look, the headline makes it sound like the SG of NATO made ceding land conditional to join NATO, which simply didn’t happen. What seems like did happen is that he merely suggested it as a possibility during a panel discussion, and not even to Ukrainians.
One is an outrageous diplomatic blunder of international proportions, the other is a somewhat insensitive gaffe and nothing more. It’s huge difference, and it’s important not only to note that but how shitty it is of Newsweek to make it sound like the first happened when, in reality, it was the second. as I pointed out, the first 3 sentences is backtracking from the total lie of a headline.
Stoltenberg is a pretty decent politician and not a good target for someone trying to slam dunk NATO. I believe him being less controversial than the alliance itself was actually one of his qualifications for the job.
yeah, I’m going to wait for some official clarification before I make any judgement. I’ve been to plenty of discussion panels where people are throwing around ideas while trying to solve a problem that they might not make as serious proposals in another context.
I’ve attended UN conferences before (when I was in university) and have overheard diplomats bullshitting about things that, if misunderstood or mistaken for anything other than bullshitting by some overeager and under-experienced (or, perhaps, bad-faith) reporter could have caused serious problems.
I certainly expect the SG of NATO to act more responsibly that to make such a conditional proposal and to do so seriously at this conference, and to such an audience. And at such a time.
Either way, not a good look for him. Yikes
either way?
look, the headline makes it sound like the SG of NATO made ceding land conditional to join NATO, which simply didn’t happen. What seems like did happen is that he merely suggested it as a possibility during a panel discussion, and not even to Ukrainians.
One is an outrageous diplomatic blunder of international proportions, the other is a somewhat insensitive gaffe and nothing more. It’s huge difference, and it’s important not only to note that but how shitty it is of Newsweek to make it sound like the first happened when, in reality, it was the second. as I pointed out, the first 3 sentences is backtracking from the total lie of a headline.
Stoltenberg is a pretty decent politician and not a good target for someone trying to slam dunk NATO. I believe him being less controversial than the alliance itself was actually one of his qualifications for the job.
yeah, I’m going to wait for some official clarification before I make any judgement. I’ve been to plenty of discussion panels where people are throwing around ideas while trying to solve a problem that they might not make as serious proposals in another context.
I’ve attended UN conferences before (when I was in university) and have overheard diplomats bullshitting about things that, if misunderstood or mistaken for anything other than bullshitting by some overeager and under-experienced (or, perhaps, bad-faith) reporter could have caused serious problems.
I certainly expect the SG of NATO to act more responsibly that to make such a conditional proposal and to do so seriously at this conference, and to such an audience. And at such a time.
It’s well known they need to resolve their territorial conflicts before membership is on the table