I dont enjoy exponentially expanding quote-replies. I’m not gonna ndividually quote every line of your comments, that’s too much work frankly.

Well you have repeatedly mischaracterized what I’ve said so maybe get over it? You’ve gotta put in work on one side or the other: reading less of your own bias into my words or quoting me.

Otherwise there is really not a conversation happening here at all, is there?

I understood this as an absolutist point of view that overstated the wrongness of agreements.

It means agreements don’t provide security against those who break them constantly, including literally between the exact same parties. It is the material basis - like forced disarmament, the actual destruction of imperialist military assets, the control of the strait, and so on - that provide the security.

It means… the thing I said. Not your change of terminology and exaggeration.

I’m not engaging with the rest of your comment. No anger I just don’t have energy for this kind of back and forth.

Okay