3 ms·
"(interestingly under the auspices of NATO, a "defensive" pact)" According the grand strategy of the cold war, those missiles were defensive. Their presence wa
by astine 5y ago
"(interestingly under the auspices of NATO, a "defensive" pact)"
According the grand strategy of the cold war, those missiles were defensive. Their presence was requested by Turkey and when they were removed there was a diplomatic stink about it because the Turks argued that this was the US no honouring their agreement. There was nothing "quiet" about their removal.
This isn't comparable to Ukraine however. The US isn't trying to put nuclear missiles in Ukraine (and there aren't NATO nukes in any other former SSR either.) And it wouldn't matter if they were, because the range of ICBMs has increased since 1962. Russia isn't invading Ukraine to prevent nuclear weapons from being deployed on its doorstep; it's doing so to reestablish its control over its former empire.
- croes 5y agoIt's not about the range of weapons but about the reaction time of counter measures. And it is comparable. Ukraine is at Russia's doorstep and plays a major role for the access to the Black Sea. That's why Russia annexed Crimea in the first place.