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.
The EU has repeatedly stated that Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition. A “peaceful transition” is not a military operation. In EU language it means elections, negotiations, and constitutional processes. Illegitimacy does not equal a green light for foreign force.
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.
I agree, competition for YouTube is hard to see as anything but positive. And I’m also struck by how one-dimensional many of the comments are.
Spotify has effectively been turned into a stand-in for the structural failures of streaming, while other Big Tech platforms escape serious scrutiny. That kind of selective critique is revealing.
At a cultural level, it’s fascinating: drop a few well-worn trigger terms into the conversation and bots barely need to do anything - humans complete the loop themselves. I suspect this period will be looked back on as an object lesson in narrative engineering.
“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.