What irrelevant deflection? You yourself used your marriage as a point to reinforce your post. Your point, as expected, fell flat because it doesn't make sense in international relations. There was no deflection, its simply countering your arguments.
So with that settled, lets move on:
Cooperation by definition means you depend on your partner or team for their abilities and contributions. This applies equally to marriages, businesses, society, and international relations.
No it doesn't. Again, relations between countries are different than businesses/society/marriages. The only one that could come a bit close is businesses but even there there are huge differences. Marriages are mostly based on love, society based on cultural outputs mostly, business is mostly about money.
Countries however, is about power. With power, then you can get everything else. Whereas people might get influenced by money/culture/love, countries' biggest concern is power/security. If power is not enough, they wouldn't bat an eye to turn over the table. That's your (one of the many) difference here, hopefully you won't use these flawed comparisons again with this short explanation.
Junior partnership means one partner makes the decisions while the other follows.
No. What you describe is vassalage. I pay attention to what words I am using, and as should you. What you describe is vassalage, what I say is junior (economic/diplomatic) partner. The junior partner won't accept blanket orders from the senior partner,
but the senior partner has various tools and ways though to influence the decision making of the junior partner
if the senior partner wishes to do so.
So far, you have repeatedly demonstrate a lack of careful reading. First with your NATO post in the beginning which I hadn't mentioned anywhere, then again with this where you describe vassalage, whereas I said junior partner.
In addition you demonstrated your lack of knowledge on International Relations. First with your irrelevant and very bad, I have no idea how this comparison came up to you, marriage-countries comparison in your initial post. And then, when pointed that your comparison was leaking water from everywhere, you countered with a simple "Irrelevant deflection", which also shows lack of accepting a mistake or admission that maybe you made a mistake somewhere. You then doubled down and compared marriages/businesses/society relations with countries which again, is a bad comparison.
That's 2 flaws far. Lack of carefully reading the other party's posts, and lack of knowledge of how international relations work. The second flaw is not bad or anything, my pushback however is generated with how confident you are that your points are correct, and when pushed to explain you throw these bad arguments. In general, being incorrect is ok, being
confidently incorrect is the issue
Given that after I made a follow-up post that specifically said where your arguments were lacking, and you responded basically with the same flawed arguments, I don't see any point of moving forward with this convo. No need to spam the thread when one party says he found holes in your arguments, you conveniently ignore it ("irrelevant deflection") or you keep up with the same flawed argument (marriages/society/business - countries relations)
