Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

Isn’t NATO’s approach (the western response) a bit risky? Isn’t there a risk that we could, “normalise,” repeated violations? That they continue to escalate until we get used to Russian misbehaviour, even, “tolerant,” of these repeated violations of international law? People are still dying, so western citizens are expected to pay a big price for the west’s apparent indifference. Yes, I get the principle: “The art of never losing a game is, DON’T PLAY.” But, at what point do we say, “Enough!”? By then, will we have provided Russia with ample defence in law, because they can argue that we never raised any complaints to their previous violations and provide evidence for that? How far does one go with this strategy before a disaster occurs for which western leaders will be rightly seen as equally culpable?
188
@DreadX10 : A) I never used the word, “response.” B) It was a question, not an, “argument.” C) I don’t think, “straw man,” means what you think it means.
6
His insights are informative and valuable, but not always 100% right. Though his analysis of the facts are honest, factual and truthful, sometimes his conclusions are not spot on. For instance, “Fear is the new normal,” in his video’s title. I responded to that by asking, “Hold on? What’s, ‘new,’ about it?” Putin has always murdered his opponents, for more than 20 years now. He’s ramping up his consolidation of power moves right now, but it’s literally the typical way he has always done things. Things began to look a bit, “new,” when the unusual levels of criticism were being levelled at him from senior figures inside his own country. But, Putin is literally restoring the Russia that was before his insanely misjudged war in Ukraine, probably in order to be in a, “safe,” position to pull his forces out of part or all of Ukraine without being deposed for, “weakness.” Admiral Nielsen, I have noticed, has a tendency to see Russia through his NATO tinted lenses. That’s fine, as those lenses do have 20/20 sight and all, but they favour long term narratives, both forward thinking, and past analysis, which can be flawed when it comes to judging the facts in the moment. And this is the sort of result I’m speaking of, where Putin’s purging of opponents is being judged as some kind of new phenomena, because NATO has always given Putin the benefit of the doubt, historically, and cannot bring themselves to admit that their policy of Appeasement is what lead to the Ukraine war in the first place. NATO and the UN made the same historical mistake over Crimea that the allies did with Hitler over The Sudetenland and other territories, hoping to buy peace at the cost of other people’s freedom.
6
@garyevans5335 : I’ve seen that film. The time line is truncated for the sake of story, and one or two events didn’t happen in quite the way depicted, but, the more outrageous the scenes get, the more accurate the history is. Even outrageous like, “You can kiss my fat Russian ass,” are direct quotes. It is quite brilliant and touches on the modern Russian psyche quite brilliantly. A mindset that remains very much the same to this day. To understand the alien nature of Russian culture and behaviour, watch that film, I say. There is no distortion of history and it is more truthful than most such films. And the various accents of the actors only adds to the fact that Russia was a vast Empire, with its, “regions,” (actually different countries, swallowed whole) being so different from each other, that they only had Communism and Stalinism in common. So that aspect illustrates the fact rather than detracting from anything. Sorry. You set me off there. F’ckn’ LOVE that movie. 👍
6
@richbattaglia5350 : How?
4
@DreadX10 : You are too emotional to think clearly. You have not even addressed the question. A bunch of specious nonsense is still a bunch of specious nonsense, even if it takes you a while to say, “blah.”
4
@madsjuul-endodontics : I guess there’s an upper limit as to how much you can play down, but it makes me wonder exactly who makes that call?
4
@Mrwutevah : In what way has asking this question even misrepresented, “the events in question,” let alone, “twisted,” them? Why is everyone so emotional here?
3
Actually, this story is more simply understood: It’s The Economist responding to a pro Putin journalist at Time Magazine. When we, “ask ourselves, what is he hoping to get from this interview,” it seems obvious to me that he is responding to a major Time Magazine op ed, with a front page printing the word, “Alone,” next to a picture of Zelensky. It is almost a hit piece, seeming to want to undermine the idea of a Ukrainian victory. That’s the same direction that Russia bots and propagandists have taken in social media, telling us this will be a frozen conflict and we should call for peace, which merely means buying time for Russia to regroup. I’m surprised you missed this, Anders? It’s obvious, when you know the context. Though he doesn’t give the, “journalist,” at Time Magazine the oxygen of mentioning him directly, he does dismantle his points systematically, so it’s indisputable that he is aware of the piece and felt the need to respond to it. It’s the same question it’s always been, in the end: Will the west stop giving Ukraine what it needs to defend itself and start giving them what they need to win, or not? If they had the equipment, they would have won by now. It really is that simple.
3
@BobWill1846 : That’s right. “Life is not a video game,” which is why Russia LOSING Crimea is not the, “world shattering,” threat to the world’s stability that Putin so desperately wants you to think it is. There can be no negotiations for peace until the last Russian jackboot has been removed from Crimea. And if that needs to be over Putin’s dead body, so be it. But he’s the only individual on the planet who’s staked his life on keeping it. And the rest of Russia won’t want to sacrifice anything more, once they’ve already lost so much by then. Demagogues can’t buy loyalty, as Putin will find out. When you call for, “peace,” you really mean, “surrender.” Not happening.
