Search for contributionsshowhide
⧼contribs-top⧽
⧼contribs-date⧽

18 April 2022

10 December 2021

  • 16:07 16:07, 10 December 2021 diff hist +590 Carla SandsUndid revision 1059615284 by Marquardtika ( talk) yes, it was controversial and not especially diplomatic. Better question is why you're intent on deleting it now, if it's not possible to obscure what was controversial about it. If you want to argue it's been normal for a long time for US ambassadors to NATO allies to harshly criticize those govt.'s military commitments, then do provide evidence to demonstrate it. Tag: Undo
  • 14:44 14:44, 10 December 2021 diff hist +42 Carla SandsUndid revision 1059550701 by Marquardtika ( talk) the article doesn't just ask one rhetorical question, it criticizes Denmark, implies US distrust of Denmark's NATO commitment, and argues that recent increases in spending are illusory and disingenuously portrayed by Denmark. Your summary is grossly inadequate to describe the confrontational tone of what Sands said. ("Denmark is underinvesting") Tag: Undo

8 October 2021