Your comment about William Spaniel's red lines video crossing a red line for you crosses a red line for me. I demand that you retract the comment immediately, or there will be SEVERE repercussions!
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues. If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed. THINK!!!!!
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues. If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed. THINK!!!!! Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
Anders Puck raised a great point about Russian red lines. They don't prevent things from happening, but they do significantly delay a thing as the west self regulates.
Because red lines only work against wak, subjugated, cowardly and corrupt leaders who seek to show their bellies, pee all over themselves and whine in terror.
I'm reminded of the Looney Tunes episode when Bugs Bunny draws lines in the sand continuously and dares Yosemite Sam to step over them. Sam steps over the lines stubbornly for a long distance until he falls off a cliff. "It's an international game of poker and everyone is cheating" -Beau of the Fifth Column 💙💛
I'm reminded of Bugs Bunny when he threatens to cut the tightrope if a giant gorilla crosses the gap between 2 cliffs. Then the gorilla pulls the rope, and suddenly both cliffaces have collided, and Bugs is face to face with the gorilla.
Even though i disagree with most of his ideas, He was completely spot on with that. I also remember him saying more of "Everyone just pretends to follow the rules"
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues. If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed. THINK!!!!!
Yeah to be honest I came to the comments to check for that as well. But I also thought about hawk tuah from the Times Radio video "Putin rattled as hawks gather in Moscow" So at least that one was on me.
We talk about Russian red lines, but the entire invasion was a major EU red line. It's only natural for that to have caused concequences. Honestly, they should have just gone all in at the start, before Russia could even bluster about red lines. We know what the lines are. We've had decades of experience with this cold war stuff, Russia/China has pulled some aggressive acts that have gone further than anything we've done during this war.
Ukraine does not belong to the European Union. It could be argued that a motivation for Russia invading is because of the likelihood of Ukraine joining a Western coalition was increasing.
Russia: Do NOT send weapons to Ukraine, or we shall Fallout you! *Sends weapons, nothing happens* Russia: Do NOT send jets and tanks to Ukraine, or we shall Fallout 2 you! *Sends jets, nothing happens* Russia: Do NOT let Ukraine invade Russia, or we shall Fallout 3 you! *Ukraine invades Kursk, nothing happens* Russia: Do NOT let Ukraine take over Moscow, or we shall Fallout 4 you! Ukraine: 🤔🤔🤔
When the Soviet Union collapse, Putin was part of the secret council that decide whether whatever left of the Soviet military should start a nuclear war with the US or not. He decided against it. So he is not that suicidal.
There is another problem with "Red Lines" that I feel needs to be addressed. Crossed "Red Lines" weaken "Hard" power. An empty threat will make each subsequent threat less likely to be respected. Can you also make a video explaining "Hard" and "Soft" power? I feel like a lot of people don't really understand the difference between the two. (Economic strength is "Hard" power, for example.)
There is a brand of hygiene products in Russia called "Красная Линия" (literally translated "Red Line"). I seriously suspect that the Russian government has some long-term sponsorship deal with them.
That matter is what Russia might and, more importantly, could do if a so-called red line is crossed, not so much what that red line is. Nuclear weapons use by Russia would be suicide and Putin knows that. Even any conventional attack on a NATO country is unlikely because that would bring NATO troops into the war. Russia would more likely attempt an attack in a clandestine way, such as through a proxy ally. That Russian ally would have to be willing to take the response. More likely, a Russian response would be through sponsorship of a terrorist attack. They already played that card on October 7, 2023, with Hamas in Israel. Could they do more. Yes. But such things would prompt the West to allow Ukraine more freedom to hit deeper or just supply more weapons. The recent permission to allow any targets in Russia was a result of Russia acquiring Fath ballistic missiles from Iran. If Russia uses them against Ukraine the U.S. will allow ATACMS strikes deep into Russia.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues. If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed. THINK!!!!! Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
I'd say the basic difference is that bluffing isn't exactly an option with line on map. You can factor bluffing in, but that's all. Checking bluff on your "red line" though isn't hard.
Then again, hitting that one red line that wasn't a bluff may entail consequences you definitely want to avoid; I mean a "NATO in Moscow" (or close to it) scenario would be something the current russian regime would try to dissuade at all cost?
@@DackelDelay You certainly don't want NATO in Moscow. Obviously. But sending 10x the hardware and training Ukrainian soldiers to the max and not limiting Ukraine in strike capabilities? Shouldn't be a problem. You see - Putin already did like 20 escalations since the start of the war. Currently over Poland Russian drones that are used to coordinate strikes against Ukraine fly almost every day. We don't do much about it, because we try to not escalate (avoid "NATO in Moscow" scenario). But there is almost 0 recourse for giving Ukraine more weapons that Russia could do. And they know it. That's why they fly those drones etc. If you want to know more, watch Anders Puck Nielsen latest video.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues. If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed. THINK!!!!! Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
I somewhat disagree with the "Should the United States keep pushing" section- or perhaps I feel it's incomplete. A stated 'Red Line' being breached, and learning it was bluster, I think, can give insight into whether the next stated Red Line is, likewise, bluster. A) It gives the breaching party knowledge on what the typical reaction is- and, thus, if the announcement of the next Red Line is met with atypical reaction, that might indicate this 'Red Line' is serious. For example, many of Russia's Red Lines have been screamed in public, given in vague terms, consequences listed in vague, overblown terms. That's a very different scenario to an official note passed by an ambassador giving specific actions, dates, times etc. B) Breaching a Red Line and discovering its bluster can also give insight into the actual priorities and objectives of the breached party. To use the Russia-Ukraine example- my suspicion is that Putin's highest priorities are the survival of himself and his regime and not, say, the absolute secession of Arms shipments to Ukraine. So, say, if you breach a Red Line about Arms Shipments to Ukraine, and it's discovered as bluster, that'd suggest that other Red Lines then erected in regards to Arms Shipments to Ukraine are, likewise, bluffs.
