What did the US do? When the USSR began placing nuclear capable missiles in Cuba military leaders in the US advocated a partial or full invasion of Cuba with air and naval support. President Kennedy preferred a blockade, in particular a 'quarantine' against military equipment rather than a full blockade which is considered an aggressive action. In the end, the USSR withdrew the missiles in exchange for the US withdrawing our nuclear armed missiles in Turkey.
Now jump forward many years. In late 2021 both NATO and the White House, having already placed dual use launchers in Romania and Poland, decided after getting Ukraine into NATO, they would place dual use launchers in Ukraine, where they would be a third of the distance from Moscow the Cuban missiles were from Washington DC. And decided if Russia felt threatened that was their problem, and told the Russians that Ukraine is a sovereign country and can do whatever they want within their own boundaries and it is none of Russia's business.
I doubt Russia is that worried about the US nuking them. It isn't like we couldn't do it a hundred other ways. This tension between the two is 100 years old.
You forget... JFK DID authorize an invasion. The event was named after the "Bay of Pigs". Thousands of US backed Cubans hit the beaches. At the last moment, JFK cancelled the promised air support. Most of the Cubans were captured and we spent the next ten years paying ransom to get them back.
'Dual use' means the initial aim is to build an anti missile defense capability, but the same system can be used to launch nuclear armed attack missiles: The United States missile defense complex in Poland, replaced a planned site in Redzikowo, Poland with a phased plan —the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, including SM-3 Block IIA interceptors - wikipedia But the same launch tubes and the control systems I understand will also function to launch Tomahawk nuclear-armed cruise missiles, for attacking Russia, hence the term 'dual use'. Siting a defense' system in Ukraine puts it at a disadvantage because it is so close to the Russian ICBM sites that it would not be able to intercept the missiles, having to chase after them, whereas at a site further to the West the intercepting missiles have time to reach the incoming ICBMs.
What you mentioned is the explanation of John Mearsheimer. According to him the current Eastern European policy was set up by American genius and military hero who freed Iraq from murderous Saddam Hussein – G. W. Bush. But anyone who knows Russian history knows that historically Russia was the aggressor country who always prayed on the weakness of their neighbors and all Eastern countries begged the US and the West to join NATO. So it was an error to support Ukraine? IMHO yes, for two reasons: 1. Russia is a nuclear power and different set of rules applied to nuclear countries 2. The West knows it has no balls to support Ukraine for real. Much better would some kind of compromise, to make Ukraine the Western country without NATO membership, like it was with Finland.
I'll have to research this. While there are GLCM's (Ground Launched Cruise Missiles) The software which guides a which are offensive. The launch systems are totally incompatible, physically and software-wise with Air Defense systems and vice-versa. The systems which launch Air Defense weapons are generally not compatible with systems designed to attack ground targets. It's never been done that I know of. Thanks... I'll do some research.
Yes, I would expect the electronics and software of the launch systems to be incompatible, and they would even launch in opposite directions, But if the launch tubes and buildings are there then anything could be fitted inside the buildings. To make a good guess at the situation I'd suggest we think a step ahead and my guess is the overall strategy is a repeat of getting the USSR to break up, to break up the largest country remaining there which has the largest Natural Gas reserves of any country in the world. If we can frighten the Russian public enough they might capitulate and allow their country to be 'reorganized' into 18 small republics each of which we could then 'negotiate' gas prices with. I'm not sure how feasible the plan is, but the Neocons think it is good enough otherwise they would not be trying to do it.
I'm just an Oldiecon. I don't see such grandiose plans as possible. .. nor necessary. Russia has proven to be a "paper tiger" in the Ukraine. We should worry much more about China... and crazies like North Korea and Iran with nukes.
I really don't think so, there is a country to worry about, but i still don't tend to mention them because they really are scary.
Just do a BING AI or Google AI search on the Cuban Missile Crisis, for the full particulars. The long and short of it, JFK called Khrushchev's bluff, as JFK blockaded (quarantined) Cuba, then Khrushchev 'blinked' as it were, and yes, Turkey was part of the deal but that deal was made secret. We didn't learn of it until a few years later
So what the US actually did was diplomacy and in the end the USSR withdrew the missiles from Cuba and the US withdrew our missiles from Turkey. Diplomats prior to the neocons in the Biden Administration made it very clear that the government in Russia would consider NATO and NATO missiles in Ukraine a very serious threat.
And it was NATO and the US that refused to negotiate, even though the missiles in Ukraine would be a third the distance from Moscow that the USSR missiles in Cuba were.
Before you go any further, you should become a little bit familiar with the weaponry. The missiles stationed in Cuba during the crisis were long range missiles. They could Seattle and the west coast with ease. No one ever suggested we station similar missiles in Ukraine. Indeed, we don't have much in the inventory like that anymore after retiring LANCE and PERSHING II missiles.
A hypersonic missile from the eastern part of Ukraine would reach Moscow without enough warning to get people into the shelters under Moscow, that's why the US wants NATO in Ukraine. Not that the US would have much to gain from nuking Moscow, but it is to frighten the Russian public into capitulating to the US and breaking up Russia and allowing US companies access to the largest natural gas reserves in the world. Similar to what caused the USSR to capitulate and drop out of the Cold War and allowed Esso some really good bargains.
NATO doesn't have a ground launched hypervelocity weapon although we do have one launched from an aircraft. So Ukraine doesn't play in the game at all.
Problem here is that the neighboring regions of the United States are not in fear of the United States invading and conquering them. As such the neighboring regions of Russia are scared that the person currently in charge who thinks that everybody outside of Russia is actually Russian and by extension their states are Russian States might actually invade them which gives them an incentive to want to form a defensive Alliance to prevent that kind of an expansion or aggression. So what do you do? If you're a smaller neighboring state of Russia do you just pray to God that the little midget Hitler doesn't invade you?
the US propagandists were correct that Putin's lack of height was the best angle to attack his reputation with the general public.
Maybe, but I think his (the people around him) plan for the US is the same as his plan for Russia - hand the natural resources over to his friends, and keep the bulk of the population on low rates of pay.
Somewhere floating around is an opinion that this all staged by China who want the US, Russia and Iran to ruin themselves in a nuclear war and China will remain to pick up the pieces and rule it all.
Even if they had the plan there is ample evidence our own Neo-cons implemented the US threat to Russia (poking the bear), I'm not sure about the rest.
Putin attacked Ukraine based on Biden's cowardice in Afghanistan. When Putin splashed a US Predator over international waters without any consequences, it just added fuel to the flames.
