Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "German mask scandal: ‘Unforgiveable violations of ethical standards’ | Conflict Zone" video.

  1. When a pipeline contract makes it less expensive to complete it and never use it than to stop construction and pull out of the deal, that's a bad contract and the German people should be asking why a contract like that was ever agreed to on their behalf in the first place. That's where the real pointy questions are. When he started talking about shifting the conversation to deliveries because of the costs associated with the termination clause, I would have loved to have heard a question like "Why did Germany enter into a contract in the first place that essentially removed termination of the project as an option, and in essence that really means the Kremlin is using this deal to influence German policy and the relationships with Germany's allies, doesn't it." I would have loved to have watched him stumble through that one. PS. No one wants your shale gas USA, stop asking.
    8
  2. When it comes to media interviews with politicians, political advisors and enterprise we usually get a sanitised, media training version of answers where we don't actually get answers to the question being asked. Traditionally a media interviewer will just let them waffle on with whatever they're saying and if they don't answer the questions, oh well. The premise of conflictzone is that they won't hold back in the interview style, that they will press for the questions to be answered. He interrupts whenever they're deflecting from the question or waffling on about talking points that don't actually answer it. The intent is to try and get an actual answer. For example, at one point the minister was asked about human rights in China and he started waffling on about strong economies, communism and the USA. That's why he kept getting interrupted, he wasn't answering the question being asked and never actually did answer it. According to the minister, economics and politics/human rights have to be decoupled when it comes to Russia and nordstrom 2, but it's essential that they aren't in terms of China which it also somehow doesn't want to single out but just so you don't think about that too much "what about this things Anthony Blinken said in passing 30 years ago that holds absolutely no relevance but you're not thinking about our switcharoo anymore are you... "
    4
  3.  @Mephy0712  Nothing was being explained when he was waffling, that's the point. He was just deflecting, he didn't want to explain because the actual answers aren't pleasant. The actual questions did not have complex answers. Here's the answers to his questions Nordstrom 2 costs less to Germany to complete and never use, than it does to pause, halt to terminate. If they pause, halt or terminate it German taxpayers owe billions to Russia and to construction partners. The existence of such a contract creates an environment where Russia is able to influence German domestic and foreign policy. On the basis of that he would like to stop talking about halting Nordstrom 2 and talk about whether they'll ever use it or not instead, and not talk about the influence Russia has on German politics. When asked about energy security for Europe if Russia cuts off supply. He said that by relying more on Russia for supply and connecting all of europe to that supply through a couple of pipelines from Russia, then the energy supply is somehow going to be more secure. When asked about using Nordstrom to influence Russia on human rights he said it is important to decouple trade and human rights because trade can't influence human rights anyway. When asked about China he said it's important to couple trade and human rights because obviously those things go together and it will clearly help influence things. In other words what he's saying is, yes, Germany will absolutely put trade/business deals above human rights and will say whatever it has to in order to justify that. What he's also saying is that the USA has been run around complaining about this country or that country as a sales tactic for their own products. The USA would like Nordstrom 2 to halt not because of genuine concern over human rights, but because they have millions of tonnes of natural gas from fracking they want to unload somewhere. The USA aren't talking about China human rights out of genuine concern but because they want those trade contracts signed with US companies instead. There you go, that was essentially the entire interview, most of it was the minister trying to deflect from those things.
    3
  4. It's very interesting watching Germany talk about relationships with allies and how they shouldn't be coercive or poisonous, while at the same time the European Commission has opened up wholesale THEFT of Australia's vaccine shipments. Shipments that will delay vaccine rollout causing further economic damage and potentially causing loss of life for a long term ally. The hypocrisy is a little over the top and hard to take seriously.
    3
  5.  @Mephy0712  A straight, truthful answer would satisfy the interviewer and the audience. No lying. No deflecting. No manipulation. For example, if the question is, "isn't it true that trade/business means more to your government than human rights" a simple "yes that is true" would satisfy the interviewer and the audience. It would also mean he wouldn't be re-elected but that's the point. If you don't like the format, you don't have to watch it
    1
  6.  @Mephy0712  That's the entire point of the show, to not be respectful. That's why there's conflict. Look we all know our politicians are lying to us and shows like conflict zone are about yelling at those politicians and "owning" them. The premise is to trap them in their own web of lies, to expose them, to force them to be truthful especially when the truth would mean no one would vote for them. Most of the time they'll just blah away and get interrupted, but the audience will feel good that they're being talked to like that. People enjoy seeing politicians humiliated, it makes them feel like the politicians are being held accountable. That's the format. If you like the format, great. If you don't like the format, why keep watching and complaining about it? Lots of people love the format, it's why shows like this exist on every news network on the planet. No one is trying to convince you of anything, you pretended to not understand and it was explained to you. If after hearing the explanation you don't like it, that's cool every show isn't for everyone. If you don't like a show, be normal and go find a different show you like instead
    1
  7.  @josearmandogomezrocabado537  They don't want a legitimate explanation. They're just trolling
    1
  8.  @lores996  AstraZeneca aren't illegally doing anything. They're a business, who made order commitments to multiple countries at the same time. The order the EU placed was impossibly large for the timescale they want it delivered in. So the EU STOLE vaccine from Australia. Vaccine we paid for. Here's an analogue that might help you understand what happened. Imagine you walk into McDonald's and order 300 chicken nuggets. They're able to deliver them but it's going to take time to get their cooked nugget production up to scale for your unusually large order. They ask you to wait. While you're waiting they deliver a 10 piece nuggets to another customer who ordered at the same time as you because they had those nuggets cooked and it was easy to fulfill. Your response to that is to walk over to that customer and take the nuggets from their tray, claiming it's not your fault you took the nuggets it's McDonald's fault because they haven't fulfilled your 300 nugget order. The EU stole a vaccine shipment during a pandemic, and is talking about stealing another one. And it stole that shipment from a long time ally. That is going to have long term and far reaching effects not just on the relationship the EU has with Australia but with all of its partners and allies. It's lost serious credibility because of this debarkle. The EU needs to realise how unreasonably large their order was and either be patient on delivery or seek to reduce the amount of vaccine they need from one supplier by placing supplementary orders with others. Something they've started to do with the J&J order.
    1
  9.  @marco21274  Ask them about what? They didn't steal vaccines, that's the EU. The EU is also supposed to be our allies. Whole world working together and the EU decides to steal vaccines. Pretty low. EU won't live this down for many years to come.
    1