Isn’t Russia already collaborating with Iran and North Korea? The red line theory feels like it is missing foundations in the real world. Whether you’re a country or a person, if you set up a ‘red line’ and then it is broken without consequence, it’s generally the case that a precedent is set and it’s easier rather than harder to push past the next ‘red line’. I.e. this is more like the ‘boy who cried wolf’. Russia threatened the use of nuclear weapons early on in the conflict, but the example of China’s repeated stepping back from the non-existent red line seems to say more about this scenario than is explored here. That suggests leadership which recognises that the internal political consequences or economic cost of reacting to a stimulus would outweigh the political, tactical or economic cost of backing down.
I generally agree, but not with this part: "thus, if the announcement of the next Red Line is met with atypical reaction, that might indicate this 'Red Line' is serious.". In game theory, it's assumed that the adversaries are rational. If that's the case, the russians obviously expect that the West would think the way you suggest. Which in turn would let them credibly imply an actually enforced red line just by using a different style of communication (including silence). Which of course the West would expect. Etc. etc.
ALL these red lines are bluffs, period. Always have been. Anyone deluding themselves otherwise is just making excuses to get more Ukrainians killed. Full stop.
And that's it isn't it. The real line in the sand is not in Ukraine, its Putin not losing power, reputation and life. So long as the west does nothing to threaten that Putin will not risk triggering something that will guarantee that outcome. Boots on the ground is probably the real red line because it would be seen as a direct threat, everything else is probably fair game up to and including Ukraine retaking all its territory and then some. So long as Putin can sell it as a win and stays in power, he will accept the outcome if somewhat unhappily.
@@ngithens Yep and Russia isn't willing to do that over getting Ukraine. So there's basically no red line since Neither NATO nor Ukraine intends on taking over Russia.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues. If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE. Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed. THINK!!!!! Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
How does desperation come into the calculations in game theory? If a leader is facing a total loss, they can become irrational (for example, Germany fighting to the last man at the end of ww2)
The German leader also unalived himself and his wife. Desperation can also give in to despair and then surrender. History has shown that Russians have been great at defending and scorch earth tactics, not so much in attacking without relying on meat wave tactics.
but some countries know to surrender before getting entirely destroyed japan in ww2 after getting two suns dropped on them AND getting invaded in Sakhalin by the soviets knew continuing the war was not reasonable and chose to surrender. I do not claim to completely know japans situation in the summer of 45 but i believe that the japanese government pressured the emperor to surrender before their country faces complete annihilation
@felixbeth6340 funny thing, the emperor was actually willing to surrender earlier, but the military was too locked in to total war for that to be an option to them. They even tried to overthrow the emperor when it was clear he was going to announce surrender, but that failed.
Even if Putin is as desperate as Hitler to fight until the bitter end, Russia wouldn't keep fighting as long as the Germans did during WW2. A lot of Germans were fanatically supportive of Hitler and continued to fight because they believed in the cause. Not all, perhaps even not most, but enough to keep the war going until almost total annihilation. This is not the case with Putin's Russia. There's actually very few Russians that enthusiastically support the regime for ideological reasons and are willing to die for Putin. This was demonstrated during a) the Prigozhin's roadtrip to Moscow when he faced almost no resistance and actually got a lot of positive reactions from the civilian population, b) after the Kursk incursion where the Ukrainians met zero civilian resistance, mass surrender by conscripts and only had to actually fight when facing contract soldiers. Russians seem not to actually give a damn whether they are ruled by Putin, Prigozhin, Zelensky, Biden or the Martians.
@@Ludvigvanamadeuswhich is not surprising considering the long line of shitty governments russia had. With that history, any hope for change to the better must seem delusional.
I heavily disagree with the conclusion. It is oversimplification leading to a likely wrong solution. Because we know the qualities of the red lines that were already crossed. That allows us to infer probabilities, which qualities the actual red line has. The more red lines that are weapons deliveries, the less likely it is that weapons deliveries will ever be a red line. The fact that HIMARS, ATACMS and Storm Shadow were not actual red lines makes it far more likely that Taurus is a bluff as well. The fact that Armored vehicles in general, IFVs, Tanks, Patriot, IRIS-T, etc. were bluffed red lines made it exceedingly likely that F-16 was also a bluffed red line. But! One red line where the US immediatley silenced their allies, was shooting down missiles in Ukrainian airspace. I'd wager that is, because qualitatively that is very different. And in that part, jumping from one quality to the next, the method explained in the video applies again.
Ukraine's Kursk offensive has already proven that using Western weapons to hit formal Russian territory was also a bluff. Allowing them to use long range missiles to do more of the same is not qualitatively different enough to matter.
There is no point of doing math with unknown probabilities, it will tell you absolutely nothing when every line could be 0 or 100%. To get anything at all you NEED to make assumptions about what actually is a bluff and what isn't, and in the end, thats all that matters.
the reaction to crossing one red line can be very different to the response to another red line. As soon as the reaction is disproportionate, the reaction immediately loses all legitimacy.
Nothing about that conflicts with the video. The probability has to add up to 100% because it's a probability, and we know with certainty that a red line exists. When there is no response to an alleged red line, the probability has to be distributed among the remaining options. There are many ways that it *could* be distributed. The video doesn't say that it must be equal; that's just a simplification shown to illustrate the principle. The distribution could change based on any new information, not just that gained by "crossing" a red line. There's a distinction between the change in distribution caused by new information, and the change that is mathematically necessary from the removal of a red line. Where there could be more detail is in the nature of the response to a red line. It could be no escalation at all, or the nuclear option, or anything in between. If the expected escalation is acceptable, then it may be worth crossing a real red line. The escalation ladder is distributed over the possible red lines just as much as probabilities. But that gets into escalation management.
@@fwiffo the probabilities don't need to add up to 100% it would if you have several events and you know at least one of them must trigger red line (or the red line exist at all).
