“If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance replied. Hegseth agreed that “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” But, he added, “we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”

Miller, the Trump confidant, effectively ended the conversation by saying that the president had been clear. “Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return.”

Edit: The texts are released to public

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PlexInphinity@feddit.org 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

How is it possible to "accidentally" add a reporter from the Atlantic magazine to a Signal group chat? You can't tell me this wasn't deliberate. Imho it was deliberately leaked by someone in the administration who wants to drive a wedge between the transatlantic partnership. Beneficiaries: Russia, China. Just like Vance's hissy fit with Zelensky and his speech on Munich security conferences were all deliberately staged stunts. Vance is probably getting paid by Russia to do this.

Btw. 60% of maritime EU-China trade goes over the Suez canal, so China is also a huge beneficiary of keeping the canal open, yet China contributed absolutely nothing to keep it open, so why didn't Vance and Hegseth call China a "freeloader"?

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 25 points 6 days ago

How is it possible to "accidentally" add a reporter from the Atlantic magazine to a Signal group chat? You can't tell me this wasn't deliberate.

It's doable if you're grossly and utterly incompetent while also being convinced that you're the smartest bunch of people on earth (so mistakes are impossible).

[–] Melchior@feddit.org 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Btw. 60% of maritime EU-China trade goes over the Suez canal, so China is also a huge beneficiary of keeping the canal open, yet China contributed absolutely nothing to keep it open, so why didn’t Vance and Hegseth call China a “freeloader”?

China has a deal with the Houthis so they do not attack Chinese ships.

[–] NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

China has a deal with the Houthis so they do not attack Chinese ships.

Source?

[–] Melchior@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2024/03/21/houthis-reportedly-strike-deal-with-russia-china-for-safe-passage/

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah they seem to attack just about anything that can't fight back.

[–] nuko147@lemm.ee 7 points 6 days ago

Btw. 60% of maritime EU-China trade goes over the Suez canal, so China is also a huge beneficiary of keeping the canal open, yet China contributed absolutely nothing to keep it open, so why didn’t Vance and Hegseth call China a “freeloader”?

Because you can not charge an enemy as freeloader, accusing him of doing nothing to save his trade. If he is doing nothing and he is an enemy, why are you helping him then? The big picture is sending a message to Iran, they do not give a fuck about the trade, its only an excuse to send us the bill.