That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance. Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe.
And the Cuban missile crisis proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to argue. I stress the name: MISSILE crisis. After nuclear missiles were removed, Cuba remained an ally of the USSR until its very end and continued to host conventional Soviet forces. The USSR equipped Cuba with weapons such as Koni-class frigates and SA-8 surface-to-air missile systems, gave them hundreds of T-55 and T-62 tanks, stationed Soviet bombers and fighter jets in Cuba, and used Cuban ports to conduct exercises such as sailing missile cruisers like Admiral Isakov within 50 miles of the Mississippi coast in the 1980s. The cooperation, including visits by Russian warships to Cuban ports with exercises 30 miles off the Florida coast, continues to this day: https://www.tampabay.com/life-culture/history/2024/06/12/rus...
If Cuba is a blueprint for you, then you have nothing to complain about. Even full members of NATO do not receive this level of support from the alliance.
>Nobody put any missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a worn-out Russian talking point that lacks any substance.
It doesn't lack substance. They seriously worry about that. And like I said, it is only half the story. Another huge issue for them is that US interests interfered in Ukrainian politics to destabilize relations with Russia, which was set to deprive them of bases that they were set to have in Ukraine. Another issue had to do with the Nazi leadership of Ukraine. Another had to do with shelling of Russian-speaking civilians in the Donbas and elsewhere in eastern Ukraine. The Nazism and attacks on civilians were covered by even the Western press until our side decided they wanted to fight a war in Ukraine. Then all of that information was brushed under the rug so that we could claim we were supporting the good guys.
Yes, it does. Nobody put missiles in Eastern Europe. That's a simple, irrefutable fact. Your salvo of similarly unsubstantiated Russian propaganda does not change that one bit.
> Cuba is not a blueprint. It's just a vaguely similar situation.
No, not even vaguely. The people who bring up the Cuban missile crisis are usually unaware that only nuclear missiles were removed from Cuba in the aftermath. Cuba did not become neutral or expel the Soviet military. Cuba remained allied with the USSR and continued to host a significant presence of Soviet conventional forces. If Cuba could host Soviet fighter jets less than 10 minutes from Miami for decades, then I don't see why Ukraine can't do the same.
No, because they are..
> the most heavily-armed country in the world
Russia threatens nuclear war all the time. They’re not concerned about it at all. Most of what they do as a country is tell other countries how big their nuclear missiles are in a menacing tone.
You misunderstood the situation. If MAD is to remain an effective deterrent, no country can allow another to get the upper hand. That can happen for example through one country putting a missile base 5 minutes away from your border. Russia sees a move like that as a strategic threat and thus they feel justified in waging war to prevent it. That is even more justified when the territory in question is not even belonging to a nuclear-armed country. We too threatened nuclear war when it came to the Soviets putting nukes in Cuba.
So no missiles, no missile bases. The best you can come up with are a bunch of old fighter jets delivered a full decade after Russia invaded, to shoot down cruise missiles and drones launched at Ukrainian cities. Proves the point.
The only reason to expect escalation is that they insist on supporting a war right up to Russia's border. They do need to be prepared to defend themselves but I think they only have to worry if they keep instigating wars with other nuclear powers. Don't you think Russia is similarly concerned about getting nuked? That's why they won't suffer hostile forces putting missile bases only a few miles from their border. That is in fact half of what the Ukraine war is about.
>Canada has no nuclear umbrella of its own, is not part of a mutual defence alliance beyond NATO, and they are being actively threatened with annexation by a Russia-controlled US. They’ll clearly need to build or agree by pact their own nuclear defence as a matter of national emergency. It’s hard to see how anyone will place much trust in such pacts ever again though.
If you think the US is actually going to allow Canada or Mexico to be invaded, you're really out of touch. It's akin to how Russia won't allow Ukraine to become a hostile neighbor without intervening to stop it.
>It’s a scarier world we’re entering, and is significantly more dangerous than even the Cuban missile crisis.
It's not in fact more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis. Cuba had 1500 Soviet nukes (if I recall correctly) on their soil unbeknownst to JFK. War was only averted because the Soviets decided to pull out rather than launch all the nukes. The only sense in which things are more dangerous now is that we've got actual warmongers in charge of some NATO countries who think that they can strategically defeat the most heavily-armed country in the world in its own backyard.