It’s not only a feint. You don’t want to go to war, and you hope that the treaty will prevent war from happening, but you are prepared to go to war if the treaty is violated. This is the standard way treaties work.
War is not the only potential response. I don’t know why this is being framed as normal when a normal treaty would have something like sanctions as a response.
Hmm, well, that creates a paradox, because saying it ’s only a feint makes it less credible.
It’s not only a feint. You don’t want to go to war, and you hope that the treaty will prevent war from happening, but you are prepared to go to war if the treaty is violated. This is the standard way treaties work.
There are many treaties and many times treaties are violated for various reasons. Waging a war because a treaty gets violated is not the standard way.
War is not the only potential response. I don’t know why this is being framed as normal when a normal treaty would have something like sanctions as a response.