3 ms·

The early 1960s, the United States are afraid of Soviet influence spreading from Cuba. They support the Bay of Pigs Invasion [1] in hope to get rid of the pro-S

The early 1960s, the United States are afraid of Soviet influence spreading from Cuba. They support the Bay of Pigs Invasion [1] in hope to get rid of the pro-Soviet government but this fails. So the CIA starts Operation Mongoose [2] hoping to achieve the goal with terrorist attacks, assassinations, sabotage, and so on. In order to deter the United States from further interference, Cuba asks the Soviet Union to station missiles in Cuba which results in the Cuban Missile Crisis [3] bringing the world closer to nuclear war than ever before or since. What were they thinking? Were they stupid? Why would they risk worsening the situation by messing with Cuba? And while we are at it, why do the United States have any say in whether or not the Soviet Union stations missiles in Cuba? Cuba is a sovereign state, if they want Soviet missiles, they should be allowed to have them, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mongoose [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

reducesuffering 5y ago
Classic whataboutism entirely deflecting the question. Yes, US did not handle Cuba correctly 60 (!!) years ago. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are dying today and could be stopped by Russia immediately, but they don’t. I guess if every country can be overly paranoid about their neighbors, when Russia built up troops on its border, it’s within Finland’s, Estonia’s, Lithuania’s, Latvia’s, and Ukraine’s right to just start shelling Russia right? Because the Russian buildup “could” be a threat?
- danbruc 5y ago
  I start to hate the term whataboutism - this is none. I am not justifying one situation with another, I am just demanding consistent judgment of similar situations. This is also why it does not really matter that it was 60 years ago. You say the United States handled Cuba incorrectly, I do not know what exactly that means, but this is also not too important as long as you are consistent. We will probably disagree at least somewhat in our judgment. In my opinion it was not unreasonable for the United States to demand no missiles on Cuba given the tensions and mutual distrust in order to not increase tensions further. I could maybe also understand if Cuba or the Soviet Union had rejected that demand as reasonable in principle but not justifiable in this specific situation because of the aggression by the United States. In the end the Soviet Union did the right thing and deescalated. And they still got somewhat screwed by the United States because the concessions by the United States were no real concessions - removing the missiles from Turkey was already planned before the crisis because they were obsolete. In consequence I also think that it is not a totally unreasonable demand from Russia to not want NATO at all its borders. With that said, is still do not think that attacking Ukraine is an acceptable way to achieve this, for example sabotaging or destroying NATO military installations once they pop up in Ukraine would seem much more justifiable. But then again, once Ukraine is a NATO member, Russia would have to deal with article 5. In the end I think this should never have escalated this far to begin with, Ukraine and NATO should maybe have aimed for a limited membership like Norway or no NATO membership at all. This is of course only reasonable if you think that sovereign states sometimes have to accept limits to their sovereignty because of the interest of other states. You can of course disagree with this, but then I would ask you, for example, for your opinion on the destruction of Iranian centrifuges by Stuxnet. Justified or an act of war? I also want you to consider that it is easy from today's perspective to argue that the United States should just have accepted Soviet missiles in Cuba, therefore it might be better to consider how the United States would act today if China and Mexico reached a deal to station Chinese military assets in Mexico in exchange for economic support, maybe not even missiles but say a lot of ground forces. Would the United States be fine with that? And you can of course completely reject the idea that NATO expansion is an important factor for the Russian aggression, then the discussion has to shift completely to evidence for different explanations.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    I hope it is clear anyway but I forgot to spell it out explicitly - that I consider the United States preventing the Soviet Union from putting missiles on Cuba a reasonable or at least acceptable course of action does in no way imply that I am siding with the United States on all matters concerning Cuba. I consider especially all attempts and actions to overthrow the Cuban government as unjustifiable.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > Classic whataboutism entirely deflecting the question. Pointing out that in the same circumstances someone did the same thing is a strong argument that they think it is morally justified, or at least acceptable. The argument here is that the escalations in Ukraine are geopolitically unwise and that NATO doesn't have a moral reason to be involved after the shenanigans they pull. So why are they funnelling in weapons and working so hard in support if not to provoke a NATO-Russia conflict? We can rule out the idea that they are good people by looking at the organisation's past actions.

reducesuffering 5y ago

Classic whataboutism entirely deflecting the question. Yes, US did not handle Cuba correctly 60 (!!) years ago. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians are dying today and could be stopped by Russia immediately, but they don’t. I guess if every country can be overly paranoid about their neighbors, when Russia built up troops on its border, it’s within Finland’s, Estonia’s, Lithuania’s, Latvia’s, and Ukraine’s right to just start shelling Russia right? Because the Russian buildup “could” be a threat?

danbruc 5y ago
I start to hate the term whataboutism - this is none. I am not justifying one situation with another, I am just demanding consistent judgment of similar situations. This is also why it does not really matter that it was 60 years ago. You say the United States handled Cuba incorrectly, I do not know what exactly that means, but this is also not too important as long as you are consistent. We will probably disagree at least somewhat in our judgment. In my opinion it was not unreasonable for the United States to demand no missiles on Cuba given the tensions and mutual distrust in order to not increase tensions further. I could maybe also understand if Cuba or the Soviet Union had rejected that demand as reasonable in principle but not justifiable in this specific situation because of the aggression by the United States. In the end the Soviet Union did the right thing and deescalated. And they still got somewhat screwed by the United States because the concessions by the United States were no real concessions - removing the missiles from Turkey was already planned before the crisis because they were obsolete. In consequence I also think that it is not a totally unreasonable demand from Russia to not want NATO at all its borders. With that said, is still do not think that attacking Ukraine is an acceptable way to achieve this, for example sabotaging or destroying NATO military installations once they pop up in Ukraine would seem much more justifiable. But then again, once Ukraine is a NATO member, Russia would have to deal with article 5. In the end I think this should never have escalated this far to begin with, Ukraine and NATO should maybe have aimed for a limited membership like Norway or no NATO membership at all. This is of course only reasonable if you think that sovereign states sometimes have to accept limits to their sovereignty because of the interest of other states. You can of course disagree with this, but then I would ask you, for example, for your opinion on the destruction of Iranian centrifuges by Stuxnet. Justified or an act of war? I also want you to consider that it is easy from today's perspective to argue that the United States should just have accepted Soviet missiles in Cuba, therefore it might be better to consider how the United States would act today if China and Mexico reached a deal to station Chinese military assets in Mexico in exchange for economic support, maybe not even missiles but say a lot of ground forces. Would the United States be fine with that? And you can of course completely reject the idea that NATO expansion is an important factor for the Russian aggression, then the discussion has to shift completely to evidence for different explanations.
- danbruc 5y ago
  I hope it is clear anyway but I forgot to spell it out explicitly - that I consider the United States preventing the Soviet Union from putting missiles on Cuba a reasonable or at least acceptable course of action does in no way imply that I am siding with the United States on all matters concerning Cuba. I consider especially all attempts and actions to overthrow the Cuban government as unjustifiable.
roenxi 5y ago
> Classic whataboutism entirely deflecting the question. Pointing out that in the same circumstances someone did the same thing is a strong argument that they think it is morally justified, or at least acceptable. The argument here is that the escalations in Ukraine are geopolitically unwise and that NATO doesn't have a moral reason to be involved after the shenanigans they pull. So why are they funnelling in weapons and working so hard in support if not to provoke a NATO-Russia conflict? We can rule out the idea that they are good people by looking at the organisation's past actions.