advertisement


Ukraine V

A very good article on the Cuban missile crisis and a comparison with the Ukrainian crisis:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/cuba...t-history-soviet-union-russia-ukraine-lessons

It's funny how the same wilful blindness runs through both Russian actions - in the case of Cuba, they were totally convinced (without having visited Cuba) that the missiles could be hidden from aerial observation beneath Cuba's palm trees, only for the first Russian planners in Cuba to find out that there actually weren't any palm trees. But the higher-ups in the Kremlin didn't want to know that, and a plea to shift the missiles to a place where they could be hidden was flatly refused. So, there were the first ones, just waiting to be spotted by a U-2.
 
tones said:
A very good article on the Cuban missile crisis and a comparison with the Ukrainian crisis:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/cuba...t-history-soviet-union-russia-ukraine-lessons

It's funny how the same wilful blindness runs through both Russian actions - in the case of Cuba, they were totally convinced (without having visited Cuba) that the missiles could be hidden from aerial observation beneath Cuba's palm trees, only for the first Russian planners in Cuba to find out that there actually weren't any palm trees. But the higher-ups in the Kremlin didn't want to know that, and a plea to shift the missiles to a place where they could be hidden was flatly refused. So, there were the first ones, just waiting to be spotted by a U-2.
Click to expand...


Cuba has plenty of palm trees, god knows I've spent enough time under them.
However, they do not provide a dense canopy like a a deciduous forest would.
A little to spartan to hide anything from the air.
There is heavily forested areas, but from my meagre travels they are pretty rugged and hard to access.

royal-palm-trees.jpg
 
tones said:
A very good article on the Cuban missile crisis and a comparison with the Ukrainian crisis:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/cuba...t-history-soviet-union-russia-ukraine-lessons

It's funny how the same wilful blindness runs through both Russian actions - in the case of Cuba, they were totally convinced (without having visited Cuba) that the missiles could be hidden from aerial observation beneath Cuba's palm trees, only for the first Russian planners in Cuba to find out that there actually weren't any palm trees. But the higher-ups in the Kremlin didn't want to know that, and a plea to shift the missiles to a place where they could be hidden was flatly refused. So, there were the first ones, just waiting to be spotted by a U-2.
Click to expand...

And where there was a canopy, they didn't use it...

doc-094b-big.jpg
 
anubisgrau said:
still failing to see why arming cuba was bad and arming ukraine good?
Click to expand...
Big difference. I haven't seen anyone putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine for use against Russia, which is what the Russians intended against the USA. The US had missiles in Turkey, which were withdrawn as part of the Cuba deal.

Ukraine surrendered all the nukes it had back when the Soviet Union collapsed.
 
yep there's a plenty of fine details but the essence is pretty much the same - playing with weapons right on the border of your enemy.
 
tones said:
Big difference. I haven't seen anyone putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine for use against Russia, which is what the Russians intended against the USA. The US had missiles in Turkey, which were withdrawn as part of the Cuba deal.

Ukraine surrendered all the nukes it had back when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Click to expand...
Actually, Ukraine gave all Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russian Federation, in exchange for 'ironclad' guarantees of Ukranian territorial integrity.
 
DimitryZ said:
Actually, Ukraine gave all Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russian Federation, in exchange for 'ironclad' guarantees of Ukranian territorial integrity.
Click to expand...

I think things would have played out differently if Ukraine had retained its nukes. Russia would have tried harder and earlier to keep Ukraine under its control with an imposed old Soviet style puppet regime. Zelenskyy would never have happened for sure.
 
notaclue said:
But this is comparing the situation in Crimea to a different situation that ignores the history and demographics of Crimea.
Click to expand...
Ah you mean the history of detatarization and russification of Crimea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars
Russification has started again since 2014 so at some point it's no wonder opinions in the region change.

