this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

6613 readers
12 users here now

Europe

Rules:

  1. All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
  2. Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
  3. No personal attacks
  4. Posts in English, translations allowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] puntinoblue@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago

“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.