Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "The 12 Causes of the Russo-Ukrainian War" video.

I think one possible game theoretic reason you missed is dynamic inconsistency. If you're invaded then reaching a negotiated settlement with the invader might the lowest cost option for you once an invasion begins. However, what if you instead take the attitude that when invaded you're going to always fight to the bitter end and cause as much damage as possible to the invader regardless of the cost to yourself? If you take that kind of "irrational" position and credibly signal that to would-be invaders then they might rationally decide that invading you is not worth it after all and thus you avoid invasions entirely. However, if you still get invaded then the only way to really signal your "irrational" intention is to fight to the bitter end even though it seems more costly.
136
@alexhumble7653 "14000 innocent civilians were killed in Donbass by Ukraine's artillery since 2014." No, that is just incorrect on multiple levels: -This figure includes people killed both by Ukrainian forces and those killed by separatist/Russian forces. -It includes deaths from all sorts of weapons like assault rifles and grenades, not just artillery. -It includes both soldier and civilian deaths. In fact, civilian deaths are a clear minority. They number about 3k, i.e. less than 1/4th of that estimated total. -Almost all of those deaths happened in 2014 & 2015. In recent years the number of deaths before the present invasion were something like 10 per year and that figure includes shelling by both sides as both sides have been doing that. "How long could it continue and who could stop it?" Due to the points listed above, especially the last one, it hardly makes sense to launch a full scale invasion to prevent deaths from cease-fire violations (committed by both sides, mind you). By launching the current invasion Russia has vastly increased the number of people from Donbass dying.
10
@alexhumble7653 "However Russia’s surrounded with NATO’s bases all around and even Ukraine was a candidate for NATO." First I want to say that most of this isn't relevant to my original comment. It was about how it can be beneficial to be "irrationally" stubborn in resistance to make invasions less likely if it can be signalled credibly. This was a general comment and the specifics you mention don't affect the logic that much. However, what you just wrote (in the part I quoted) is just false. Ukraine wasn't a NATO candidate and in practice it wouldn't have been able to join for the foreseeable future anyway because the territorial dispute with Russia would have prevented it. Ukraine has since left an application but that was only about half a year after the current invasion had started and it still seems unlikely that Ukraine could join.
8
@alexhumble7653 "There WAS promise to accept Ukraine in NATO, which was widely announced." No, there wasn't. "Where is your own indignation" What indignation? My (original) comment had nothing to do with indignation. I wasn't talking about who's in the right. I was talking about a game theoretic concept called "time inconsistency" or "dynamic inconsistency" which is relevant to what Spaniel was talking about. Why do you go on this Ukraine rant under my comment which has little to do with what you're talking about?
6
@alexhumble7653 I don't think Russia needs to conquer a part of Ukraine to survive. However, even if that were the case it doesn't necessarily affect the logic I described. A country wishing to deter invasions by being "irrationally" stubborn in resistance probably has to do it against any invader to be credible, including invaders who wouldn't be deterred by cost.
5
@killingtimeitself I think that would be a bit misleading term.
3
@alexhumble7653 "Loss of Alaska or texas would also help deter future American invasions." If that happened as a result of an American invasion somewhere that would indeed be a deterrent. Still, it probably also matters that Alaskans and Texans probably don't want to fall under the rule of some other power.
3
I have a question about the miscalculation reason. As you said in the video, once this error is revealed in action and a more correct estimate becomes available to both sides then otherwise rational unitary actors should reach a negotiated settlement. However, I'm curious about how common this is in practice. Do leaders often pull out quickly from failed attacks? My intuition would say that leaders might be tempted to "stay the course" even when facing a debacle because admitting defeat is too embarrassing even though it would be less costly materially. On the other hand, continuing an expensive war and throwing away lives just to avoid embarrassment also seems strange behaviour. What kind of behaviour is the most common in that kind of situation?
3
@alexhumble7653 "What would the US do if Russia built a military base in Tijuana?" Well, that certainly wouldn't give them the right to invade Mexico (and I think they wouldn't). "However according to sent. Robert Kennedy 14000 Russian civilians were killed by Ukraine’s artillery in Donbass since 2014. Who could stop that slaughter and how long should’ve Russia tolerated that?" I already told you earlier that that's false on multiple levels. Let me repeat: -This figure includes people killed both by Ukrainian forces and those killed by separatist/Russian forces. -It includes deaths from all sorts of weapons like assault rifles and grenades, not just artillery. -It includes both soldier and civilian deaths. In fact, civilian deaths are a clear minority. They number about 3k, i.e. less than 1/4th of that estimated total. -Almost all of those deaths happened in 2014 & 2015. In recent years the number of deaths before the present invasion were something like 10 per year and that figure includes shelling by both sides as both sides have been doing that.
2
@alexhumble7653 What are you talking about? I don't speak Russian nor Ukrainian and the level of my English skill (whether high or low) is hardly evidence for me getting paid.
2
@alexhumble7653 "actually annexed by the US" It's not annexed by the US. "Even if Alaskans and Texans probably don't want to fall under the rule of some other power, but they could aspire for independence" At least currently a majority of them don't.
1
@wayando I partially use that phrase to sound poetic. It may not be necessary to go that far. If you're willing to persist in a fight significantly after what would seem to be rational (when you only consider that particular fight after it has already started) you may be able to deter attackers if you can credibly signal that willingness.
1
@alexhumble7653 Are you talking about me? No one is paying me to write YouTube comments. Also, I think we've only talked in this thread and nowhere else. I don't think you could in any case determine that I'm being paid just based on this conversation. If you really think I'm paid it seems like a kneejerk reaction to someone having a different opinion from yours. Or did you mean someone other than me?
1
@alexhumble7653 I don't agree that I'm ignoring facts but even if I were that hardly means that someone's paying me to do it.
1
@moestietabarnak I don't see any evidence of that.
1
@johnnybrown689 Hmm, did you mean to tag someone other than me?
1
I think I might mention that I saw an example mentioned elsewhere. Specifically, it was the Communist China's invasion of Vietnam. Apparently, the invasion wasn't that successful and China pulled out fairly quickly. It seems to them pulling out either wasn't embarrassing or the embarrassment was small enough that persisting to avoid it wasn't worth it. However, I'm not very familiar with this conflict so this description could be wrong.
1