Fun fact: There is a wikipedia article on the Red Lines in the Russo-Ukraine War. It mentions 22 red lines that the ruzzians have declared, of which only 4-6 have not been crossed
Ukraine invades Bryansk 0.01% Sweden delivers Gripen 0.01% Openly sending troops and support staff to Ukraine 0.01% NATO troops stationed in Ukraine along Belarusian Border 0.01% NATO sending nukes to russia 99.96%
@@Aabergm Congratulations, you personally made up self-restraint arbitrarily on someone's bluff. You lost. The russia has no real red lines, all you do is MAKE UP "real" ones while we already have troops with US flags IN KURSK. In combat roles, yes, volunteers. And so what? LONG OVERDUE SENDING REAL ARMY TO MOSCOW.
Loved the simplified model showing probability mass shifting as you learn new info. I think a more realistic choice of probabilities for each item would be an exponentially growing value for each "rung" of the escalation latter (save maybe the very first rung). For example, 5%, 8%, 12%, 20%, 55%. By this model, your first few have very low risk and update your probability of the rest much less It just seems more reasonable that marching on moscow is a "real red line" vs sending some ammo to Ukraine or allowing them to hit logistics deep inside russia
What an impressively complicated way of saying that the more you push the higher the likelihood of your adversary responding! Great work as always, anyway!
Is kinda like setting up tons of wire on enemy routes. Ofc enemy will become bolder and faster after learning eachone he snip so far is connected to nothing. But still will proceeding with some level of caution because he never sure if next one is another hox or not.
I am legally blind so thank you for the informative Contin Russian recognized Ukraine as independent and even made a deal because after the cold war Ukraine was the fourth biggest nuclear armed country they gave their nukes up for assurance of independence Russia cannot go back on their word without consequence we also need to look out for China
@human4116 technically you don't need a launch system if you plan to use them "defensively" the idea of a nuclear mine field has been tossed around by military planners since the 50s.
Seeing as all former Russian Red Lines have been busted with no consequences, makes me rather certain that Putin is mainly interested in his own survival and staying in power. So I'd actually think that nato getting involved in Ukraine directly (so not attacking Russia on all fronts, just expelling them from Ukraine) would not trigger a red line, since Putins power over Russia would not be attacked.
Omg I just were about to say that they are meaningless because they are not line on maps! Then I clicked on the video and saw the full title (Unless They Are Lines on Maps) will is just always two steps ahead of us and outsmarts us
Bad take. A long story about probability theory and "setting Russia off" as if it's some kind of unpredictable animal that may bite. Russia using nuclear weapons would have significant consequences, and it's trying to balance the books of _perceived_ damage done by red line crossed vs _perceived_ damage done by using their nuclear deterrent. _That_ is the calculation, which is heavily dependent on how India and China perceive escalation. So no, manpads were never going to cause it.
Maybe this works just because the lines a broken gradually, in a creeping normality fashion, sometimes compared to boiling a frog, and death by a thousand cuts.
One concept I'd like to see explored is "red lines TO WHAT?" At this point IDK if anyone knows what crossing a red line would even entail: strategic nuclear deployment? against who? tactical nuclear depoyment? total-war-style all out mobilization? an angry letter?
i believe that true redline is Crimea. if bridge is destroyed, and risk of losing crimea is become clear (Ukraine push into crimea) ... that when nuclear will fly.
I do agree that a potential loss of Chrimea would see an escalation, but I'm not sure it would involve nuclear weapons. If Ukraine is in that position, I have doubts that nuclear weapons would help.
9:00 Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan will always be funny because it showed how fragile Winnie the Pooh was that a single US politician visiting what's functionally a sovereign state outside Beijing's control had him mobilize large parts of his military just to avoid losing face and then just quietly have them go home without having accomplished anything.
Have you ever considered also posting your content on Nebula? Big fan of that service and think your content would be great there. However, I don’t know the economics of such a change, which might be why your only on RUclips.
I think when people talk about Russia's red lines not existing, they don't talk about having no red lines in general, more that they don't have red lines about supplying arms to Ukraine. Although, I'm sure there's a red line even there. I can imagine Russia won't be too happy if Ukraine gets nukes for example.
He started with it and now tries to somehow bring it back in, despite everybody understanding that map of Ukraine isn't changing, and with Kursk, the point is moot - either russia collapses or we keep 1991 borders.
That "Putin doesn't care at all" bit is confusing, because it doesn't specify what it is that Putin doesn't care about. If Putin doesn't care about lost lives, and the monetary cost of war (and can actually afford to bring this lack of care to bear), then we are in the *other* situation - where the red line and the white line essentially overlap.
@@jamesb3497 Well, yes, that is the only option that makes sense - but it only makes sense after you rewatch the segment in question and figure it out. Which means it's confusing. EtA: basically, the two options are "doesn't care about costs" and "doesn't care about gains". Since we started by talking about how the red line is determined by costs, "doesn't care" suggests the other option.
If you look at the war as being started mainly because Putin wanted to stabilize his power at home by delievering a quick, cheap and easy victory, one red line clearly is where his position in power is directly attacked from the outside. Ironeously being able to project the idea NATO already is a fighting party in this war is desirable to Putin, since it allows him to gather more Russians around the flag and gloss over some of the deficiencies of his apparatus, but NATO doing something that in itself would cause so much effect, that it could really cause a military defeat and thus threaten Putins power is a red line. The goal of the game actually is to allow Putin mantaining the illusion he could still win this while causing most people in Russia grow too unhappy with the situation to keep the war going.
It's not that red lines are silly. It's that they have follow through to have substance. That doesn't necessarily mean military action. It can mean economic or political action that can still have serious implications.
I'd love to see a deeper dive into the Bayesian aspect that you brought up while sneaking in a Redline video, in a more sophisticated mathematical way. Anyone know of any resources?
