This post title is completely misleading. Kallas explicitly says that international law and the UN Charter must be respected - nothing about endorsing any invasion. She is saying the opposite.
From the UN Charter (Article 2(4)):
All Members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Then why doesn’t she condemn the act as she should and instead try to justify it saying that Maduro is “illegitimate” as if that was relevant? Thats literally US propaganda.
This is classic plausible deniability and you must be playing dumb to not notice.
You’re using “plausible deniability” incorrectly. The EU didn’t carry out the action and isn’t denying it. It is restating a long-standing position on Maduro (going back to at least 2016), and that is not a covert justification for a military invasion.
Plausible deniability is not just about carrying out action. It is a clear example because she is not condemning the action neither justifying it but its throwing breadcrumbs for both positions.
“Plausible deniability” is being misused here. The EU didn’t carry out the action and isn’t denying responsibility. What you’re describing is what you see as a diplomatic or strategic ambiguity - i.e. dissatisfaction with the strength or clarity of condemnation.
According to Kaja Kallas twit, “Mr. Maduro lacks legitimacy and [the EU] has defended a peaceful transition”. In my book, this means support to the USA invasion/special operation.
The EU has repeatedly stated that Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. A “peaceful transition” is not a military operation. In EU language it means elections, negotiations, and constitutional processes. Illegitimacy does not equal a green light for foreign force.
This post title is completely misleading. Kallas explicitly says that international law and the UN Charter must be respected - nothing about endorsing any invasion. She is saying the opposite.
From the UN Charter (Article 2(4)):
All Members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Then why doesn’t she condemn the act as she should and instead try to justify it saying that Maduro is “illegitimate” as if that was relevant? Thats literally US propaganda.
This is classic plausible deniability and you must be playing dumb to not notice.
You’re using “plausible deniability” incorrectly. The EU didn’t carry out the action and isn’t denying it. It is restating a long-standing position on Maduro (going back to at least 2016), and that is not a covert justification for a military invasion.
Plausible deniability is not just about carrying out action. It is a clear example because she is not condemning the action neither justifying it but its throwing breadcrumbs for both positions.
“Plausible deniability” is being misused here. The EU didn’t carry out the action and isn’t denying responsibility. What you’re describing is what you see as a diplomatic or strategic ambiguity - i.e. dissatisfaction with the strength or clarity of condemnation.
According to Kaja Kallas twit, “Mr. Maduro lacks legitimacy and [the EU] has defended a peaceful transition”. In my book, this means support to the USA invasion/special operation.
Edit: typo
Classic plausible deniability.
How is bombing military facilities and kidnapping the president a peaceful transition?
I would love to read the answer of Kaja Kallas to that question.
The EU has repeatedly stated that Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. A “peaceful transition” is not a military operation. In EU language it means elections, negotiations, and constitutional processes. Illegitimacy does not equal a green light for foreign force.
How about 19 packets of sanctions against USA?