“If we are talking about peacekeepers, then we are walking into the Russian trap because they don’t want peace,” the EU’s top diplomat told Euractiv in an exclusive interview.
“If we are talking about peacekeepers, then we are walking into the Russian trap because they don’t want peace,” the EU’s top diplomat told Euractiv in an exclusive interview.
Ugh, not a good sign that she dodges all the questions about an actual own plan forward (and why the EU doesn’t seem to have made a plan at all for this situation that many people warned about a long time ago already).
This is what actual crisis of democracy looks like. The elites coasted for years and the only agenda that they forwarded is their entrenchment in politics, media and boardrooms. Now that they are expected to lead they are scared shitless that we’ll realise they were bluffing all this time.
Must find who and what is "the coalition of the willing " first. I reckon. that’s what some leaders are talking about in France probably. Also Orban & Friends will veto any official proposal . So leaders are crrearing a parallel platform, so other willing countries can join. Weimar plus or something similar.
There seems to be a plan to buy weapons for Ukraine on a massive scale. As in about 700billion€ massive. However they do not want to announce it before the German election on Sunday, as Scholz seems to not like the idea of him doing something.
Bz is yellow press btw, not the best source
What are ‘all the questions about an actual own plan’ she dodges?
Did you read the interview? It is like half of the questions she avoids answering.
Yes, I did read the interview. This is why I am wondering about your comment.
Hmm 🤔 Looking at the interview again now, they seem to have further edited and shortend it making it less obvious how much question dodging she seems to have done.
There is still no real substance in it, but at least it reads less painful than the version from yesterday.
The posted version was published yesterday, 18 Feb at 17:08, and there is no edited version now as I write this comment. It’s the same version.
The Internet archive seems to have not captured the old version either, but I am not making it up, and the article does say the the interview was edited for “clarity”.
Remarks like the one on the site like “What follows is an edited transcript” are done by journalists to signal that the interviewee hasn’t said so literally, because the spoken word is different from the written one. They edit minor things from the transcript. That doesn’t mean that the article has been edited.
And as we can see from the data on the original site, the article has indeed been not edited.
Yes I am aware of that of course, but I find it very insulting that you accuse me of lying about this. Why would I even do that?
I don’t say you make something up, but they don’t say to have edited for “clarity,” I can’t see this at least (just correct me if I am wrong). They are really referring to the transcript as already said.
@[email protected]
Fine, it doesn’t use the word “clarity” here:
🙄