Nice to see some practical "why stuff happening and what might it hypothetically results in" instead of recently omnipresent "why we rock" content. Especially when at least in my country and to my knowledge in USA as well history isn't even teached to begin with (I don't consider cramming events to be teaching history rather we should teach ppl mechanics behind this events).
Another factor is that (let's call it) anxiety spikes when you cross a red line and then deteriorates as this becomes the new normal giving breathing room to smash another red loline. Go too quickly, you push the anxiety over the edge
Concept of red line is like concept of war rules. Like it is guideline but if it desperate it is unlikely to be followed too much especially loosing side
Finally, something sensible about Russia's red lines. The way you describe it is how I've always understood them... except I'm not so sure about the math. I don't believe we can place actual values anywhere.
How does your analysis accommodate an unknown number of "red lines"? It could be argued that there exists an infinite number of "red lines"...but your explanation sets a finite number. If the number is finite, how do you determine it, and by what method did you arrive at five? Thank you
Red lines are also great from a public relations perspective, as not only do leaders get to show their population how tolerant, noble and forgiving they are while the other side is an evil bully, it actually works wonders where it truly matters - in foreign countries, including, or perhaps especially including, the ones in conflict. It's wild how well it works and Kremlin knows it. China seems to he a tad less competent in this regard for some reason, maybe it's a matter of cultural differences or simply lack of proximity and good old civilisational differences, which makes them matter less for western societies than the "people of dostoyevsky", Greece or Lebanon
That bit at the end about possibility remind me of the Monty Hall problem, where updating your probability prediction should lead you to switch the door you pick rather than sticking with the previous one, although psychologically we can’t really let go of it. I feel like the model is a little flawed Sense the mask and work out but not necessarily the internal workings of the leader ship or the situation on the ground. I feel like it to fluid to use such a straight forward mathematical model
I mean, you talk of 5 potential trigger points for Russia, but how many trigger points there might be is like asking how long a piece of string is. There’s thousands of things that could be their red line, so does crossing one line not increase the chance of the next point being the red line by about 0.5%, or a pretty small chance?
This video about red lines is a MAJOR red line for me. I demand you retract it immediately, or I will be forced to issue my strong concerns.
Your comment about William Spaniel's red lines video crossing a red line for you crosses a red line for me. I demand that you retract the comment immediately, or there will be SEVERE repercussions!
Commenting any further in this thread is inexcusable. You will be punished and will feel the wrath should you even imply any intention to reply.
This attempt at limiting the free speech is an attack on our sovereignty, and any more shall be treated as an act of aggresion.
@@MerrinenLOL
@@sauron4890 Now you've done it! You'll, err, you'll face the wrath of my strongly worded letters!
There’s no way you made a hawk tuah joke, doc, that’s insane
The fact that this comment has so little likes gives me hope but man he definitely did
That was my own red line
That man is a savage!
"Concepts of a red line" had me chuckle a bit
he did it last episode too, got a chuckle out of me both times
Gotta love those "concepts." I hear an evil want to be dictator named Trump has concepts of plans that took a decade to come up with.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues.
If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE.
Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed.
THINK!!!!!
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues.
If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE.
Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed.
THINK!!!!!
Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
So did "hawk tuah it"
Anders Puck raised a great point about Russian red lines. They don't prevent things from happening, but they do significantly delay a thing as the west self regulates.
Because red lines only work against wak, subjugated, cowardly and corrupt leaders who seek to show their bellies, pee all over themselves and whine in terror.
So they work - all that russia needs to do in order to harm Ukraine is say two words, and corrupt Western officials ALWAYS fall for that.
I'm reminded of the Looney Tunes episode when Bugs Bunny draws lines in the sand continuously and dares Yosemite Sam to step over them. Sam steps over the lines stubbornly for a long distance until he falls off a cliff. "It's an international game of poker and everyone is cheating" -Beau of the Fifth Column 💙💛
I'm reminded of Bugs Bunny when he threatens to cut the tightrope if a giant gorilla crosses the gap between 2 cliffs. Then the gorilla pulls the rope, and suddenly both cliffaces have collided, and Bugs is face to face with the gorilla.
> "It's an international game of poker and everyone is cheating" -Beau of the Fifth Column
Right on Fifth Friend.
Even though i disagree with most of his ideas, He was completely spot on with that. I also remember him saying more of "Everyone just pretends to follow the rules"
@@2010hyundaielantraWell said. And much wisdom can be gained by watching Looney Tunes.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues.
If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE.
Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed.
THINK!!!!!
Not taking me bowling is a red line.
Sorry I just need to go out and get a gallon of milk. I will be right back!
It's okay. I heard Roman is available for bowling since his cousin hasn't gone bowling with him lately
NIKO COUSIN!
You died anyway (in my timeline).
@@31redorange08 That is fake news!
…did you just hawk tuah and “concept” in the same video????
Mad lad.
I mean, it's not like "concept" isn't a common word in the english vocabulary...
@@nero9506 -_- that word kinda has significant weight due to current events.
@@nero9506 its a play on trumps "concept of a plan" on revised healthcare
I was sure there's no way he made the hawk tuah joke, but if you heard it too, then it must be real!
Yeah to be honest I came to the comments to check for that as well. But I also thought about hawk tuah from the Times Radio video "Putin rattled as hawks gather in Moscow" So at least that one was on me.
We talk about Russian red lines, but the entire invasion was a major EU red line. It's only natural for that to have caused concequences. Honestly, they should have just gone all in at the start, before Russia could even bluster about red lines. We know what the lines are. We've had decades of experience with this cold war stuff, Russia/China has pulled some aggressive acts that have gone further than anything we've done during this war.
That's a great way to think of it. Our red line has already been crossed, hence the strong response.
Ukraine does not belong to the European Union. It could be argued that a motivation for Russia invading is because of the likelihood of Ukraine joining a Western coalition was increasing.
William, your tongue-in-cheek phrases are the best. Thank you!