So if Argentina grabs 20% of Brazil, then forcibly removes the Brazilian population from the area, Argentinians move in and then those Argentinians vote that they want to stay as part of Argentina, would this be acceptable to you? We can't let genocidal policies like that legitimize aggressive annexations of territory. Just because it has been done in the past by countries both large and small doesn't mean it was ever ok and definitely does not mean it's ok now.
 
DimitryZ said:
Actually, Ukraine gave all Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory to the Russian Federation, in exchange for 'ironclad' guarantees of Ukranian territorial integrity.
Click to expand...
I guess that Russian iron was left outside and rusted away, like their tanks..
 
Spraggons Den said:
I think things would have played out differently if Ukraine had retained its nukes. Russia would have tried harder and earlier to keep Ukraine under its control with an imposed old Soviet style puppet regime. Zelenskyy would never have happened for sure.
Click to expand...

in reality, the weapons always belong to a country considered to be a successor of the union falling apart. so it was upon russian federation to decide what to do with any weapons from USSR on ukrainian territory.

that said, the biggest mistake was that the remains of two blocks were not completely disarmed. humanity would massively benefit.
 
anubisgrau said:
in reality, the weapons always belong to a country considered to be a successor of the union falling apart. so it was upon russian federation to decide what to do with any weapons from USSR on ukrainian territory.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like Russia was the USSR and if so is that what the invasion of Ukraine is really about - to return to the golden age.
 
Chefren said:
Ah you mean the history of detatarization and russification of Crimea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars
Russification has started again since 2014 so at some point it's no wonder opinions in the region change.

So if Argentina grabs 20% of Brazil, then forcibly removes the Brazilian population from the area, Argentinians move in and then those Argentinians vote that they want to stay as part of Argentina, would this be acceptable to you? We can't let genocidal policies like that legitimize aggressive annexations of territory. Just because it has been done in the past by countries both large and small doesn't mean it was ever ok and definitely does not mean it's ok now.
Click to expand...

You have proved my point by inventing a more complex scenario. As I said, it's more comparable to something like Northern Ireland.

It's not about whether it's acceptable. It's about dealing with the complex reality whether we like it or not. Wikipedia shows 'Russians' as the largest group in Crimea for a hundred years. From a time when it was part of the same country as Russia (the Soviet Union).

If recognising Crimea as part of Russia would end the war and get the Russians to withdraw from the rest of Ukraine, it would not seem too high a price to pay for me. Especially if the alternative is months or years more bloodshed across Ukraine as a whole.

Crimea is only about 5% of Ukraine so there's still plenty left.

Perhaps it can even return to Ukraine peacefully some time in the future when Putin is gone.
 
notaclue said:
You have proved my point by inventing a more complex scenario. As I said, it's more comparable to something like Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
Is your point that you think might makes right and that's ok? If so, I'm not sure how I proved it by disagreeing with it.

notaclue said:
Crimea is only about 5% of Ukraine so there's still plenty left.
Click to expand...
There is also plenty left of Russia too if Ukraine gets Crimea back, so this isn't an argument for anything really. What you seem to be proposing sounds to me like appeasement wearing a Realpolitik t-shirt and hoping no-one notices.
 
notaclue said:
If recognising Crimea as part of Russia would end the war and get the Russians to withdraw from the rest of Ukraine, it would not seem too high a price to pay for me. Especially if the alternative is months or years more bloodshed across Ukraine as a whole.
Click to expand...
Of course it's not too high a price for you - it's not your land.

But I bet if your neighbor chewed off a part of your yard while taking potshots at your family you would complain in the firmest fashion!

In truth, Putin has been offered this deal multiple times, last time with 15 year Crimea negotiations while he holds it. It was rejected every time.

It's a nice idea - someone here thought of offering Putin a nice Moscow to Berlin railroad - but he really wants about 20% of Ukraine he holds now. He is willing to kill as many of his subjects as needed in meat wave attacks in hopes that you eventually work your 5% up to 20%.

He expects you to expand your "Ukrainian land giveaway" because he knows how upset you are about "needless deaths." One can't enjoy a nice cappuccino if you keep hearing about "meat waves!"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top