The Cuban Missile Crisis is over 50 years old and the world was in a much different state then. The US and the Soviets were fighting proxy wars with a good cha

The Cuban Missile Crisis is over 50 years old and the world was in a much different state then. The US and the Soviets were fighting proxy wars with a good chance that a direct confrontation could erupt at any moment. The Soviets were placing nuclear equipped ICBMs within close proximity of the US which would have been a dramatic change in the balance of power had a conflict occurred. The Soviets no longer exist and the US/NATO was not, prior to Russia assaulting Ukraine, remotely close to a direct confrontation with Russia. Putin can win by keeping Ukraine in a state where it is not stable enough to supply resources to the west. Oil extraction requires a certain level of political and physical security and if he can fight a drawn out war by sending his undesirable young men to die in a Ukrainian meat grinder for the next decade he may, depending on the lack of will and perseverance of the rest of the world, "win". > it would require occupying the whole country. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-war-refugee-exodus-has-reached-a-million-says-un-as-russia-takes-over-kherson https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/03/ukraine-war-re... "Moscow aims to take ‘full control’ of Ukraine capital by diplomatic or military means, according to Elysée" > NATO is a defensive alliance (which it isn't) Going to need some evidence before I can believe that claim. Can you point to offensive action by NATO in recent history? > Imagine a Ukraine in NATO that decides they need to protect persecuted Ukrainians in Belarus and carve off a piece. This is a fantasy and not really worth discussing. > Whose to say that Ukraine emboldened by NATO membership doesn't take military action to reclaim Crimea? Outside of paranoid Russian fantasy land I don't think anyone is even suggesting this is likely.