Granted, this is speculation. Zapatero may be enough of a fool to be paid off with only a plane ticket to Venezuela, a hotel room, and flattery. (He was in Venezuela for the elections. There is some video of him getting booed.) Though his support of Maduro predated the election, as he supported the phony negotiations between Maduro and the oppo, so he was bought off before his recent plane ticket to Venezuela.

For the last 6 years, Zapatero has had no state interests whatsoever to consider. Does former President ring a bell? Thus his flattery of Maduro has nothing whatsoever to do with advancing any interests of Spain. As such, your riff on Kim and Trump is less than useless, though you are correct that politicians may flatter those whom they despise.

I don’t know anything about Spanish politics.
And you knew less about Venezuelan politics.

I literally discussed the possibility that Zapatero is just an asshole who syympathizes with thuggish dictator.
Such as Gerhard Schré¶der, who won some medal from Assad Jr., and who also denounced Dubya’s Iraq policy. Which also supports my point about Euro disagreements with US policy.
Out of office, Schré¶der also made a lot of money working for Gazprom’s pipeline. Like Zapatero? 🙂

Your point about Euros previously supporting Obama’s Iran policy is well taken. Perhaps they should have realized that a policy decision that lacked sufficient support to be ratified in a treaty was a policy decision that was not likely to be sustained.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/european-arrogance-on-display.php

European foreign policies mostly align with US policies. The Iran deal was US policy until this year. It’s not a surprise they might disagree with a change to a policy that the US convinced them to follow and that was actually doing what it was supposed to do. European pilots are still flying with US pilots over Syria and Iraq. European soldiers are fighting alongside US soldiers in Afganistan as you read this. I think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

The topic is not Tweets of Trump,but inept Euro foreign policy proposals that clash with US foreign policy. Your “How much is Trump getting” reply is comical. Why would Zapatero defend the criminal, dictatorial Maduro regime is apparently something you do not want to consider, if you respond with a wisecrack about Trump’s tweets.

For another example of Euro disagreement with US foreign policy, consider the Euro response to Trump’s pulling out of the Iran deal.

While there was Euro agreement with US foreign policy during the Cold War, the Cold War was over nearly 3 decades ago.

Ciao.
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-iran-deal-salvation-donald-trump-united-states-tears-up-pact/

It’s fine to ascribe moral values to foreign policy decisions but it’s silly to measure them by double standards. If Zapatero is morally corrupt because of his tweets, then is Trump? How much is Trump getting for those tweets?

Now, if Trump gets denuclearization because he buttered up Pyonyang, then he’s getting quite a bit. But so is maybe Zapatero. (I don’t know anything about Spanish politics. Maybe he’s just an ass.) My point is, leaders make all sorts of moral compromises in foreign policy because states are looking out for their parochial interests. States also make mistakes (appeasement, neutrality) and sometimes correct those mistakes (kicking Nazi ass).

There’s a name for this cognitive bias: the fundamental attribution error. Every person assumes that they behave as they do because of circumstance but other people behave as they do because of fundamental attributes. That guy cut me off in traffic because he is fundamentally an asshole, but I cut that guy off because I really needed to change lanes to make my exit and there were no breaks in traffic. Trump praises Kim to get concessions from him but Zapatero praises Maduro because he’s an evil socialist. Bush didn’t act on the bin Laden intelligence because it was vague and not actionable but Chamberlain appeased Hitler because all Europeans are effete cowards. See the pattern?

Zapatero en el CNE: No tengo duda de que los venezolanos van a votar libremente.
“I have no doubt that the Venezuelans are going to freely vote.”

Yup, they will freely vote in rigged elections. ‘

Rodré­guez Zapatero: Los venezolanos tienen derecho a un paé­s viable, a un horizonte econé³mico distinto, a no tener sanciones que perjudiquen a la economé­a…
“Venezuelans have the right to a viable country, a diifferent economic horizon, and to not have sanctions that harm the economy.”

The US Treasury just added Diosdado Cabello (Godgiven Hair- really) to its sanctions list. The sanctions list freezes bank accounts in the US and forbids entry to the US. As the sanctions target bigwig Chavistas, it is not accurate to claim they harm the Venezuelan economy. No accident that Zapatero piped up today about “sanctions,” parroting the Chavista narrative.

The only question for Zapatero is, how much is he getting paid for those statements?

https://twitter.com/Unionradionet/status/997597707555561472
https://twitter.com/VTVcanal8/status/997536086648901633

Appeasement was a bad but reasonable choice. WWI wiped out a generation of men and the Powers got nothing in return. Avoiding a repeat was a perfectly reasonable policy choice. You have perfect information of Hitler’s intent in hindsight and like to imagine everyone else did then too, but that’s not how the world works. So if trading the Sudetenland–which had already been arbitrarily assigned to Czechoslovakia–arbitrarily to Germany could avoid another war that would kill millions for no gain, then making that trade was a bad (in hindsight) but reasonable choice. Oh, but Mein Kampf! Yes, anyone reading it could have seen Hitler’s plan…or maybe it was a bluff…or maybe it was pablum for domestic fanatics’ consumption. You can say “gamble the lives of millions on a bet that it’s genuine” because you have perfect information and you bear no costs for saying that. It’s not like George Bush read “bin Laden determined to strike in America” and invaded Afghanistan the next day. He thought “this is a manageable problem.” He was wrong, but he was reasonably wrong. Policy makers with finite resources and the lives of others in the balance should be a little risk averse. You can afford not to be because you aren’t making policy, you’re critics.

Apparently you failed to read what I wrote about Herta Daubler-Gmelin.

You asked for it , you got it.European Union’s Effort To Shame America Over Jerusalem Embassy Move Falls Flat.Three countries blocked a resolution that would have left the U.S. isolated and alone.

I believe this was what prompted Neo’s posting.
* * *
Thanks – I was looking for some link in her post — finally just decided it was a reaction to the whole zeitgeist of Islamic immigration & cover-ups of criminal behavior, capitulation to Iran & opposition to reinstating sanctions, and generally incessant persecution of Israel.

Granted, this was not strictly on topic. However, those Euros who criticize US foreign policy generally criticize other aspects of the US. “Cowboy” US versus “nuanced” Euros, for example- which sounds a lot like John Kerry. “Compassionate” Europe versus “heartless” US. So on and so forth. Which also points out that a lot of Ami progs use Europe as a club against their domestic political opponents. “See how much better they do it in Europe.”

To which my reply generally is, “Balderdash.”

Which would also be the reply of my brother-in-law, who emigrated from Germany when he was 12 years old.

See this as well as this and this.

And of course, WWII is not irrelevant. It is a black stain upon Europe, not just in terms of appeasement, but in terms of collaboration of various governments of occupied countries and many of the citizens in those countries.

France’s wanting sanctions lifted against Saddam.