Can you make an any more circular argument, that still means nothing? It says a lot that you miss the entire point of the article.
What does “invading another country” have to do with move/countermove international diplomacy?
I’ll hold my breath waiting for a LOGICAL answer. (Not so much...)
No one is impressed by this "counter move." It sends a weaker message than the original NeoSoviet® invasion of the Crimea did in the first place.