>And yet, the USA did not invade Cuba or press a regime change after the CMC. There was a negotiated settlement where the USA withdrew their missiles from Turkey, left Castro alone and that settled the issue.
No, but they were willing to go to war to prevent the missiles from getting there. Waiting until after would have been too late.
>NATO never deployed nukes in any of the ex-USSR countries, did not build extensive permanent bases, signed the Russia/NATO founding act and in general tried to accommodate Moscow.
There are NATO missile bases in ex-Warsaw Pact countries though (Poland and Romania). Yes they are ostensibly to defend against an Iranian missile attack but the US has a poor record for honesty in its international dealings so I can understand that a potential missile base in Ukraine would cross a lot of red lines for the Russians.
>There's a world of difference between deploying offensive nukes in a neighboring country and allowing countries to join a defensive alliance. That's not to say I am a huge fan of US politics of the 1960's, but the comparison is simply lopsided.
It's easy to argue that the potential nukes in Cuba were defensive to deter any further US invasion attempts. At any rate balance of power I think is a better lens through which to examine these things rather than the ethics of offence and defense because that's actually what drives the decision making.
Likewise calling NATO a defensive alliance is a bit tenuous I think (at least from the American perspective). NATO is controlled by the US and the US is quite aggressive about pursuing its perceived interests.
Over the last 20 years there has been lots of chatter regarding US long term ambitions towards Russia and those ambitions are now being discussed more openly even in mainstream press. For example this article is from yesterday.
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/nato-versus-russia-in-u...
>A much more truly ambitious apparent long-term US ambition seems to have been to instigate the breakup of Russia into smaller manageable countries, paralleling the emergence of nations in eastern Europe after 1989. It could then deal with a reconstructed historical Russia of smaller emerging statelets run by competitive elites at odds with each other. These new polities, anxious for revenues, will then, presumably, be eager to sign lucrative commercial deals with US corporations since the entire region is extraordinarily wealthy in raw material resources.
So while I agree that Russia has acted in a paranoid manner vis-à-vis Ukraine/NATO I also think that the paranoia is understandable. Russia has after all been invaded by Western European countries three times in the previous 180 years (I'm not suggesting a military invasion of Russia is on the cards but certainly an economic and cultural one).
From an American perspective I think the US has played their hand very well. By manufacturing this conflict they created a situation where Russia had to choose between allowing further NATO expansion or starting a war which 30 years ago would have been considered a civil war. This results in all sorts of benefits for the US.
- Potential collapse of the Russian Federation and the economic benefits this would bring (for the West)
- Solidifying EU support of NATO
- Increased energy sales to Europe at higher prices
- Increased military sales to NATO countries due to new threat
- Increased budget for "the military industrial complex"
- Further the long term goal of preventing a peer competitor from appearing by both weakening Russia and making the EU more dependant on the US both economically and militarily.
- Mutually beneficial German/Russian cooperation is pretty much dead now so no threat of such an alliance appearing in the future.
Russia it seems only had two bad choices to pick from strategically speaking; a "Kobayashi Maru". We'll never know what would have happened if they had made a different choice but its fascinating to watch all this play out. History is happening in real time!
edit: I'm not the one downvoting you.