Whither jus post bellum
So much for a reasonable, rational, and just conclusion to this latest conflict.
Way to win the war but completely lose the peace.
Enough harping goes on in OWF about alliances who choose to maintain their sovereign neutrality, but really? Are these latest published "terms" any way to convince them to engage on one or another side of the treaty web, such as it is?
Punishing an alliance for employing a wholly legitimate wartime engagement and asset conservation strategy? Are all rules of what is considered fair and unfair strategy situationally defined by the victors?
I can only foresee the rise of a New Isolationism - born of massive mistrust arising from this latest set of railcar terms.
13 Comments
Recommended Comments