whvholst

Even better would be for them to go and find coverage in non-Springer outlets and post it instead in case a Politico link is posted. Now it is just all noise and no signal.

9/11 was an attack on the USA, which still is a NATO member. You could argue the attack was not by Afghanistan, but then Afghanistan was harboring the group that did.

The UN-supervised demilitarized zone on Cyprus is between Cyprus, which is not a NATO member, and North Cyprus, which is neither a NATO member, nor recognized by any NATO member except Turkey.

So you made three factual claims that are all three false. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether they carry the conclusion in any way.

Come again? I am saying "isn't earmarked for the federal government" and you come up with a fact check saying that it is not earmarked for military use. Which is the same thing.

Also, you are comparing the share of the military in the federal government's energy usage. The government's energy usage is largely electricity, not oil-based, while for the military it is the inverse. Also, the military consumes oil outside of the US economy: the oil consumption of an US Air Force base in say Spain is part of the Spanish economy, not of the US economy. Or at least, the overseas bases consumption will not be pulled from the US strategic oil reserves.

So it is all orthogonal to the US strategic oil reserves what the US military's share in energy consumption of the US Federal Government is.

Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn't earmarked for the federal government and the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy.

A position the EU has taken since.... last year? See https://www.politico.eu/article/european-union-not-recognize-venezuela-election-result-nicolas-maduro/

So, you could hardly expect her to diverge from that earlier position.

Heh, as a European, that is pretty spot on.

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.

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.

Weaseling is what diplomats get paid for. So, le meh.

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.