Mark, you have not proved or adequately demonstrated that your proposition: 'a country is a country, not a brand'.

What you have done is brought to light the complexity of branding a country as well as demonstrated your limited view of a what constitutes a brand. It does not help your case to use low level intimidation tactics by saying the attempt is stupid or by posing in disgust. This in itself is near on shameful.

There isn't anything in existence that can be shared meaningfully and that cannot be usefully held as a brand. Any discrete identity is effectively a brand. A country is no different, it is just more complex than what we normally hold to be a brand.

All you have achieved here is to highlight the enormity of the task, and that, perhaps, we do not yet possess a branding methodology that is up to the task of presenting a country as a compelling brand. Countries brand themselves continuously. All the marks that define a county may be in continuous development and on this basis difficult to capture but it is not impossible to identify the major marks and celebrate those as you would celebrate the marks of other types of brands.

No 'thing' is ever what it at first appears and so not even a country is not just a country. As language is inherently metaphoric you are mixing your metaphors as well as your media. And, also, probably marking out the limitations of a simplified and plain English approach to brand identity.

A rethink may be necessary but by what you've written in this article a rethink is not likely to be yours.