
I think the answer to 1 is that he doesn’t, so it’s just a good excuse to avoid getting pushed into a situation related to 2. In other words, the POV is likely, “there isn’t any point in bilateral talks, but let’s say we’ll do it if he shuts up about that thing that he can’t stop talking about” - it’s just a way to pin the blame for a lack of talks down South.
Clarification required. What bets are being hedged here, regarding “there isn’t any point in bilateral talks, but let’s say we’ll do it if he shuts up about that thing that he can’t stop talking about” ? I don’t see a bet and I don’t see a hedge.
Yup, covered in “there isn’t any point in bilateral talks” above.
Not seeing that any such “red lines” have been put in. The closest is the demand that you-know-who stop talking about you-know-what, but … a red line is “don’t do yak yak, if you do that you cross a red line and we will respond by blah blah” and in this case orange voldemort has already done yak yak and there’s no blah blah response given.
You’ve got a point here. But the moment that 51st state started to get mentioned, the face was lost. So in this specific category, is there really anything left to lose?
Agreed! I’d argue we’re already starting to do that (e.g. Doug Ford’s electric surcharge threat).