Russia: Do NOT send weapons to Ukraine, or we shall Fallout you!
*Sends weapons, nothing happens*
Russia: Do NOT send jets and tanks to Ukraine, or we shall Fallout 2 you!
*Sends jets, nothing happens*
Russia: Do NOT let Ukraine invade Russia, or we shall Fallout 3 you!
*Ukraine invades Kursk, nothing happens*
Russia: Do NOT let Ukraine take over Moscow, or we shall Fallout 4 you!
Ukraine: 🤔🤔🤔
Give us links where any Russian official said anything like that ever. Medvedev don't count, he does not hold any authority anymore.
Putin isnt going to start a nuclear war. What a madman.
Whatever you do don't fallout 76 us... thats a red line
The West is doomed to fall, this is the reality you cannot accept.
When the Soviet Union collapse, Putin was part of the secret council that decide whether whatever left of the Soviet military should start a nuclear war with the US or not. He decided against it. So he is not that suicidal.
There is another problem with "Red Lines" that I feel needs to be addressed. Crossed "Red Lines" weaken "Hard" power. An empty threat will make each subsequent threat less likely to be respected.
Can you also make a video explaining "Hard" and "Soft" power? I feel like a lot of people don't really understand the difference between the two. (Economic strength is "Hard" power, for example.)
There is a brand of hygiene products in Russia called "Красная Линия" (literally translated "Red Line").
I seriously suspect that the Russian government has some long-term sponsorship deal with them.
Special advertising operation
That matter is what Russia might and, more importantly, could do if a so-called red line is crossed, not so much what that red line is. Nuclear weapons use by Russia would be suicide and Putin knows that. Even any conventional attack on a NATO country is unlikely because that would bring NATO troops into the war. Russia would more likely attempt an attack in a clandestine way, such as through a proxy ally. That Russian ally would have to be willing to take the response. More likely, a Russian response would be through sponsorship of a terrorist attack. They already played that card on October 7, 2023, with Hamas in Israel. Could they do more. Yes. But such things would prompt the West to allow Ukraine more freedom to hit deeper or just supply more weapons. The recent permission to allow any targets in Russia was a result of Russia acquiring Fath ballistic missiles from Iran. If Russia uses them against Ukraine the U.S. will allow ATACMS strikes deep into Russia.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues.
If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE.
Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed.
THINK!!!!!
Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
Why would they? It's a horrible embarresment for the Rus Gov to constantly issue threats and have someone ignore them.
Krasnaya Liniya
I'd say the basic difference is that bluffing isn't exactly an option with line on map. You can factor bluffing in, but that's all. Checking bluff on your "red line" though isn't hard.
Then again, hitting that one red line that wasn't a bluff may entail consequences you definitely want to avoid; I mean a "NATO in Moscow" (or close to it) scenario would be something the current russian regime would try to dissuade at all cost?
@@DackelDelay You certainly don't want NATO in Moscow. Obviously. But sending 10x the hardware and training Ukrainian soldiers to the max and not limiting Ukraine in strike capabilities? Shouldn't be a problem. You see - Putin already did like 20 escalations since the start of the war. Currently over Poland Russian drones that are used to coordinate strikes against Ukraine fly almost every day. We don't do much about it, because we try to not escalate (avoid "NATO in Moscow" scenario). But there is almost 0 recourse for giving Ukraine more weapons that Russia could do. And they know it. That's why they fly those drones etc.
If you want to know more, watch Anders Puck Nielsen latest video.
Take a shot every time “red line” has been said or seen in this video
No, I'm gonna die 😂
Nah. I gotta drive.
Thousands of people immediately hospitalized for alcohol poisoning.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues.
If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE.
Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed.
THINK!!!!!
Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
That level of drinking is a red line for me.
I somewhat disagree with the "Should the United States keep pushing" section- or perhaps I feel it's incomplete.
A stated 'Red Line' being breached, and learning it was bluster, I think, can give insight into whether the next stated Red Line is, likewise, bluster.
A) It gives the breaching party knowledge on what the typical reaction is- and, thus, if the announcement of the next Red Line is met with atypical reaction, that might indicate this 'Red Line' is serious.
For example, many of Russia's Red Lines have been screamed in public, given in vague terms, consequences listed in vague, overblown terms. That's a very different scenario to an official note passed by an ambassador giving specific actions, dates, times etc.
B) Breaching a Red Line and discovering its bluster can also give insight into the actual priorities and objectives of the breached party. To use the Russia-Ukraine example- my suspicion is that Putin's highest priorities are the survival of himself and his regime and not, say, the absolute secession of Arms shipments to Ukraine.
So, say, if you breach a Red Line about Arms Shipments to Ukraine, and it's discovered as bluster, that'd suggest that other Red Lines then erected in regards to Arms Shipments to Ukraine are, likewise, bluffs.
There are more red lines than this but yeah its not a surefire prediction but reasonable certainty is the best to hope for in this universe
Isn’t Russia already collaborating with Iran and North Korea? The red line theory feels like it is missing foundations in the real world. Whether you’re a country or a person, if you set up a ‘red line’ and then it is broken without consequence, it’s generally the case that a precedent is set and it’s easier rather than harder to push past the next ‘red line’. I.e. this is more like the ‘boy who cried wolf’. Russia threatened the use of nuclear weapons early on in the conflict, but the example of China’s repeated stepping back from the non-existent red line seems to say more about this scenario than is explored here. That suggests leadership which recognises that the internal political consequences or economic cost of reacting to a stimulus would outweigh the political, tactical or economic cost of backing down.
That would effectively be the 60% MANPADs example
I generally agree, but not with this part: "thus, if the announcement of the next Red Line is met with atypical reaction, that might indicate this 'Red Line' is serious.". In game theory, it's assumed that the adversaries are rational. If that's the case, the russians obviously expect that the West would think the way you suggest. Which in turn would let them credibly imply an actually enforced red line just by using a different style of communication (including silence). Which of course the West would expect. Etc. etc.
