Reminds me of this related take: https://ibb.co/zVFw2C2

that's the essential (mobster) insurance business, though if done by predefined criminals it's called a protection racket, if done by legal obligation is ccalled 'liability compliance'

the world is run by a mafia all the way to the top.

your statement has way too many relative references, you speak of the latter, and the former, and the alliances between the opposition of the former against the alleged plans of the latter in a scenario where one invades a soon to be allied 3rd party

my point being is that in trying to sound serious and formal you've imposed on your reader an extra layer of unacking your point which you also had to needlessly pack so you'd sound like I already said (see: I did it again, put in a reference instead of repeating cuz it makes me sound more serious and 'deep')

This is why natural language should add support for defining named variables.

Can we get that in the next edition of the standard?

Unless I'm completely missing an extra layer of satire here (which would be topical), I think that they were doing it deliberately.