• whvholst@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 days ago

    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.

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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.

      • whvholst@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 days ago

        To me it fundamentally reads like “Maduro is illegitimate” equals -5 and what the US is doing is violating international norms (yes, we still are pretending those exist) and that equals -3, and they are both negatives. But now we are arguing perception, which may be less than useful.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          To me it reads like “we somewhat disagree with the US’s methods but we strongly agree with the US’s objectives” and isn’t that just the most typical European thing? Never strongly condemning anything, because really, they got what they wanted even if it’s distasteful.