When rhetoric becomes risk

Why words matter before force

(For paid subscribers)

One of the most common reassurances offered in moments of geopolitical tension is that nothing has actually happened yet. Statements are dismissed as posturing. Threats are framed as negotiating tactics. The absence of immediate force is treated as proof that restraint still holds.

This reassurance is comforting. It is also misleading.

International systems rarely fail at the moment force is used. They fail earlier, when language shifts, expectations change, and thresholds quietly move. By the time action becomes visible, the underlying restraint has already eroded.

Words matter in geopolitics not because they always predict behaviour, but because they train behaviour.

When leaders speak as though coercion is normal, entitlement is assumed, or legal limits are optional, they alter how institutions, allies, adversaries, and markets plan. Military planners revise contingencies. Diplomats adjust their expectations. Smaller states recalibrate what protection really means. None of this requires an invasion to occur.

This is why the recent sequence of events matters even if some threats are never carried out.