A new term used to describe the US - недоговороспособны (not-agreement-capable)
Originally posted by http://thesaker.is/why-the-recent-developments-in-syria-show-that-the-obama-administration-is-in-a-state-of-confused-agony/
Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front. The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the “moderate terrorists” which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces. Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead. The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.
The nature of being "not-agreement-capable" certainly does shed light a serious symptom we see in mainstream media's trend to placed aside any requirement of fact, especially in this election cycle. Could it be that any agreement the media may have had to factually inform their audience has been forgotten? That in their realm impressionism and sensationalism has become such an important part of the media cycle that the facts cannot be permitted to interfere with the narrative?
Anyone have comments or thoughts to share on this?
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:
Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (30th September 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), Dreamtimer (30th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), Fred Steeves (1st October 2016), Herbert (30th September 2016), JRS (1st October 2016), modwiz (1st October 2016), Novusod (30th September 2016), sandy (1st October 2016)