As this question, which I find very interesting, was considered off-topic in another thread dealing with the invasion of Ukraine, then I raise it again: It seems to me that the Russia-Ukraine relationship is comparable to US-Cuba relationship. Including the annexation of Crinea, comparable to the annexation of Guantanamo by the US. the question then for the Americans of the group (or for anyone else capable of answering it), is: why did the US never invade Cuba despite the fact that in the 90's it was left without the coverage of the USSR?
I guess the simple answer is: Cuba was/is no threat to America and they don't have anything we want, such as oil or other natural resources. We wouldn't have anything to gain by an invasion. Since they were no longer under the auspices of the U.S.S.R. after its collapse, Castro wasn't given a second thought — especially with Islamic terrorism on the rise. What did/does Cuba have that we want besides circa 1950s Chevys and I guess cigars if that's still a thing?
I think there are some possibly relevant differences: (1) Time period.. As I recall, the U.S. acquired its lease on Guantanamo after the Spanish-American War in 1898, when imperialist land grabs were the rage for major powers. We controlled Cuba briefly, and could have kept the whole thing, but didn't. What we retained was a small warm water port.Times have changed. We had two World Wars, the League of Nations and the UN treaty since then, and naked irredentist land grabs are out of style and a violation of international law. (2) Scale. Guantanamo is 45 square miles,Crimea is with over 2 million people. (Ukraine, which Russia just invaded, is the second largest country in Europe with an area of over 230 square miles and 43 milliion inhabitants); (3) Manner of acquisition. Russia acquired Ukraine by outright invasion. The U.S.at least had the pretext of "remembering the Maine", and Spain was a colonial power. Other than that, I guess they're pretty similar. (Pardon the sarcasm,) Why didn't the U. S; grab Cuba in the 90s when Russia wasn't protecting it? Maybe because (1) it had its hands full with other international conflicts, (2) public opinion in the U.s. wouldn't stand for it, (the U.S lacking the ability of authoritarian regimes like Russia and Cuba to suppress popular dissent); and/or (3) because as a status quo power the U.S. wanted at least to appear to be honoring international legal norms. Now some questions for you. Whatabout Russia and Putin? (Why are they engaging in naked Hitler-style aggression that went out of style elsewhere over a century ago?) And why, with Ukraine in the news, are you so fascinated with the alleged "parallels" with U.S. actions in the nineteenth century? (Whataboutism: the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. Oxford Dictionaries).
Yup I would also point out that if the USA grabbed territory such as Cuba it would be an economic liability. Sorta like buying a house and realizing you'll have to put more money into renovations than you've got. USA only tends to invade territories that are a smart financial move, in terms of what is to be gained as well as what it'll cost to maintain. War has nothing to do with securing borders and quelling threats; it's all just real estate but with bombs.
Panama was a special case. There were reasons given for it, but I always had the feeling none of them were the real reason. Noriega was accused of drug dealing and racketeering, and rigging elections. He'd been known for doing that for quite awhile without much concern by the U.S.since he was on the CIA payroll as an important agent against theSandanistas in Nicaraugua. Then it was disclosed in 1986 that he had been working as a double agent for Cuba and the Sandanistas while supposedly working for the U.S.. He was, in mob vernacular, a "rat" .In 1988 , a U.S. court indicted him on drug smuggling and money laundering charges. Tensions mounted between Americans and the Panama Defense Force at the strategically sensitive Canal Zone. TYhere were tensions between Americans in the Canal Zone and Nicaraaguan forces and an off-duty Marine was shot. That triggered the U.S. invasion which was completed in four days, after which Noriega was arrested and bought back to a U.S. jail to stand trial.The President at the time was George H.W. Bush, who had been CIA Director. I suspect the full story lies in that agency.Anyhow, the operation happened so quickly and seemed so peripheral to the concerns of most Americans that public opinion wasn't much of a consideration. By the nineties when the Soviet collapse gave the U.S. an opening, the Bay of Pigs had already happened and wasn't an event the U.S. was eager to risk repeating.
Remembering the calls for intervention in East Africa concerning the Huttu wars, twas during the Clinton Admin. Interventions have been justified based upon humanitarian issues.
Ah, yes. That one. How could anyone forget? A tiny Caribbean island of 91.000 people. In 1979, the leftist New Jewel Movement overthrew the elected government in a violent coup d'etat. It established close ties with Cuba, invited in lots of Cuban and Soviet personnel, and began building an airport with Soviet and Cuban help. The*airport had a 9,000 foot runway which the new government claimed would be attractive to commercial airlines but which the U.S. feared would accommodate the largest Soviet aircraft and be used to support communist insurgencies in the region. The invasion happened during the Republican Reagan administration, which used it in attempt to counteract the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" of aversion by Americans to overseas conflicts. It was a relatively short operation which toppled the revolutionary government.The (lame) excuse given for it was protecting U.S. medical students on the island and to eliminate a situation threatening regional peace and stability. It was called a violation of international law by UN General Assembly resolution 38/7. Such niceties cut little ice with Reagan and Republicans.
As I recall, JFK called off the expected air support for those involved in trying to take Cuba back from Castro, which many felt was the cause for the defeat at the Bay of The Pigs. One of the theories concerning his assassination ( of the many) was that his decision to do so caused his demise by a faction of very mad and disappointed Cubans.
Do you doubt the circumstances I outlined? If so, why do you think Bush turned against his old associate Noriega? Aggressors usually have a reason that makes sense to them. In Putin's case, the possibility of Ukraine drifting into the western orbit and the existence of NATO countries on the border is something to worry about, and he would go down in history as the guy who restored the Russian empire. And given the perception of division and weakness within the U.S. and NATO and the fact that the current Ukrainian President is inexperienced and a former comedian, it looked like an opportune moment to strike.
What I wrote was in response to what you wrote--Whattabout Panama. It was not at all an attempt to defend the Panama action--only to explain it. "Rat" removal was certainly not the official justification for the venture. We're out of Captain Scarlet's jurisdiction now, so we don't need to worry about his watchful eye The term "good reasons" in English is ambiguous. "Good" can mean either practically advantageous "suitable or efficient for a purpose": or morally virtuous. It was practically advantageous for the U.S. under Andrew Jackson and his western farmer constituency to remove my Chickasaw people from their land and dump them here in Oklahoma, but I think it was not morally good for them to do that. Stalin had his "good reasons" for liquidating the Ukrainian kulaks, but they weren't morally good ones. Certainly Cuba has been and is a "pain in the ass" for the U.S., and the U.S. continues to put pressure on it through sanctions and a blockade on trade. We also drew the line on Soviet missiles. But another Bay of Pigs-style invasion is probably out of the question, for practical and moral reasons, for reasons explained supra (post #3. Why do you think this invasion hasn't happened after all these decades?