ALL these red lines are bluffs, period. Always have been. Anyone deluding themselves otherwise is just making excuses to get more Ukrainians killed. Full stop.
I'd assume that "Not getting Ukraine" would be less of a problem than "Currently being vaporized by all of NATO", so there is no actual red line
And that's it isn't it. The real line in the sand is not in Ukraine, its Putin not losing power, reputation and life. So long as the west does nothing to threaten that Putin will not risk triggering something that will guarantee that outcome. Boots on the ground is probably the real red line because it would be seen as a direct threat, everything else is probably fair game up to and including Ukraine retaking all its territory and then some. So long as Putin can sell it as a win and stays in power, he will accept the outcome if somewhat unhappily.
"mutually assured destruction" is a phrase for a reason
@@ngithens Yep and Russia isn't willing to do that over getting Ukraine. So there's basically no red line since Neither NATO nor Ukraine intends on taking over Russia.
Red lines? Now Putin has brown lines on his underwear.
You folks are so clueless. Every time a “redline” is crossed, more territory is taken and further destruction of the AFU ensues.
If you keep laughing and not thinking, then one day you are going to look up and realize that UKRAINE DOESNT EXIST ANYMORE.
Do you understand???? Russia is going to completely annex Ukraine directly because of the redlines being crossed.
THINK!!!!!
Russia’s Redlines are convenient, built-in excuses to justify taking over Ukraine.
Racing stripes
BROOOO
💩
This is my favorite channel about lines
In Russia, vodka say where red line is. Hangover say where it`s in next day.
How does desperation come into the calculations in game theory? If a leader is facing a total loss, they can become irrational (for example, Germany fighting to the last man at the end of ww2)
The German leader also unalived himself and his wife.
Desperation can also give in to despair and then surrender. History has shown that Russians have been great at defending and scorch earth tactics, not so much in attacking without relying on meat wave tactics.
but some countries know to surrender before getting entirely destroyed japan in ww2 after getting two suns dropped on them AND getting invaded in Sakhalin by the soviets knew continuing the war was not reasonable and chose to surrender.
I do not claim to completely know japans situation in the summer of 45 but i believe that the japanese government pressured the emperor to surrender before their country faces complete annihilation
@felixbeth6340 funny thing, the emperor was actually willing to surrender earlier, but the military was too locked in to total war for that to be an option to them. They even tried to overthrow the emperor when it was clear he was going to announce surrender, but that failed.
Even if Putin is as desperate as Hitler to fight until the bitter end, Russia wouldn't keep fighting as long as the Germans did during WW2.
A lot of Germans were fanatically supportive of Hitler and continued to fight because they believed in the cause. Not all, perhaps even not most, but enough to keep the war going until almost total annihilation.
This is not the case with Putin's Russia. There's actually very few Russians that enthusiastically support the regime for ideological reasons and are willing to die for Putin. This was demonstrated during a) the Prigozhin's roadtrip to Moscow when he faced almost no resistance and actually got a lot of positive reactions from the civilian population, b) after the Kursk incursion where the Ukrainians met zero civilian resistance, mass surrender by conscripts and only had to actually fight when facing contract soldiers.
Russians seem not to actually give a damn whether they are ruled by Putin, Prigozhin, Zelensky, Biden or the Martians.
@@Ludvigvanamadeuswhich is not surprising considering the long line of shitty governments russia had. With that history, any hope for change to the better must seem delusional.
I heavily disagree with the conclusion. It is oversimplification leading to a likely wrong solution.
Because we know the qualities of the red lines that were already crossed. That allows us to infer probabilities, which qualities the actual red line has.
The more red lines that are weapons deliveries, the less likely it is that weapons deliveries will ever be a red line. The fact that HIMARS, ATACMS and Storm Shadow were not actual red lines makes it far more likely that Taurus is a bluff as well. The fact that Armored vehicles in general, IFVs, Tanks, Patriot, IRIS-T, etc. were bluffed red lines made it exceedingly likely that F-16 was also a bluffed red line.
But! One red line where the US immediatley silenced their allies, was shooting down missiles in Ukrainian airspace. I'd wager that is, because qualitatively that is very different. And in that part, jumping from one quality to the next, the method explained in the video applies again.
Ukraine's Kursk offensive has already proven that using Western weapons to hit formal Russian territory was also a bluff. Allowing them to use long range missiles to do more of the same is not qualitatively different enough to matter.
There is no point of doing math with unknown probabilities, it will tell you absolutely nothing when every line could be 0 or 100%.
To get anything at all you NEED to make assumptions about what actually is a bluff and what isn't, and in the end, thats all that matters.
the reaction to crossing one red line can be very different to the response to another red line. As soon as the reaction is disproportionate, the reaction immediately loses all legitimacy.
Nothing about that conflicts with the video. The probability has to add up to 100% because it's a probability, and we know with certainty that a red line exists. When there is no response to an alleged red line, the probability has to be distributed among the remaining options. There are many ways that it *could* be distributed. The video doesn't say that it must be equal; that's just a simplification shown to illustrate the principle. The distribution could change based on any new information, not just that gained by "crossing" a red line. There's a distinction between the change in distribution caused by new information, and the change that is mathematically necessary from the removal of a red line.
Where there could be more detail is in the nature of the response to a red line. It could be no escalation at all, or the nuclear option, or anything in between. If the expected escalation is acceptable, then it may be worth crossing a real red line. The escalation ladder is distributed over the possible red lines just as much as probabilities. But that gets into escalation management.
@@fwiffo the probabilities don't need to add up to 100% it would if you have several events and you know at least one of them must trigger red line (or the red line exist at all).
Fun fact: There is a wikipedia article on the Red Lines in the Russo-Ukraine War. It mentions 22 red lines that the ruzzians have declared, of which only 4-6 have not been crossed
congrats on repeating a line in the video you watched.
