From defence_and_freedom@gmx.de:
Imagine an unfolding crisis, and your government has confidence in its expectations for what’s going to happen next. Couldn’t a couple aggressive*, unexpected actions ruin the opposing sides’ plans, crush their timetable, make their political calculations obsolete, destroy their confidence in their ability to predict your government’s reactions and to predict the costs of the crisis?
Couldn’t such a disruption make a quite acceptable diplomatic settlement more likely? — I’m all for peace and free love and stuff**, but I distrust the notion that escalation is always a bad thing. An escalation to ruin some aggressor’s day may be the right thing to do. To have and obey a defensive and reactionary game plan makes one predictable. The very existence of a crisis should be understood as a hint that someone used this predictability to predict the outcome of a produced crisis – and arrived at the conclusion that it’s a good idea.
A.k.a. failure of deterrence.
* “aggressive”, NOT “aggression against a peaceful country
** Similarly, I don’t think “war as last resort” makes much sense.
Read more at Defence and Freedom: Aggressive defence.
Not sure I get his/her point unless he’s simply arguing for common sense. (It could be a translation thing as I notice the reference is a German email address) I assume he’s talking about a terrorist threat? But he could also be talking about the Ebola virus entering America, or a flock of rabies-carrying fruit bats into Broome; or perhaps violence-condoning religious studies into University curricula. Either way, crushing any threat hard and fast is the only effective way to protect one’s self. Is he/she simply saying don’t be a tolerant weak-ass in the face of threat? If so, it’s not exactly revolutionary wisdom.
I think he refers to Eastern Ukraine. Predictable responses are likely to invite further escalation.