> If that is true, then incompetence has reached some pretty high levels. Incompetence *has* reached some pretty high levels. What I suspect has actually happened is that the u.s. themselves have been shooting down our *own guys* as pretext for direct intervention. This is premised on the thinking that *if the u.s. DOES go in, russia will back off*. In other words the u.s. is assuming, because russia hasn't *escalated further* due to u.s. proxy intervention arming azov et al -- that russia is bluffing. But the critical mistake is that you should never call bullshit when you're the biggest bullshit artist in the room if the risk of that is worse than the cost of walking. This is the u.s. forgetting that rule. And thats just the problem: the u.s. has confused russia's redline with russia's ultimatum, when they're two different declarations. Russia said they'd retaliate massively if the u.s. directly armed proxies. The u.s. directly armed proxys. Russia didn't follow through. That was an ultimatum. A threat and a promise. Both of those things are by their very nature, never certain in war. It's a political tactic. Arming the proxies was a bluff-called. Direct involvement on the otherhand is the same as triggering a trip-wire or stepping on a land mine. I'd say the u.s. already has with the death or the 'capture' of this u.s. general. Whereas a *redline* is a *mechanical* declaration of what, by the internal logic of the situation, *must happen*. It's "laying down the ground rules without negotiation." It's the more formal version of a *direct* threat. You don't do that *unless* you mean it. It's saying "if you do this, you will *force* our hand. We will have no flexibility or choice in the matter any more." And now you understand the mistake the u.s. has made here.