Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Why is NATO not responding to Russian provocations?" video.

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
@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
@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