Oh dear, there goes that perfectly fine suburb of Rotterdam. It was nice knowing you.

Wanting to change the world includes having to come up with alternatives. Just complaining does little. If I (purely hypothetical) were to add a moderation rule it would be that if one is on principle opposed to a certain media outlet, regardless of the quality of its coverage, then every complaint about it should be accompanied by coverage from a more acceptable outlet providing similar coverage.

Because I could not find any initially. I replaced the Politico link with the TNW one before even noticing the tedious preaching about Politico. Not a fan of Springer myself. Just not to the point I will be an annoying twat spamming every thread about it.

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.

You can take it up with the moderators of this Lemmy to make it a rule. Or even better, to get other media to pay as much attention to EU politics as Politico.eu does. Because that is simply the reason people post links to Politico: it does a job that most other media do not. And for the most part it does it relatively well. You are otherwise welcome to shut up. I for one will not stop posting Politico links on matters that I cannot find other media articles on. And will keep reporting your spam about it as spam since that is what it is. It adds nothing to the conversation of the matter at hand.

Also, if you want to enjoy a leftist echo chamber, you could head to europe@lemmy.ml

Can you take your repetitive crying about Politico’s ownership elsewhere?

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.

Given that the US military is part of the US federal government, yes, that is a difference without a distinction. If it is for general use, per your own source, and not earmarked for the US federal government, then it is by extension not earmarked for the US military either.

You could do worse than to actually watch the whole video and not dragging your dislike of having a military into a conversation that is not about that to begin with. Or as others have put it in a more pejorative way, stop it with the leftist bean soup.

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.

Nope, Russia actually prosecuted Russians for calling their “Special Military Operation” a war.

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.

Because both the EU’s internal dynamics and its current dependency on the USA does not allow for speaking more clearly than this. This is about as good as it gets. Not a pretty sight on form, on substance she basically is treating them pretty similar. Am more livid on Von der Leyen preventing to call out Israel on its ongoing genocide than on this one.

If we are going for the Carl Schmitt approach, then yes, China’s constitution has been amended legitimately. As for Ukraine, it is difficult to see how that country should not been under martial law since it has been in a hot war since early 2022. Also, how do you organise free and open elections in the territories that are being occupied by the imperialist aggressor Russia?

“Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint.”

Which is diplomat-speak for “can you please knock it off?”