Világos, de a színjátékhoz nem kellett volna ténylegesen elindítani a folyamatot...
Nem színjáték: zsarolás. A kérdés az volt, hogy ki rántja félre a kormányt először. Azt gondolták "áh, úgysem meri" és ennek szellemében tárgyaltak. Aztán rájöttek, hogy jobb ha fizetnek.
[..]
Reporter: "Donald Trump has said he will no longer defend defaulting allies."R. G: No-no-no that is not true.
Reporter: Ok.
R. G: Let me be clear on that. That is not true Paul.
Reporter: Ok, but..
R. G: The question was, that somebody came to him and said: "If the allies said to you No! We are not going to pay our 2% then what would you do?! Would you still defend them? Now, I know you dont have children, but if you would have had a child and the child said to you: I know the rule. I'm not going to obey it. You would let them slide? The question was what do you do if an ally looks at you and says I will not abide by the 2014 Wales Pledge (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Wales_summit#Wales_Pledge ). There is only one answer that you could give if someone stands up and says I as a country will not abide by the 2014 Wales Pledge: I'm not going to pay my 2%.
Reporter: Scholz's reaction was and I quote: "Any relativization of the mutual assistance guarantee is dangerous".
R. G: Again, the most dangerous thing is undermining NATO and not paying your fair share. If you are trying to pretend like you are a full participant in NATO and you are not paying your obligations than I think that is very dangerous to be a member of a club and not pay your dues.
[..][..]
R. G: My point in telling you this story[Erdogan fenyegetése és másnapra eredmény] is that there is a difference between a threat of action; whether its sanctions or military action, tarrifs. The difference between a threat and a credible threat is totally known by the parties.
[..]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2lOC6CLh3I&t=539s
Ha nem hallottad érdemes a fél órát rászánni az egészre.