4 ms·
By your comment, I assume that you don't see a difference between "not having a commercial relationship with a country" and "invading and annexing a country".
by kgwgk 2y ago
By your comment, I assume that you don't see a difference between "not having a commercial relationship with a country" and "invading and annexing a country".
- thiagoharry 2y agoCuba was being invaded at that time (Bay of Pigs Invasion, later there was also discussion about a false flag attack to kill people, blame Cuba and then justify an invasion). From the point of view of Cuba, the Russian missiles were a way to ensure that other invasions would not happen again. If the missile crises were not solved, then the conflict would escalate to a war, but fortunately, it did not happen.
- throwawayq3423 2y agoYou have shifted to the justification for the threat, which is not what we are talking about. Castro not only accepted the missiles, he demanded they be used: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/23/opinion/castro-wanted-a-nuclear-strike.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/23/opinion/castro-wanted-a-n... If you are arguing this is normal or in some way explainable, I don't know what to tell you. There is ample reason why relations aren't good and you cannot exclusively blame others (the US) for it.