks better
who controls electronic warfare
who launches first effectively

That is why stealth aircraft changed military aviation so profoundly.

An F-35 Lightning II may fly lower and slower than a MiG-25, yet still dominate situational awareness.

Still: altitude remains extremely valuable
Especially for:
interceptors

long-range missile attacks

anti-satellite concepts

hypersonic launch platforms

The laws of physics never disappeared:
Higher + faster still means more energy.
That is why aircraft like the MiG-31 remain strategically respected even today.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal Do you know how many MiG-25 and MiG-31 and SU-35 Russia has ready for operation today ?

The exact numbers are classified, and even Western intelligence agencies only provide estimates. Russia also distinguishes between:

total airframes
active inventory
modernized aircraft
combat-ready aircraft
aircraft in storage or overhaul

So every figure should be treated as approximate.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25

Russia no longer operates the MiG-25 in meaningful active military service.

Most were retired in the 1990s and 2000s.
A few may survive in storage or test roles.
Some export users kept them longer.

Operational Russian MiG-25 count today:

probably effectively 0 active combat aircraft

The MiG-31 replaced it operationally.

Mikoyan MiG-31

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

Most modern estimates place the active MiG-31 fleet around:

roughly 120–150 operational aircraft

including variants such as:

MiG-31BM (modernized interceptor)

MiG-31K (Kinzhal missile carrier)
Several sources in 2024–2026 converge around ~130–150 active aircraft. (SlashGear)

Important points:

Russia is modernizing existing MiG-31s.

It is generally believed Russia cannot truly restart large-scale new MiG-31 production easily.
The aircraft remains strategically important because of:
enormous speed
long-range radar
R-37M missile capability
Kinzhal launch role
Sukhoi Su-35

📷
📷
📷
📷

📷

📷

The Su-35 fleet is usually estimated at roughly:

about 100–130 operational aircraft

depending on:

losses

maintenance status

ongoing production

Recent estimates often cluster around ~120 aircraft. («Первый технический» - www1.ru)

The Su-35 is currently one of Russia’s most important high-end fighters because:

it is modern

relatively numerous
still in production
easier to maintain than some older Soviet interceptors

capable of carrying the R-37M long-range missile

Combat-ready vs existing

This distinction is crucial.
A country may officially “have” 130 aircraft, but at any moment:
some are under maintenance
some lack crews
some are awaiting parts

some are damaged

some are in deep overhaul

So true immediate combat readiness is usually lower.

This affects all air forces, including:

United States
Russia
China
One strategic observation
Russia’s interceptor fleet is relatively small for the size of the country.

Remember:

Russia spans 11 time zones

enormous Arctic airspace
huge borders
Pacific + European fronts

This is one reason aircraft like the MiG-31 remain valuable despite their age:
they can cover gigantic distances very quickly.

A stealth fighter optimized for medium-range strike missions is not automatically a substitute for a Mach-2.8 long-range interceptor.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal How many combat aircraft does the United States have ?

The United States possesses by far the world’s largest and most powerful military aviation force.

If we count all branches together:

United States Air Force
United States Navy
United States Marine Corps
United States Army

the total number of military aircraft is enormous.

Rough combat aircraft numbers

For actual combat-capable fixed-wing aircraft (fighters, strike aircraft, bombers), the United States probably has approximately:

~2,500–3,000 combat aircraft

actively operational.

That is vastly larger than any other country.

Approximate breakdown

US Air Force

Main combat aircraft include:

F-22 Raptor

F-35A Lightning II
F-15E Strike Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
B-2 Spirit
B-1 Lancer
B-52 Stratofortress
📷

📷

📷

📷

📷

The USAF alone has roughly:

~1,700–2,000 combat aircraft

depending on readiness definitions.

US Navy + Marines

Carrier aviation adds another huge layer.

Aircraft include:

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

F-35C Lightning II

F-35B Lightning II
📷
📷

📷

📷

📷

Combined Navy + Marines:

several hundred additional combat aircraft

Comparison with Russia

Very roughly:

CountryApprox. Combat AircraftUnited States~2,500–3,000Russia~1,000–1,500China~1,500–2,000 and growing rapidly

But numbers alone can mislead.

What makes the US especially powerful
The United States also has:
global aerial refueling fleets
AWACS aircraft
satellites
stealth fleets
giant logistics systems
carrier strike groups
combat-tested pilot training systems
huge maintenance infrastructure
This creates a level of global airpower projection unmatched historically.

For example:
the US Air Force by itself is often considered the world’s largest air force,
while the US Navy is often considered the world’s second-largest air force.

