It's been a while since I visited places outside the US, but one of the shocking things was travel ads for Cuba everywhere.
From what I can tell, US-Cuban relations seem to be at the whim of the US President. Most of the US population doesn't care; most of the rest of the world has fine relations with Cuba, but isn't going to pressure the US. Nobody is sending missiles to Cuba anymore.
What I can't understand is WHY are the people who escaped for a better life, pro embargo... What, 70 years later? Seems like it's only being highly effective at hurting the general population
My father migrated from Cuba in the 60's and anytime I asked him whether it was worth me visiting he promptly said
"No, absolutely not. Don't even waste your time considering it. Castro ruined it and it will never be the same".
I think the moral is that for many Cubans the embargo isn't against the people, it's against the Cuban government, and they genuinely hate the government with every fiber of their existence. They hate what Castro took from them and have no dissolutions that letting up the embargo would strengthen that governments rule while only providing minuscule benefits to the people. Until the government regime changes in Cuba, any pressure we can apply is worth it.
Just to clarify, you are upholding your father's political retribution despite being born elsewhere and (presumably) never visiting? I'm genuinely curious.
It was a traumatic event in his father’s life. There is no illogic in despising the people and organizations that brought about that misery on his father.
The answer to this question is so obvious I have trouble believing you are asking in good faith.
Cuban exiles are about 50/50 on embargo. It’s been around a while, and obviously isn’t changing the regime. Making people poor doesn’t bring democracy.
Spy stations aren't at all close to the level of provocation that missile launcher would be - the former have been around for decades, the latter nearly caused WWIII about 62 years ago.
Still no. Just a visit, doesn't look like Cuba has any wish to become Russia's military fortress. From Russia side all decisions are made by a single person who is not thinking big. Cuba would be quite expensive. Ukraine is more then enough for Putin, unlikely he wants a new 'adventure'.
there is no point in comparing gdps here, what's important is what is the capability of war industry and armies are, and at the moment we can see that industries are not that far off, add nuclear weapons to the picture, and its draw, just as it was in the cold war.
The overall GDP tells you what capabilities exist in total. Life of Russians is significantly more impacted in post because they are redirecting a much larger part of their economy. Let's also not forget that the cold war was with the Soviet Union and not just Russia.
GDP is directly and strongly correlated to military industrial capability for sustaining a meaningful war effort. Modern history has shown this time and time again in many wars where enemies seriously applied themselves to pushing onward (I say this to exclude things like the Vietnam War, in which the U.S could have crushed the North but didn't have the political or social will do push it that far). Aside from its nuclear arsenal, Russia is economically and in terms of sustained war production no match for the NATO Alliance, even without the U.S. With U.S support, there's no chance. Putin himself even recently stated this, calling the idea of attacking NATO insane and specifically referencing his country's economic strength vs. that of NATO and the U.S.
Russia is just barely sustaining its war with Ukraine and the production capacity behind restocking destroyed and lost supplies. Never mind a war with NATO, unless they're willing to use nukes and risk utterly destroying themselves, and I don't quite think Putin is that insane. Even if he is, I don't think those surrounding him are, and their sycophancy would rapidly evaporate if faced with a real, immediate threat of their boss unleashing something that makes their decades of hard-stolen self-enrichment become irrelevant.
Because he's not targeting the west, he's targeting semi-literate part of Russian population. He isn't giving statements like that on CNN, he's giving statements like that on TV programs that no educated person watches.
He's there to blow things out of proportion locally, he just happens to be translated from time to time for clicks. There's no significance to his words. He doesn't speak on behalf of Putin, he's not there to leak some super-secret internal plans for the future, he's just there to yap about how Russia can totally take over the entire Europe.
education has nothing to do with this, an average university professor in Russia(or for a matter of fact in the west too) is a radical supporter of the mainstream media
This is 60 years ago... In that same timeframe the EU was formed and grown to 26 nations including roughly 10 that pointed nuclear missiles at each other one time.
Just like Cuba didn't really itself point missiles towards the US (it was the soviets), the Warsaw pact nations inside current EU were used as Soviet proxies too.
Ok, I still don't get it then. The Warsaw pact nations were not planning on using their nukes on other European nations with nuclear weapons, to avoid getting nuked themselves. This is documented in the (formerly) secret war plans that were released by the Czech republic.
Everyone in europe had to be fine with that for the whole cold war. Never understood the american hysterics during the cuban missile crisis. Like the END wasnt real before and after.Manifest destiny for exceptional Hipocrasy.
You know that this was a response for american missiles being placed on Turkey, right? By your comment, I assume that you also agree with Russia, when they criticize NATO expansion around their borders, right?
By your comment, I assume that you don't see a difference between "not having a commercial relationship with a country" and "invading and annexing a country".
Cuba was being invaded at that time (Bay of Pigs Invasion, later there was also discussion about a false flag attack to kill people, blame Cuba and then justify an invasion). From the point of view of Cuba, the Russian missiles were a way to ensure that other invasions would not happen again. If the missile crises were not solved, then the conflict would escalate to a war, but fortunately, it did not happen.
If you are arguing this is normal or in some way explainable, I don't know what to tell you. There is ample reason why relations aren't good and you cannot exclusively blame others (the US) for it.
It's been a while since I visited places outside the US, but one of the shocking things was travel ads for Cuba everywhere.
From what I can tell, US-Cuban relations seem to be at the whim of the US President. Most of the US population doesn't care; most of the rest of the world has fine relations with Cuba, but isn't going to pressure the US. Nobody is sending missiles to Cuba anymore.