Have you heard of a RUclipsr named William Spaniel? I'm guessing you saw his most recent video.
you must not have bothered to watch the video, he specifically calls that out at 1:28
I’m loving your adoption of “concepts“ your last couple of videos
Ukraine invades Bryansk 0.01%
Sweden delivers Gripen 0.01%
Openly sending troops and support staff to Ukraine 0.01%
NATO troops stationed in Ukraine along Belarusian Border 0.01%
NATO sending nukes to russia 99.96%
I personally feel like boots on the ground (in combat roles) is the no go point. It poses a direct threat to Putin's hold on power.
@@Aabergm Congratulations, you personally made up self-restraint arbitrarily on someone's bluff. You lost. The russia has no real red lines, all you do is MAKE UP "real" ones while we already have troops with US flags IN KURSK. In combat roles, yes, volunteers. And so what? LONG OVERDUE SENDING REAL ARMY TO MOSCOW.
Loved the simplified model showing probability mass shifting as you learn new info.
I think a more realistic choice of probabilities for each item would be an exponentially growing value for each "rung" of the escalation latter (save maybe the very first rung). For example, 5%, 8%, 12%, 20%, 55%.
By this model, your first few have very low risk and update your probability of the rest much less
It just seems more reasonable that marching on moscow is a "real red line" vs sending some ammo to Ukraine or allowing them to hit logistics deep inside russia
Concepts of a plan! I understood that reference!
Care to reveal it?
What an impressively complicated way of saying that the more you push the higher the likelihood of your adversary responding!
Great work as always, anyway!
"War is allways an option." - now there is a quote.
SO MUCH about lines on maps this episode! This is why we're here!
Concepts of a Red Line is so appropriate
I have been waiting for a video on this subject, thank you!
Whoa! A hauk-tooie joke!! And a nod to the concept of a plan! 🤯
Good Work!!! 😋
Timestamp?
Thank you for another informed video.
“Lines on Maps”! Oh, thank God, I needed my fix! 👀
💕
The fact there is a wiki page on the red lines broken during the wars is gold
Thank you for the video! Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦✊🏴🇬🇧
heroyam slava !!
Is kinda like setting up tons of wire on enemy routes. Ofc enemy will become bolder and faster after learning eachone he snip so far is connected to nothing. But still will proceeding with some level of caution because he never sure if next one is another hox or not.
I am legally blind so thank you for the informative Contin Russian recognized Ukraine as independent and even made a deal because after the cold war Ukraine was the fourth biggest nuclear armed country they gave their nukes up for assurance of independence Russia cannot go back on their word without consequence we also need to look out for China
No they were not, they would have to attack troops loyal to Moscow to seize the nukes, how do you think this would turn out
They never had the capability to launch a nuclear attack though, they simply had stockpiles of warheads leftover after the ussr collapse
@human4116 technically you don't need a launch system if you plan to use them "defensively" the idea of a nuclear mine field has been tossed around by military planners since the 50s.
@@pepebeezon772 Why would they need to attack? Starving them out would have been trivial, if it came to that.
@@PhysicsGamer still an act of war genius
excellent concept to get the viewer involved. teach people to think instead of just trying to passively learn. more please !
'you can hawk tua it' was some extremely clever word play ;)
Thanks for introducing me to the concept of "coercive diplomacy".
Alexander George is turning out to be a fascinating read.
Pink lines
The setup for the hawk joke at the end put me into fight or flight
Take a drink every time he says “Red line”
Concepts of a red line. Please, keep it up. I love it!
You really ended the video with “you can hawk to (tuah) it” my man.
Seeing as all former Russian Red Lines have been busted with no consequences, makes me rather certain that Putin is mainly interested in his own survival and staying in power. So I'd actually think that nato getting involved in Ukraine directly (so not attacking Russia on all fronts, just expelling them from Ukraine) would not trigger a red line, since Putins power over Russia would not be attacked.
First time im ever this early, nice
Omg I just were about to say that they are meaningless because they are not line on maps! Then I clicked on the video and saw the full title (Unless They Are Lines on Maps) will is just always two steps ahead of us and outsmarts us
Bad take. A long story about probability theory and "setting Russia off" as if it's some kind of unpredictable animal that may bite. Russia using nuclear weapons would have significant consequences, and it's trying to balance the books of _perceived_ damage done by red line crossed vs _perceived_ damage done by using their nuclear deterrent. _That_ is the calculation, which is heavily dependent on how India and China perceive escalation. So no, manpads were never going to cause it.
expand your understanding of using this during war to way before a conflict starts. could you come to your same conclusion in 2021 ?
What do you mean "bad take"? The MANPADs were just a hypothetical example. You seem to be taking that part too literally.
Another Tuahtally awesome video 👍
Maybe this works just because the lines a broken gradually, in a creeping normality fashion, sometimes compared to boiling a frog, and death by a thousand cuts.
Also thought like that, but i doubt that this was the strategy from the beginning.
Or red lines are there more to make the west question itself and it's current ideas. It creates a cost benefit equation by just being "there"
One concept I'd like to see explored is "red lines TO WHAT?" At this point IDK if anyone knows what crossing a red line would even entail: strategic nuclear deployment? against who? tactical nuclear depoyment? total-war-style all out mobilization? an angry letter?
i believe that true redline is Crimea.
if bridge is destroyed, and risk of losing crimea is become clear (Ukraine push into crimea) ... that when nuclear will fly.
I do agree that a potential loss of Chrimea would see an escalation, but I'm not sure it would involve nuclear weapons. If Ukraine is in that position, I have doubts that nuclear weapons would help.
William Spaniel Thanks for posting this video
Spaniel!!!!
Hawk tua reference? Respect! 👏
Hawk to it. I see what you spit there!
9:00 Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan will always be funny because it showed how fragile Winnie the Pooh was that a single US politician visiting what's functionally a sovereign state outside Beijing's control had him mobilize large parts of his military just to avoid losing face and then just quietly have them go home without having accomplished anything.
