Vance’s attack on European democracy in Munich, perversely twisting the language of democracy itself should leave no doubt whatsoever that the aim of this administration is to destroy the EU and its liberal democracies," said Nathalie Tocci, director of Istituto Affari Internazionali think tank.
Responding to Vance’s speech, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told the conference: “If I understood him correctly he is comparing parts of Europe with authoritarian regimes. This is not acceptable.”
I already said it somewhere else:
I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.
Don’t feed the troll, don’t support the bully.
The problem here is that they’re in power now, representing and governing a country.
You can’t not invite them to the security conference when the US is, and more significantly was, a part of and player in international security.
I agree, they are recognised agents, so they should be invited, and I would turn on the microphone for them and wait patiently until they finished their speech within their rightful time, we play according to the rules, but then I would continue as if those minutes never existed, as a journalist I would provide the report of the real value of those irrelevant words and as a consumer I would treat their speech as useless as a child’s play as an adult blabbering, not too much to do with it, why isolate their catchy fallacies and amplify them? They do not contribute constructively to a coherent debate but exploit the system weaknesses. I believe that it starts in our individual choices.
So you really think that staying silent about bullies helps? Sorry, it doesn’t. It never has.
Nope, no stay silent about them at all, actions must be taken indeed, but stay silent to them: if you answer or react to his words you accept the dialogue, legitimating the value of a speech full of fallacies, from someone that does not speak for a prolific constructive exchange of ideas that may result in advancing the understanding of a situation regardless of the thesis but from someone that only say those words to echo those slogan-like fallacies for the long run strategy.
The more care we put in avoid working for their propaganda the better. I believe that media and personalities reactions would better be accompanied by the statement that is a speech so full of fallacies that is worthless consider the arguments exposed nor the apparent conclusions, therefore no dialogue effort has been carried out but an attempt of manipulation based on lies, what more can be the opinion but the inappropriateness of such behaviour?