287
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
287 points (92.6% liked)
Europe
6447 readers
101 users here now
Europe
Rules:
- All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
- Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
- No personal attacks
- Posts in English, translations allowed
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This post title is completely misleading. Kallas explicitly says that international law and the UN Charter must be respected - nothing about endorsing any invasion. She is saying the opposite.
From the UN Charter (Article 2(4)):
All Members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
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.
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.
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.
“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.