

What is more effective in international relations - tough rhetoric or substantive action backed by strong alliances and consequences?
According to Congressman Jason Crow, meaningful action and consequences are far more effective than tough rhetoric in international relations. Drawing from his military experience as an Army Ranger with three combat tours, Crow argues that "machismo and chest pounding" typically comes from those who haven't served and won't face the real consequences of their words. He advocates for a "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach, emphasizing the importance of strong partnerships, alliances, military capability, and economic power. Using Vladimir Putin as an example, Crow explains that adversaries don't care about tough talk in interviews - they only respond to actual consequences and results. The key is building substantive capabilities and unified international responses that can impose real costs on bad actors, forcing them to engage in serious negotiations rather than relying on empty bravado.

People also ask
TRANSCRIPT
Load full transcript
0

From
Jason Crow on Tough Talk vs. Action
MSNBC·7 months ago
Answered in this video
Discover the right B-roll for your videos
