271
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
271 points (92.2% liked)
Europe
6709 readers
69 users here now
Europe
Rules:
- All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
- Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
- No personal attacks
- Posts in English, translations allowed
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
There's a clear difference in how she speaks about Maduro's legitimacy and the invasion's legitimacy. Why the double standard?
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.
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.
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.
Heh, as a European, that is pretty spot on.