I can’t imagine why you’re confused by this. The redline is aggression against a NATO member. Hint: it’s why the potential for Ukraine joining NATO was such a contentious issue. (It’s why troops and fighters are, one hopes only symbolically, moving in to reinforce those NATO states with their presence right now)

There's a very good reason the parent may be confused about it. The NATO red line is fraudulent, a lie.

Russia goes into Sweden and Finland and it's not a red line? Yeah right.

The case is actually that people are deciding Ukraine isn't as valuable - that the lives are not as valuable - as Finland and Sweden and they're too great of cowards to say it outright.

> The NATO red line is fraudulent, a lie.

I don’t understand why you think so.

> Russia goes into Sweden and Finland and it's not a red line? Yeah right.

This was a confusing comment but I don’t think the US would fight WWIII for Finland if they weren’t a NATO member (and they’re not). Do you?

> The case is actually that people are deciding Ukraine isn't as valuable - that the lives are not as valuable - as Finland and Sweden and they're too great of cowards to say it outright.

I guess that’s possible, but you’re entirely confused about its import. The NATO countries denying membership to Ukraine because they do not want to defend Ukrainians is an indication that NATO member countries take the “red line” associated with NATO membership seriously.

I'm not a politician and my red-line will always be no war, only peace! However, I also realize that we do not live in a fantasy and humans are not perfect.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that NATO has defined a fairly clear red line covering more than half the countries you listed there.

Lets put a pin in this conversation which we can pick up when Baltics are invaded and I fully expect to hear explanations how while it’s a very regretful turn of events, they are materially different from, let’s say if it was Germany or France that was attacked.