Training is different than attacking, right? Was NATO training Ukrainians to invade Russia, I don't think so but I don't know everything like some other posters. They were likely training to defend themselves from Russia and it seems the need for that training has been proven correct.
Oh stop it. Who the hell else are they training for? Stop gaslighting and trying tip toe on some alleged distinction in your mind. The fact that NATO has a training facility in Ukraine is the issue. Again, if a military alliance involving China or Russia was doing the same in Cuba or Mexico, hw would the United States react? That is as clear cut of an apples to apples comparison as you can get.
And your comment is moot anyways because they are fighting the Russians right now and have been fighting the militia of the republics for 8 years.
I did not reference the Bay of Pigs which fits your narrative, not mine. I referenced the Cuban missile crisis which was completely different.
My mistake on that, but even still, the Bay of Pigs proves my point. The US would not stand for it. Nor would the US stand for a foreign power like China or Russia to place weapons in Cuba or Mexico, which also proves my point.
It was not one country simply forming and alliance with another and provoking the US to attack them even though we never really did attack the USSR or Cuba over the incident. Nice try though. I do like the Bay of Pigs analogy for hopefully Russia losing in its attempt to take over Ukraine like the US lost in ours to take over Cuba. Neither nation should have interfered in another nations business at those two points in time.
Here you go with the gaslighting and wordplay... "really" attack. So again, what was the Bay of Pigs? A special military operation? Didn't we try for at least two decades to have Castro assassinated several times?
Different because it is different, despite your efforts to pretend they are not.
Different because you know good and damn well your position doesn't make any sense.
It was not one country simply forming and alliance with another and provoking the US to attack them even though we never really did attack the USSR or Cuba over the incident.
So wait, you mean a country can be provoked into taking action? Explain what you mean here?
I do like the Bay of Pigs analogy for hopefully Russia losing in its attempt to take over Ukraine like the US lost in ours to take over Cuba. Neither nation should have interfered in another nations business at those two points in time.
Well first off, Kennedy had that fall into his lap when he came into office and he was rightfully against the idea. So the scheme did not have the full backing of the White House, which is why it was a disaster. This special military operation is a different matter all together for Russia because unlike the Bay of Pigs for the US in 1961, it was NOT an existential threat to the country. To Russia, however, everyone in the govt is onboard and realize that NATO involvement in Ukraine DOES represent an existential threat the Russia.
Now with regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis, had the US not placed missiles in Turkey, Russia would not have felt the need to reciprocate in Cuba. But the interesting thing about the Cuban Missile Crisis is that something happened then that would not likely happen right now. That is diplomacy. We don't have that with these clowns right now. We have a group of mean high school girls that pout and virtue signal and have fits. "I'm not going to be your friend" type nonsense.