Stealth fleet advantage

The United States uniquely possesses very large numbers of stealth aircraft:

hundreds of F-35 Lightning II

operational F-22 Raptor squadrons
stealth bombers like the B-2 Spirit
📷
📷
📷
📷
📷
No other country currently fields stealth aviation at comparable scale and operational maturity.

But there are caveats

The US military must also:
cover the entire globe
support allies

operate across oceans

maintain many simultaneous commitments

Russia and China can often concentrate forces closer to home territory.

So regional balances can look very different from global balances.

United States has a huge geographical disadvantage. They are surrounded by oceans and the only countries they could attack directly would be Mexico or Canada. To project their air power overseas is extremely difficult. They could do so with a weak country like Venezuela but in Iran they are on the losing side. Russia, on the other hand, has all the benefits of being in the center of a large landmass

Your argument touches on a real and important geopolitical debate. Many strategists — including some in the United States — agree that geography simultaneously gives America extraordinary security and complicates overseas intervention. (Defense Priorities)

But there are several major counterpoints.

The oceans are both shield and highway

For most continental powers in history, neighboring great powers were constant existential threats.

The United States has:

weak neighbors
vast resources
two enormous ocean barriers

That is actually one of the greatest strategic advantages in world history. (Defense Priorities)

Russia historically suffered repeated invasions:

Mongols
Napoleon
Germany in WWI
Germany in WWII

China historically faced:

steppe invasions
Japanese invasion
border conflicts with many powers

The US homeland, by contrast, is extraordinarily difficult to invade.

Sea power became the foundation of global power

Beginning especially with the Age of Sail and later industrialization, oceans stopped being merely barriers and became logistical highways.

That is the core of Anglo-American geopolitical thinking:

control sea lanes

dominate trade
project naval power globally
The United States became the greatest naval-air power in history precisely because oceans allowed:

protected industrial growth

secure trade
mobile global deployment
The US is uniquely optimized for overseas projection

No state in history has possessed a comparable network of:

aircraft carriers

overseas bases

tanker fleets
logistics ships
satellite systems
long-range bombers
The US maintains major military infrastructure across:
Europe

the Middle East

East Asia
the Pacific (Council on Foreign Relations)
This is what compensates for distance.
But your point about difficulty is still valid

Modern anti-access systems are making overseas intervention harder.

Examples:

Chinese anti-ship missiles

Iranian missile/drone networks

Russian long-range air defenses

This is called the “anti-access / area denial” problem (A2/AD). (CSBA)
It means:
approaching an enemy homeland is becoming increasingly dangerous even for the United States.

This is one reason many analysts think:

invading Iran would be extremely costly

war over Taiwan would be extraordinarily dangerous

carrier groups are more vulnerable than before

Iran is not comparable to Venezuela
You are correct there.
Iran has:

mountains

huge missile arsenals

drones

regional proxy networks

large population
difficult terrain
strategic depth
Any war with Iran would be much harder than operations against weaker isolated states.
But “harder” does not necessarily mean the US would be “on the losing side.” That depends on:
war aims
escalation level

coalition support

naval control

cyber/economic warfare
whether nuclear thresholds remain untouched
A full occupation of Iran would likely be extraordinarily difficult. Limited air/naval campaigns are another matter.
Russia’s continental position is indeed powerful
Russia has major geographic advantages:
strategic depth

vast resources

interior land lines

proximity to Eurasian theaters

Arctic access

Classical geopoliticians like:
Halford Mackinder
argued that control of the Eurasian “Heartland” could dominate world politics.
📷
📷

📷

📷

But continental powers also face disadvantages:

many borders

encirclement fears

neighboring rivals

costly land defense requirements

Russia’s history is full of security paranoia for geographic reasons.

The core modern tension
Today’s strategic competition is partly:
maritime network power (US model)
vs
continental strategic depth (Russia/China models)

The US excels at:

global reach

alliances

naval dominance

long-range strike
financial/economic power
Russia excels more at:

strategic depth

missile warfare
land warfare endurance
nuclear deterrence
China increasingly combines:
continental scale

industrial mass

growing naval capability
That combination is why many analysts see China as the most structurally formidable long-term competitor to the United States.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal Yeah cool, let's keep it at that. Typing letters here has become extraordinarliy slow. Let's meet in another thread one day. Seeya

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal Sure — was an interesting discussion. See you next time, and hopefully with a less laggy text box. Take care.

@princess_Lep @HabsburgTheresa @denouncedroyal @threadreaderapp unroll