According to - you know…
I mean, what could go wrong..
Laut Kallas haben wir z.B. “the largest used reserve currency in the world”.
“We have never spent enough on military spending, and what we have spent has not been spent inefficiently!”
“We must produce six times as much in our key capability gaps, like precision guided missiles.” (Capability gaps means, we dont have the intelligence infrastructure, the military communication channels, the sattellite infrastructure, … But at the end of the road - six times the missiles - whilest still facing a capability gap.)
Europes security contacts with countries like Japan are not just like - you know technical agreements, but “an example of the EUs fundamental commitment to alliances” (in the south china sea?).
“Countries in the world are looking to diversify their trade relationship” implied, so they look towards the EU. Issue - no more growth economies anywhere in in the majority of western economies. So why would India, Mexico, South Asia and Africa look at the EU as a benefit? Right because of higer transport costs and more strict regulation regimes. The EU can be the best second source for so many - ehm high quality goods they source!
Next sentence: “We are also building our strategical autonomy through alliances on key raw materials too!” Strategic autonomy through building alliances. To get access to key raw materials. Love it!
Next sentence: “And Europe always comes with a positive offer, we do not want to deplete the resources!”
No - we just need 10x World production on all key materials for electrification to make our green economy dreams come true, but aside from that.. we always leave a bit extra!
“Yes its getting harder to come to an agreement on Ukrainian war financing” - “But since the war, we have always moved closer together!”.
“Yes in Gaza, we are not united, but this is an obvious test of our european values!” (So we dont have to be. Because its a test.)
“Europe has been the most active actor in the world on the Gaza issue”. (Sure.….……)
“On the aid and the political leaverage fronts.” (Suuuure.….….…..)
“Therefore, I Kallas have opened diplomatic channels with israel, so we can talk.” (Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrreee.…. [Never have any existed before.])
“Europe couldnt change Israels trajectory in Gaza, because Europe doesnt have unity” (SSSSUUUUUURRREE.…)
“In foreign policy (in general) we need to develop both tools. Carrots and sticks. Simply put, if a country considers supporting war in Europe, we deprive them of funding.”. [No negative feedbackloops anywhere, Trade, Energy, key rare earth minerals, …]
“If you act together with us in the global sphere, we have initiatives they can benefit from.” (Not one mentioned by name. Is it G20? G6+ surely, …)
“Dear friends. A new global order is in the making, but how we respond to this is entirely up to us. We have what it takes - that has never been in doubt - if we are united. Now we must grow out geopolitical power and work on how we can be united, or change rules so we can adopt decisions. Otherwise we are just not taken seriously.”
Seriously?
Now on to the interview:
First question in the interview on Ukraine. How do we tackle this issue?
Kallas: “Well, coalitions of the willing are not so bad, look - the Eurozone was a coalition of the willing, Schengen was a coalition of the willing, so others can join too…”
Which measures:
“All of the above and we need to be very creative.”
“Wars end, because one side runs out of money, so we have to also look at crypto.”
“No we havent put any sum onto this” (asked how much of the 2 trillion allocated defense spending should be spent in Europe.)
“But looking at the amount of money that comes to the market, ther is opportunity to use it for both, because the cake is actually bigger! So it is also - I would take down the fears that some of our partners have, that this is protectionism, and you are excluding us.”
Ok, China issue - how do we tackle it?
“China produces 50% of the worlds Chemicals come from China. 90% of Solar panels. Critical raw materials. If you look at the numbers, in order to address that we need to work together with--
United States, India, UK, Canada, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico -- if you add the numbers, together we are strong enough to address the chinese worry.”
(Lachanfall rausgeschnitten.)
“I have even asked Americans, if you are worried about that, you need all of us too, and we are also worried about that.”
“This is the battle of narratives for the global south and all of the rest of the world really. I was in Asean meeting, and one thing that was interesting, that russia was adresssing china, that you and us, russia an china, we fought the second world war - we won against the Nazis - and I was like “OK THAT IS SOMETHING NEW” but then I was like, yes - first you can, if you know history, it raises a lot of questionmarks in your head - but I can tell you - nowadays I can tell you people no longer read, and remember history that much. And you can see that they buy these narratives!”
Gut - den Rest lassen wir einfach von einer AI ausfüllen - ich hab keine Lust mehr..
Key Criticisms of Kaja Kallas’s Keynote Speech at the EUISS 2025 Annual Conference
1. Historical Ignorance or Misrepresentation of World War II Allies
Criticism: Kallas was accused of downplaying or omitting the Soviet Union (Russia) and China’s roles as key Allied victors in WWII, framing them instead as opportunistic or secondary players. This was seen as a deliberate distortion to fit an anti-Russia/China narrative, undermining her credibility on historical matters central to European security discussions.
Substantiation: In the speech and related interviews, Kallas reportedly admitted unawareness of Russia and China’s “winning side” contributions, leading to claims of “remarkable historical ignorance” or “deliberate dishonesty.” Critics argued this erodes trust in EU leadership, especially when invoking WWII-era lessons for current threats. Such framing risks alienating partners and echoing biased Western narratives without nuance.2. Stereotypical and Caricatured Portrayals of Russia and China
Criticism: Kallas described Russians as “super good in social sciences but bad at technology” and Chinese as “very good at technology but not that good in social sciences.” This was criticized as reductive, Trump-like stereotyping that lacks analytical depth, borders on racism, and weakens the speech’s geopolitical arguments.
Substantiation: Commentators called it a “bizarre caricature” and “blanket generalization” with “no merits whatsoever,” noting it turned a serious discussion on disinformation into an “incoherent stream of consciousness” full of half-sentences and vague dismissals. This approach was seen as self-sabotaging for EU diplomacy, prioritizing rhetoric over evidence-based analysis.3. Incoherence and Lack of Substantive Depth
Criticism: The speech was faulted for vagueness, contradictions (e.g., framing threats in broad terms without clear solutions), and failing to deliver actionable points. Critics questioned how it passed as “respectable” given its “slop” quality, especially in a high-stakes forum.
Substantiation: Reviews highlighted “many contradictions” in the 2025 security section, with no clear arguments or counterarguments. This made it hard to extract “five coherent bullet points,” blaming not public attention spans but the content itself for being unengaging and superficial.4. Perceived Incompetence and Unsuitability for the Role
Criticism: Broader attacks labeled Kallas “overwhelmed and unsuitable,” a “light-weight” chosen for compliance rather than expertise, and emblematic of “DEI-driven appointments” that prioritize diversity over merit. Her handling of Ukraine fatigue (contrasting her 2023 optimism with 2025 admissions) was cited as evidence of flip-flopping.
Substantiation: Reactions included calls for resignation, noting her disregard for history (e.g., “balkanization” remarks) makes her a “terrible strategist for defense.” This ties into ongoing critiques of her aggressive anti-Russia stance challenging EU unity.
src: click
Moment, der Rauscher vom Standard hat dazu auch eine Meinung:
src: click
Kritik ist aber immer dann nicht angebracht, wenn die Fora tatsächlich bedeutend werden. Dann heißts immer “Schulter an Schulter stehen” und Position gleichschalten, bei den kleineren Themen wie Wirtschaft und Soziales fallen wir dann eh wieder auseinander…
Komisch, dass das bei dem vorhandenen Personal nicht besser wird…
