4 ms·
I don’t understand “the NATO problem”. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, all it would mean for Russia is that there will be consequences if they invade. How
by throwaway894345 5y ago
I don’t understand “the NATO problem”. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, all it would mean for Russia is that there will be consequences if they invade. How hard is it not to invade other countries, unprovoked?
- chefkoch 5y agoIt's the same reason why the US didn't want sowjet missiles in Cuba in the 60ies.
- beachy 5y agoThe US never invaded Cuba though. Well, not officially and certainly not effectively.
- hef19898 5y agoWell, they tried. And botched it. And almost started an nuclear war over a sea blockade of Cuba back then.
- woadwarrior01 5y agoUmm… Bay of Pigs? Which is what led to the Cuban missile crisis, along with the installation of nuclear capable ballistic missiles in Turkey. The US would have invaded Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, if Khrushchev hadn’t backed down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
- beachy 5y agoBay of pigs was not an official invasion and it certainly was not effective, hence my comment.
- 1024core 5y agoBut the US did put a blockade around Cuba. Any ships going to/from Cuba could be searched by the US.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- catlikesshrimp 5y agoUkraine gave up its working russian-inherited nuclear warheads. So, no. This is not the same. Putin is just another authoritarian ruler, a dictator. He will use any excuse he wants to invade; in this case he is using NATO membership and separatist movements.
- chefkoch 5y agoUkraine gave up their nukes almost 30 years ago.
- select-all 5y agoIn the practical sense, the "NATO problem" is that Ukraine is not going to give up on Crimea, and once it becomes a member of NATO that will lead to direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
- fxtentacle 5y agoI thought this is about access to the biggest port in the region, which is in Ukraine.