2
@Mrwutevah : I qualified the term, “indifferent,” with the prefix, “apparent.” To a civilian victim of one of those missiles, no response seems to be forthcoming and that must feel very much like indifference to them. Explain to me how that even can be exaggerated from their perspective?
1
@adamsmith-bg5wq : I understood the explanation. I question its wisdom. I doubt we would all be quite so sanguine about these, “infractions,” let’s call them, if it was our country being bombed and invaded? And a Russian drone flying over a NATO country is an international incident by definition. It’s why we sign treaties in the first place. The sort of thing wars are fought over.
1
@ADobbin1 : I get that. And I support the strategy to a degree. I have seen it work before. I guess my real question is, if we are collectively choosing this option, “who,” is making this decision so swiftly? And, “what,” is the upper limit of our toleration? Will Russia keep probing to find out. I think it important to balance this explanation, given in Anders’s video, with such questions, which naturally arise in the minds of viewers, since this purportedly, “cautious,” response may wind up having been incautious on reflection. It is as big a gamble as direct action. We are not privy to the decision making process, which is necessarily undemocratic and secretive, being ultimately, “military,” in nature. And that always leaves me uneasy, even when it is the best thing.
1
@adamsmith-bg5wq : My last comment, to ADobbin1, is for you too. I am getting a lot of negative pushback from apparently angry people, assuming, “wrongly,” that I am against this strategy. I merely feel it bears further interrogation.
1
@PandemoniumMeltDown : How do you know?
1
@PandemoniumMeltDown : I don’t think you could, or you just would.
1
@bloodgout : Can you name those leaders? Do you know how fast these decisions have to be made? Do you know the process? How international agreement is settled upon for unforeseen (or unexpected) crises? Of course you don’t. You may not, “like,” my question, but it is a fair and reasonable one to ask. Perhaps you actually do know how the entire process works? Maybe you work for NATO, for all I know? If you did, you would know that many of those decisions are made in secret, by people whose names never show up in the paperwork. Does my ignorance make me a, “bad person”? Or are you just being a bit of a d**k, who feels the need to patronise others for no good reason, because of your own personality issues?
1
@bloodgout : I made no reference to Latvia, Romania or any specific instance. I was discussing the, “strategy,” as outlined in this video. Stop assuming you know what I do or do not know, son. That is foolish.
1
@bloodgout : That is wrong. The heads of state are not always on hand when decisions have to be made for a specific instance. There has to be an overall strategy, which is what I was asking about, but the decision makers have to act fast and often have no time for consultation. What if heads of state disagree? That’s not an issue that can be ironed out while a missile is flying over three countries. Think.
1
My guess, for some time now, has been that Russia will end up as a cross between Belarus and North Korea. It will collapse into a much smaller country, dependant as a vassal state, upon China, who will keep them poor and struggling, but strong enough to remain a thorn in the west’s flesh. At least, that seems to be what Xi has decided? Note: Chinese electronic maps (their version of Google Maps and so on) have changed the names of regions in the southern areas of the Russian, “Federation,” back to their old Mandarin designations. If that is not a statement of intent, from a nation that is just as desperate as Russia for an injection of, “population,” to curb their demographic crisis, then what is?
1
I think we should all see this for what it really is? A restoration of the, “old,” Russia. There is absolutely NOTHING, “new,” about Putin murdering his opponents, or his doing it in a cowardly, spiteful and vengeful manner. He’s been doing that for the past 20 + years! Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he broadcast a final message to the plane’s intercom; a spite filled equivalent of, “This is what you get for crossing me, and I just wanted to be sure you knew I killed you and think about that as you plunge to earth for a whole minute.” The only, “new,” thing about recent events in Russia has been the fact that ANY senior figures have been openly criticising Putin, or indirectly doing so, at all. What we’re seeing is a literal restoration of the old Russia, or an attempt to go back to business as usual, at any rate. Putin needs the option of pulling out of Ukraine, either partially or totally, available to him. And if people accuse him of weakness for that, it could cause a revolution. So, he’s purging people. But purging is what Putin, Stalin and so many other Russian dick-taters have done best over the country’s entire history. This is the old Russia coming back.
1
The Russian population has earned collective chastisement. That began last year, when these people collectively celebrated Putin’s publicly announced the attempts to remove a civilian population’s access to water and power. They celebrated the reducing of entire cities to rubble. Men, women and children, murdered. They cheered. They would have to do a lot to clean that stain off their record.
1
I just don’t agree with the idea of murdering opponents as the, “new,” normal in Russia. Putin has ALWAYS murdered his opponents, throughout his entire reign. And I say, “reign,” quite advisedly, as he rules as the Tzars did, but with the techniques of Stalin. Nothing has changed in that regard inside Russia, has it?
1
According to the reporting of Russian POW’s, they never get these, “bonuses,” that their government, “promises.” These reports are so common, I would like to know how much evidence there is for that. It’s certainly not hard to believe that Russia lies about cash promises and just doesn’t pay. But, if that is common practice, that must have an economic impact.
1
@evgeniya7853 : Smarter than a propagandist, for sure.
1