4 ms·

> That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a wor

by mopsi 2y ago

> That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance. And the Cuban missile crisis proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to argue. I stress the name: MISSILE crisis. After nuclear missiles were removed, Cuba remained an ally of the USSR until its very end and continued to host conventional Soviet forces. The USSR equipped Cuba with weapons such as Koni-class frigates and SA-8 surface-to-air missile systems, gave them hundreds of T-55 and T-62 tanks, stationed Soviet bombers and fighter jets in Cuba, and used Cuban ports to conduct exercises such as sailing missile cruisers like Admiral Isakov within 50 miles of the Mississippi coast in the 1980s. The cooperation, including visits by Russian warships to Cuban ports with exercises 30 miles off the Florida coast, continues to this day: https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/russian-fleet-ships-submarine-south-florida-us-navy-warships-tampa-cuba/ https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/rus... If Cuba is a blueprint for you, then you have nothing to complain about. Even full members of NATO do not receive this level of support from the alliance.

wakawaka28 2y ago
Cuba is not a blueprint. It's just a vaguely similar situation. Cuba is much smaller than Ukraine and also not on our border. Although Russian ships can visit Cuba, they can also travel in international waters just as close to the US as Cuba. They are also limited to what can be carried on ships, and we can see any surface ships coming from space. Russian involvement with Cuba is not at all the same as, say, Russia hypothetically backing a coup by anti-US politicians in Canada or something (which is essentially equivalent to what we have done in Ukraine for at least a decade). It is common knowledge that the contested Ukrainian election of 2014 pitted pro-US candidates against pro-Russia candidates. You can believe what you want about the outcome. But clearly, both our side and their side were taking a keen interest in controlling Ukraine, and the Russians have more legitimate interest in that than we do considering how close they are culturally and geographically. >Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance. It doesn't lack substance. They seriously worry about that. And like I said, it is only half the story. Another huge issue for them is that US interests interfered in Ukrainian politics to destabilize relations with Russia, which was set to deprive them of bases that they were set to have in Ukraine. Another issue had to do with the Nazi leadership of Ukraine. Another had to do with shelling of Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas and elsewhere in eastern Ukraine. The Nazism and attacks on civilians were covered by even the Western press until our side decided they wanted to fight a war in Ukraine. Then all of that information was brushed under the rug so that we could claim we were supporting the good guys.
- mopsi 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    [flagged]

by mopsi 2y ago

wakawaka28 2y ago

Cuba is not a blueprint. It's just a vaguely similar situation. Cuba is much smaller than Ukraine and also not on our border. Although Russian ships can visit Cuba, they can also travel in international waters just as close to the US as Cuba. They are also limited to what can be carried on ships, and we can see any surface ships coming from space. Russian involvement with Cuba is not at all the same as, say, Russia hypothetically backing a coup by anti-US politicians in Canada or something (which is essentially equivalent to what we have done in Ukraine for at least a decade). It is common knowledge that the contested Ukrainian election of 2014 pitted pro-US candidates against pro-Russia candidates. You can believe what you want about the outcome. But clearly, both our side and their side were taking a keen interest in controlling Ukraine, and the Russians have more legitimate interest in that than we do considering how close they are culturally and geographically. >Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance. It doesn't lack substance. They seriously worry about that. And like I said, it is only half the story. Another huge issue for them is that US interests interfered in Ukrainian politics to destabilize relations with Russia, which was set to deprive them of bases that they were set to have in Ukraine. Another issue had to do with the Nazi leadership of Ukraine. Another had to do with shelling of Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas and elsewhere in eastern Ukraine. The Nazism and attacks on civilians were covered by even the Western press until our side decided they wanted to fight a war in Ukraine. Then all of that information was brushed under the rug so that we could claim we were supporting the good guys.

mopsi 2y ago
[flagged]
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  [flagged]