Not relevant to the point - "I gave my item to my former friend Paul". For some reason or for some other, it happens.
And miscalculations in game theory happen ("he wouldn't, given...").
And miscalculations in game theory happen ("he wouldn't, given...").
Let us stick to a fitting analysis for the point of the limited trust entities can give each other, and let us stick to actual events for what the crimes committed are concerned (for the respect due).
For historical reasons, this is kind of amusing.
Said comment was understating the crimes, but also misrepresenting them in context.
Those crimes are exceptional in ferality, not exceptional as abstracted within the difficulties of trust building. (Which is also gained diplomatically, and diplomacy has clearly failed - bilaterally).
And: it is relevant. You gave away the relevancy yourself. It is called game theory. Games have rules. Break rules see what happens. Or instead be prepared.
Seems like someone broke rules but wasn't thinking through consequences or didn't care about them
It would be realistic if administrations went through a path in decision making guided by the awareness of their own weakness in decision making abilities.