• freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Cuba was not the USA, but the USSR installing missiles in Cuba made the US go fucking berserk. Eat shit, idealist.

      • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Sweet, so we should go park a bunch of nukes in Ukraine is what I hear since that apparently justifies intervening in the affairs of a foreign nation. Invasion of sovereign territory some might say is another but I guess that passes when it’s Russia right?

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          You’ve got it backwards. Russia literally invaded Ukraine because of the US/NATO threat of deploying nuclear capabilities and developing combat readiness in Ukraine which has historically been the vector for Western powers to invade Russia three times causing the death of millions of Russians. That’s why everyone was talking about Russia likely invading, because they were doing things that Russian intelligence flagged as the precursors of deploying natsec threats.

          That’s why the USA has legislators and state department officials in Ukraine during the Euromaidan event. That’s why both Republicans (Trump and his 2016 advisors) and Democrats (like Hunter Biden) had deep ties to Ukraine prior to the SMO - because the USA has been preparing for Ukraine to be a forward operating base against Russia since Clinton.

          And no, invasion of sovereign territory is not justification for open involvement. Mutual defense treaties are. But again, Ukraine’s alliance with the West was exactly what was under contention here. Because Ukraine is the passageway that both Hitler and Napoleon used to invade Russia, the natsec situation for Russia since the dissolution of the USSR is that Ukraine must remain unallied with the West (they called it neutral, but that’s because the West didn’t want Ukraine allied with Russia). As soon as Ukraine were to formalize mutual defense treaties with the West, that would pose a real strategic threat to Russian natsec. All sensible people who understood this analysis stated that since security is mutual, this redline must never be crossed. But the war hawks in the West said that our security must come at the expense of the security of others. They believe that Western security is only possible if they dominate everyone, Russia included. So, they require that Ukraine be a forward operating base for the US as part of their security framework, knowing full well that this means Russia becomes insecure.

          Russia refuses to be national insecure, so, it appeased the West for 20 years until 2014 when it finally reacted for the first time by invading Crimea. From Crimea is monitored the continued build up of threat level on Ukraine until it reached a point requiring reaction and interpreted whatever was going on 2022 as that point, at which point they asserted their national security interest and disrupted the ongoing US/NATO operations with the SMO.

          You need to actually analyze the situation instead of just vibing about it

    • gravityowl@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Ukraine is not (yet?) NATO either, so why send troops there?

      Wouldn’t sending troops actually just escalate things further and drag the whole of NATO into it if anything were to happen to those soldiers?