Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Worrying look at what a cross-section of Biden/ex-Obama officials think is feasible in Afghan talks and future US-Afg policy.
A lot of outdated false assumptions, rehashed policy prescriptions...which doesn't bode well.
(but great quotes, as ever, from @KateClark66)https://twitter.com/SteveCollNY/status/1352023410176622594 …
I'm just not sure the options are continued support for talks and the Afghan gvt vs. "a second Taliban revolution" -- another outdated binary.
(and the @NewYorker should probably refrain from referring to the internationally recognized Afghan gvt as "the Kabul government")
Why not "the Kabul government"? Because it implies there's a parallel government too? It's house style in many outlets to use a capital as synonym for the country's government.
Oh really? Okay, I just avoid it because it is the language the Taliban uses and it tends to be inflammatory, interpreted as pro-TB and shading the gvt I've never noticed that its house style. I wouldn't naturally refer to the London or Washington government...
A government is evaluated by their people and not by foreigners. The administration of Kabul is still under the American order.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
