I don't think characterizing any geopolitical act as "brave" or "cowardly" can possibly provide any insight into the act, its causes or repercussions. Geopolitics is probably best understood in terms of probabilities and game theory. "Proud", "brave", "cowardly" and "shameful" have no real use in these analyses.
Imagine a world where chemists and physicists only called reactions "nice" or "mean". I'm sure that there are people who believe that countries should only sell "nice" chemicals. Is chlorine gas nice? How about iron, cobalt, aluminum, ammonia, oxygen, mercury, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen or sulfur? Well, it sort of depends on where and how its used relative to you and in what configuration, right? Each of these can be good or bad relative to humans but such characterization provides no understanding of the chemicals' reactions or those parties who manufacture them.
On the playground, those people who tell you so-and-so calls you a "coward" behind your back invariably presented bigger risks than those accused. If we wrongly choose the "brave" response, we now have at least two enemies - the one who framed the falsely accused and the one we have wronged with our "brave" but misguided beating. |