I'm betting $1000 on Red Line winning.
😹 funniest vid so far. You're amazing. Keep it up!
MORREEE LIINNNNES!!!!
Have you ever considered also posting your content on Nebula? Big fan of that service and think your content would be great there. However, I don’t know the economics of such a change, which might be why your only on RUclips.
D-did you just say hawk-tuah it? 😭
Sounds like it for sure... whether it really was is hard to tell.
When? @@Yezpahr
@@HectorGonzalez-fz6ws At the end when he was plugging his books.
Thanks William
I think when people talk about Russia's red lines not existing, they don't talk about having no red lines in general, more that they don't have red lines about supplying arms to Ukraine. Although, I'm sure there's a red line even there. I can imagine Russia won't be too happy if Ukraine gets nukes for example.
Am I the only person who finds this "lines on maps" expression opaque? If we are not really talking about territory, why are we looking at maps?
I mean kinda, but also ig it's a good visualization for when you're dealing with 'expected outcomes', which are translated to territorial gains
He started with it and now tries to somehow bring it back in, despite everybody understanding that map of Ukraine isn't changing, and with Kursk, the point is moot - either russia collapses or we keep 1991 borders.
Thank you William
That "Putin doesn't care at all" bit is confusing, because it doesn't specify what it is that Putin doesn't care about. If Putin doesn't care about lost lives, and the monetary cost of war (and can actually afford to bring this lack of care to bear), then we are in the *other* situation - where the red line and the white line essentially overlap.
I think he meant "doesn't care about the territorial gains."
@@jamesb3497 Well, yes, that is the only option that makes sense - but it only makes sense after you rewatch the segment in question and figure it out. Which means it's confusing.
EtA: basically, the two options are "doesn't care about costs" and "doesn't care about gains". Since we started by talking about how the red line is determined by costs, "doesn't care" suggests the other option.
If you look at the war as being started mainly because Putin wanted to stabilize his power at home by delievering a quick, cheap and easy victory, one red line clearly is where his position in power is directly attacked from the outside. Ironeously being able to project the idea NATO already is a fighting party in this war is desirable to Putin, since it allows him to gather more Russians around the flag and gloss over some of the deficiencies of his apparatus, but NATO doing something that in itself would cause so much effect, that it could really cause a military defeat and thus threaten Putins power is a red line. The goal of the game actually is to allow Putin mantaining the illusion he could still win this while causing most people in Russia grow too unhappy with the situation to keep the war going.
It's not that red lines are silly. It's that they have follow through to have substance. That doesn't necessarily mean military action. It can mean economic or political action that can still have serious implications.
How very clever a way to explain it!
Really milking these Russia videos huh
i swear, u are the best channel on youtube, and i got ur book, how ukraine survived
This video crossed my red line. So I'm going to eat pasta.
❤ great 👍 job William ❤
Russia is only doing it in hopes that just one thing makes the west forget. Red, red lines
Think I learned a few new things in this video. Well, maybe the “concept” of new things. 😉😂 Thanks for the analysis of red lines.
Concepts of a red line was a good one! :>
Always informative. 👍👍🫡
You r good at this ❤
I came here for line content and I was not disappointed.
For Halloween, can you change the red lines to Red Vines licorice?
TL;DR "lines on map" is basically negotiating for a car at a used car dealership.
I'd love to see a deeper dive into the Bayesian aspect that you brought up while sneaking in a Redline video, in a more sophisticated mathematical way. Anyone know of any resources?
Nice to see some practical "why stuff happening and what might it hypothetically results in" instead of recently omnipresent "why we rock" content. Especially when at least in my country and to my knowledge in USA as well history isn't even teached to begin with (I don't consider cramming events to be teaching history rather we should teach ppl mechanics behind this events).
Another factor is that (let's call it) anxiety spikes when you cross a red line and then deteriorates as this becomes the new normal giving breathing room to smash another red loline. Go too quickly, you push the anxiety over the edge
There's a reason this channel has 650k followers. Thanks.
Concept of red line is like concept of war rules. Like it is guideline but if it desperate it is unlikely to be followed too much especially loosing side
I learn a lot from you.
Finally, something sensible about Russia's red lines. The way you describe it is how I've always understood them... except I'm not so sure about the math. I don't believe we can place actual values anywhere.
Love the exercise bro
Just found out your channel, really cool and not sensationalist
How does your analysis accommodate an unknown number of "red lines"? It could be argued that there exists an infinite number of "red lines"...but your explanation sets a finite number. If the number is finite, how do you determine it, and by what method did you arrive at five? Thank you
I bought the books, both. Italy, Rome. I wanted to let you know 😂. By the way, I love your videos.
Red lines are also great from a public relations perspective, as not only do leaders get to show their population how tolerant, noble and forgiving they are while the other side is an evil bully, it actually works wonders where it truly matters - in foreign countries, including, or perhaps especially including, the ones in conflict. It's wild how well it works and Kremlin knows it. China seems to he a tad less competent in this regard for some reason, maybe it's a matter of cultural differences or simply lack of proximity and good old civilisational differences, which makes them matter less for western societies than the "people of dostoyevsky", Greece or Lebanon
Okay sure the percentage goes up.
But….there are previously unknown options coming in to split the probability percentage anyways
That bit at the end about possibility remind me of the Monty Hall problem, where updating your probability prediction should lead you to switch the door you pick rather than sticking with the previous one, although psychologically we can’t really let go of it. I feel like the model is a little flawed Sense the mask and work out but not necessarily the internal workings of the leader ship or the situation on the ground. I feel like it to fluid to use such a straight forward mathematical model
Honorable mention to hawk to. 😊
I mean, you talk of 5 potential trigger points for Russia, but how many trigger points there might be is like asking how long a piece of string is. There’s thousands of things that could be their red line, so does crossing one line not increase the chance of the next point being the red line by about 0.5%, or a pretty small chance?