In other words:
Upholding a rules based international order is actually beneficial, also to the West. By undermining the ICC to parade around the genocidal scumbag Netanyahu, countries like the US, Hungary and Germany are hurting themselves as it grants people like Putin more movement and recognition in the world.
Meanwhile “the global south” has a vested interest in strengthening the ICC and ICJ as these institutions can help bring some balance against the imperial actors who have been suppressing them far too long.
If someone brings up Mongolia because of Putin having visited there, Mongolia is a landlocked country with 3.5 million people, sandwiched between Russia and China. They have very little diplomatic maneuverability.
Looks like Trump isn’t the only Chicken.
Well, it’s not news, Russia and many Russians like to act badass, while they are quite the opposite of being badass and brave.
What is the valiant thing to do in this instance?
Invade Brazil, install puppet regime, attend summit.
Who does he think he is? An American?
Owning your actions and taking the consequences with grace
When has a world leader ever done this?
That wasn’t the question I was answering, but I’m sure very few if any
It might be worth asking why a national leader simply handing oneself over to a militant opposition isn’t something that happens more frequently. Is there no such thing as a valiant national leader? Or would martyring yourself for the sake of a foreign coalition’s legal code be kinda pointless and dumb?
Sure, but it’s the valiant choice.
A truly valiant leader probably wouldn’t find themselves in the situation where it was necessary to do that
it’s the valiant choice.
In the same way that shoving your dick into a wood chipper is, sure.
Was Alexi Navalny valiant? Was Prigovian? Was Milosivec? Was Saddam Hussein?
A truly valiant leader probably wouldn’t find themselves in the situation where it was necessary to do that
“No truly valiant person has ever had a warrant out for their arrest” is…
Come on dude.
