You can’t include why you are a worthless piece of shit with demonic baseless views that justify the outcome in the same sentence that you express vague mild concern about the means to that outcome. Doing so, makes the vague concern less credible.
Because both the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the USA does not allow for speaking more clearly than this. This is about as good as it gets. Not a pretty sight on form, on substance she basically is treating them pretty similar. Am more livid on Von der Leyen preventing to call out Israel on its ongoing genocide than on this one.
Then how is this post disinformation? Because of what you said, the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the US, Kalla refused to condemn the invasion or call it illegitimate. The title is completely accurate. What disinformation?
The fact that there’s context behind this fact doesn’t make it wrong.
It is wrong in the sense that merely bringing up the need to adhere to international law and non-violence is, in that context, the same thing as saying this is illegitimate.
It’s literally not the same, she chose her words carefully to specifically not call it illegitimate (because of the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the US) and calling it “disinformation” to point this out is some serious double-think.
In between all the tankie Sputnik and RT posts here? Yes, because it suggests that she effectively legitimised it while she went out of her way not to do so is misrepresenting it.
She did. She calls Maduro illegitimate and then doesn’t call the invasion illegitimate, giving the invasion legitimacy by contrast. There’s context behind why she’s doing that, which we discussed, but that doesn’t change the fact that she’s helping manufacture consent for regime change by her mealymouthed omission.
Where?
“Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint.”
Which is diplomat-speak for “can you please knock it off?”
Weird how she didn’t do diplomat speak for Maduro and directly called for him to be replaced.
A position the EU has taken since… last year? See https://www.politico.eu/article/european-union-not-recognize-venezuela-election-result-nicolas-maduro/
So, you could hardly expect her to diverge from that earlier position.
US colonies also supported Guaido.
They had no problem recognizing unelected, self-declared Juan Guaido as the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
There’s a clear difference in how she speaks about Maduro’s legitimacy and the invasion’s legitimacy. Why the double standard?
You can’t include why you are a worthless piece of shit with demonic baseless views that justify the outcome in the same sentence that you express vague mild concern about the means to that outcome. Doing so, makes the vague concern less credible.
Because both the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the USA does not allow for speaking more clearly than this. This is about as good as it gets. Not a pretty sight on form, on substance she basically is treating them pretty similar. Am more livid on Von der Leyen preventing to call out Israel on its ongoing genocide than on this one.
Then how is this post disinformation? Because of what you said, the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the US, Kalla refused to condemn the invasion or call it illegitimate. The title is completely accurate. What disinformation?
The fact that there’s context behind this fact doesn’t make it wrong.
It is wrong in the sense that merely bringing up the need to adhere to international law and non-violence is, in that context, the same thing as saying this is illegitimate.
It’s literally not the same, she chose her words carefully to specifically not call it illegitimate (because of the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the US) and calling it “disinformation” to point this out is some serious double-think.
In between all the tankie Sputnik and RT posts here? Yes, because it suggests that she effectively legitimised it while she went out of her way not to do so is misrepresenting it.
She did. She calls Maduro illegitimate and then doesn’t call the invasion illegitimate, giving the invasion legitimacy by contrast. There’s context behind why she’s doing that, which we discussed, but that doesn’t change the fact that she’s helping manufacture consent for regime change by her mealymouthed omission.
No it isn’t. “Restraint” means, “you can keep doing that, but chill the fuck out a little bit”