3 ms·

For a closer analogy, I suggest the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

• ggm 6y ago
  Well, closer in time, but, I don't think this is a closer analogy, because in that case the USSR was materially altering the balance of force close to the angry neighbour. They didn't put nukes across the aleutians, they moved them to the eastern seaboard, where the border had previously been several thousands of km away on that side. The rockets threatened Washington. I know ICBM always threatened washington, but this moved INF class devices closer. Its a sub-orbital pop up. It was a really strong threat. The Ukraine was literally part of russia in time past, within living memory as a political sub-unit, one of the SSR in the USSR. It was notionally a friend, part of the border butress to the west. It was inside the iron curtain. It moved across the curtain. Its a shift of less than 600km. This is not moving things thousands of km, its waking up finding your next door neighbour has changed. In the logic at-hand here, Russia is angry, and making aggressive moves, but in the internal logic, its "defensive" I don't think its defensive at all btw. But, I can see how it might sell domestically. "we thought the Ukraine was our friend and now they want to join NATO like poland, and look how well that worked out for us"
  • simonblack 6y ago
    You don't think that the US/NATO "was materially altering the balance of force close to the angry neighbour." by placing forces and weapons in the Ukraine? That's very close to the Soviets placing forces and weapons in Cuba in 1962. I seem to remember lots of hissy fits in Washington at that time. Why shouldn't Moscow have a hissy fit now when the reciprocal situation has arisen?
    • ggm 6y ago
      Oh right, I think I see now/ Yes. the cuban missile crisis is a far better "fit" than I thought.