Ah, so nuclear powers can do whatever the fuck they want against anyone else and not even other nuclear powers should interfere with that.
Great, that's a pretty hard argument for trashing every non proliferation treaty in existence.
Do you however want to live in that world?
I already do, the problem here is that you've fully immersed yourself in Wonderland; that's why you're having to present a strawman argument here because I literally never said anything like that and
we both know it.
I prefer the terms "sane and rational" because refusing to poke a nuclear power for no gain whatsoever makes sense, no?
If it's in the strategic interest to engage with another nuclear power in conflict, sure, go at it but make damn sure the cost of not doing so outweighes or at least matches the risk of doing such an action. So far you have categorically failed to present any real case in this regard, other than arguing for the Domino Theory of the Cold War without any evidence to its basis here. Overall, I'm not even convinced you understand the basics of the situation, given in your last post you argued the Russians haven't warned against nuclear weapons in the region and all it took was doing a three second google search to find an AP article concerning this from six days ago.
Ukrainian nationalists did.
Ukraine is a universally recognized sovereign state, Donbass isn't.
They aren't sovereign states.
We both know you don't give a shit about that, so don't you pretend to now. Taiwan sure as shit isn't a "universally recognized sovereign state", and all it takes is a quick review of your post history to show you've never cared about that.
If few organizations and government employees in Japan were to boycott Taiwan over not surrendering to China and drag said organization's business decisions into it...
Do you think the government would just shrug at it?
The problem with that reasoning is that if China seizes Taiwan, history doesn't end.
If China seizes Taiwan and doesn't regret it, then this is going to be rock hard evidence that China has both the military and political power to seize any SEA country with equal or greater impunity, because they aren't even fortress islands like Taiwan.
They will know it, and the SEA countries will know it, and both will know that the other knows.
This would have major consequences to the politics of the whole region.
I have no doubt whatsoever you'll try to explain this away with some novelty take that makes about as much sense as the rest of the things you've posted here do, but we both know that's a lie, your point here is being advanced in bad faith because you don't actually believe in it, and you're a hypocrite on this point.
What kind of silly argument is that? If Russia can make demands, it can also offer mutual deals, no need to wait for Washington to ask nicely for their side of the deal.
In what universe is Russia required to advance Washington's interests for them? How diplomatic talks go is you state your demands, the other side states theirs and then you begin the negotiation process.
As i said, viking politics.
You give vikings an agreed upon amount of gold, and vikings back down from war. For this raiding season at least.
No, you just don't know how diplomacy works or you're acting in bad faith; can be either in this point, because I've already caught you in one. As part of resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis, the USSR got the USA to agree to not invade Cuba; is that viking politics or another case of you being uninformed on the issue and spouting off?
Not invading countries is not a concession to be sold, its supposed to be the default.
Condemn the Iraq Invasion right now, but we both know you won't because you're a hypocrite when it comes to applying international law fairly. For the Russians, it's supposed to be iron clad but then you let the U.S. weasel out of it. I'd tell you to have consistency, but it's clear that's a choice on your end not to at this point.
Ah, yes, the totally fair Russian supposition that Russia stationing nuclear weapons on NATO's borders is totally fine, while NATO stationing nuclear weapons on Russia's borders is outrageous and unacceptable.
Want to know the secret of why NATO is not caring that much about what Russia will station on Belarus?
Because they are already stationing it in Kaliningrad without the necessity of negotiating it with Luka.
We're not playing these games; cite it.
Funny how you automatically take the word of unspecified "other officials" over what Gorbachev, you know, the guy in charge, has said.
Yes, of course 11k troops is just a training brigade. Just like the ones who shot down US planes in Vietnam.
In the fall of 1979, a furor erupted in the United States over the discovery of Soviet combat troops in Cuba. Scarcely remembered today, it was an episode of the Cold War that seemed like a very big deal at the time, so much so that it prompted U.S. president...
warisboring.com
Funny you have problems with your own source, perhaps next time you should bother to read it first? While you're at it, how about you explain the relevancy of 1979 when your original source was talking about the situation in 1989; you can't actually debate anything with me here because you know I'm right, you have to constant goal post shift here.
This gets all the more hysterical when you actually read what you posted:
On Sept. 16, 1970, an American U-2 reconnaissance aircraft detected evidence that the Soviet Union was constructing a long-term naval facility at the Cuban port of Cienfuegos, one which could serve as a permanent base for Soviet ballistic missile submarines. U.S. officials in the Nixon administration raised objections with Moscow, stating that such a move would contravene the USSR’s commitment following the Cuban Missile Crisis to refrain from introducing offensive military forces into the Western Hemisphere.
The Soviets, who denied that they were building such a base, ultimately withdrew the submarine tender and two support barges it had sent to Cienfuegos and for the most part the matter died down.
Why, exactly like what is happening today with the roles reversed, no? The Soviets back then moved in combat troops and the capacity for nuclear weapons, the U.S. put pressure on them to remove them and the Soviets did. Now, the modern day is almost the exact mirror, just switch the roles and Cuba for Ukraine. But wait! That's not all:
Another, more minor controversy arose in November 1978 when it came to light that the Soviet Union had provided Cuba with between 12 and 24 MiG-23 fighter-bombers seven months earlier. These were tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers, but they were capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
However, U.S. intelligence quickly determined that the Cuban MiG-23s were not nuclear capable. Officials in the Carter administration assured the public that there was no evidence of Soviet nuclear weapons being present in Cuba and that the MiGs were too few in number to pose a military threat to the United States.
It's almost as if the U.S. just like the Russians can be concerned about nuclear capable assets! But wait, there's more!
What followed was a textbook example of a political crisis almost entirely devoid of substance. The presence of 2,000 to 3,000 Soviet combat troops in Cuba was unacceptable to many Washington leaders, both Republican and Democrat.
Sen. Frank Church, a liberal Democrat from Idaho who served as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, immediately demanded the brigade’s removal. “The United States,” he said on Sept. 4, “cannot permit the Soviets to establish a military base on Cuban soil, nor can we allow Cuba to be used as a springboard for real or threatened Russian military intervention in the hemisphere.”
Sen. Richard Stone of Florida echoed this sentiment, arguing that the brigade’s deployment violated the Monroe Doctrine. Howard Baker, the Republican leader in the Senate, stated that if the U.S. tolerated the presence of Soviet combat troops in Cuba, “we will in effect be letting the Soviet Union thumb their noses at us.”
Ronald Reagan, preparing for his run for the presidency in 1980, said that the United States “should not have any further communications with the Soviet Union” until the troops were withdrawn.
This the position of the Russians today with Ukraine, literally almost exactly with NATO and NATO troops being there. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between the two positions at all, and to pretend there is entirely bad faith in origin.
You want to bring weapons up? Every bloody weapon Cuba had then was Soviet.
If that is to be taken as a negative, then explain to me why it's not equally a bad thing that the U.S. and NATO is increasingly arming Ukraine? Again, you no consistency and are an obvious hypocrite here.
No, you are just making up baseless suppositions. It was specifically about nuclear weapons, not "bombers and missiles".
Can you tell me in what universe 1962, which is what I was talking about, is actually 1979 which is the article you're citing here?