[dragonwriter]

> It is theater and it's more about sending messages to everyone else.

"More about", I think, ignores the degree to which sending the message publicly to everyone else can be a very important part of sending the message to the obvious direct target.

> A state can vocalize it's disapproval directly in a more direct and meaningful way using back channels and political ways

Yeah, but "we are not allowing you to publicly save face by restricting our protest to private back channels" is itself an important way of communicating the severity of the message to the direct target.

[zeroq]

Yes, but as a state, if you're not happy you can impose tarrifs, play a dirty game by revoking visas to athletes or Putin's favourite actress, or use any other indirect way to show your disapproval. And use back channels to make sure they know exactly why this is happening. Plenty of ways.

This is Kabuki theatre, it is to show everyone else that you're dissatisfied.

[jltsiren]

Etiquette, norms, and formal communications are fundamentally about precision. You send only the message you intended, while minimizing the risk of unintended consequences.

If your actions have real-world consequences, they are guaranteed to send other messages beyond the one you intended. Tariffs, visa revocations, assassinations, wars, and whatever impact other people beyond their direct targets, and those people may change their behavior in unpredictable ways.

[umanwizard]

> Etiquette, norms, and formal communications are fundamentally about precision.

Not at all, in fact often exactly the opposite is true. The French president could have posted “fuck you for writing that letter, our recognition of Palestine has nothing to do with antisemitism” on his Twitter account. That would be a lot more precise than this diplomatic act.

[jltsiren]

That would have sent a bunch of unintended messages. By not using formal diplomatic channels, he would have made the statement look less serious. People might have asked if it represents the opinion of the president as an individual rather as a representative of the state. And the unexpected vulgar tone might have changed people's opinions on him, perhaps making them less interested in dealing with him in the future.