Germany set to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, Der Spiegel reports

You're falling into trap. Russia continued to move nuclear weapons to Cuba throughout the Cold War.

 

Of course not. However, the Monroe Doctrine was conceived at a literally different time, in history. It is, therefore, ridiculous to try to compare the distant past, to the present. After all, we still had slavery, in the era in which the Monroe Doctrine arose. Women were not allowed to vote, and so forth. It is a pointless exercise, to try to superimpose our current standards and understandings, upon past events, when thinking and popular opinion on matters, was so vastly different from what it is, today. How far back one must go, to render past thinking, inapplicable to today, depends on the issue. Consider, for example, how quickly the societal view has changed, on gay marriage.

To the point of this thread, I'd believed your main argument had to do with comparing Russia's objections to Ukraine becoming a NATO member, with the U.S. stance on Russian nuclear missiles, in Cuba. Do I misunderstand your argument? Or, at this point, are you no longer arguing anything that can be succinctly traced back, to the idea of German made, Leopard 2 tanks, going to Ukraine?

 

What evidence can you provide of this?

 

Castro did. Russia helped the Castro brothers take back Cuba.

 

https://www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-soviet-military-buildup-cuba

The best way to hide information is to put it in a library.

 

Castro did not.

 

So you believe the USSR forced themselves on Castro?

 

Yes, just as Ukraine has a right to join NATO so did Cuba have a right to partner with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. There is no argument that will change my belief.

 

The report-- written by the Heritage Foundation, not the Government-- does not confirm the presence of nuclear weapons, in Cuba. It does show an ongoing use of Cuba, as a base of Russian naval operations. It also confirms, as we know, the delivery of non nuclear weapons to Cuba, from the Soviet Union. There are only inferences that nuclear missiles or bombs, ever made it back on the island, even if that, clearly, was the Soviet intent. The report notes the presence, for example, of a unit that is configured to guard nuclear weapons. But this is not proof of the presence of nukes, only the intention of bringing them there. Likewise, the report cites the presence of a particular missile, which may be used, for a nuclear cargo. Intelligence reports (presumably U.S. government ones) are cited as speculating the storage of nuclear weapons, but also lists another possibility. Even without investigating the Heritage Foundation's source for these "Intelligence reports," our experience in Iraq should teach us, that the info contained, is not 100% factual, but includes some guessing, and information of which the agency will have varying degrees of certainty.

But it is interesting reading, and certainly shows that the U.S.S.R. absolutely violated the spirit of our earlier agreements with them. They did continue using Cuba as a base, for a Soviet naval presence, and brought in a significant amount of potentially offensive weaponry.


<Snip>
Vessels from the USSR now call frequently on Cuban ports, train with Cuban vessels, and patrol the southern and eastern coast of the United States after reple nishment from Cuba. In addition construction began in 1978 on a new Cuban naval base, and the facilities at Cienfuegos were expanded to include submarine piers and a handling area for nuclear warheads. 6 OTHER SOVIET VIOLATIONS OF THE 1962 AGREEmNT Althou g h naval forces have initiated the most visible Soviet activities in Cuba, there are other instances in which the 1962 agreement has been violated by the introduction of offensive weapons. The distinction between offensive and defensive weapons ultimately depends on how they are used A tank or a plane is defensive so long as it remains within the borders of a nation but when used for aggressive purposes, a weapon becomes offensive.
There are certain weapons in Cuba which clearly pose offensive threats to th e United States in Cuba, flown by Soviet pilots. Both are far superior to the IL-28s President Kennedy had forced the Soviets to remove in 1962 and clearly give Cuba a significant offensive potential.
MIG-27 configuration is an effective attack aircraft c apable of carrying nuclear or conventional payloads up to 1,500 miles, and since.these planes are based in Cuba, they should be considered Ifstrategictf weapons systems. Recent deliveries by the Soviet Union have brought the total Mig 23/27 force level to approximate ly 75 aircraft, with half of them the more advanced Mig 27.
These aircraft are frequently flown by pilots from the Soviet Union, War'saw Pact countries, and Soviet client states. Of even greater significance is the existence of at least three and as many as six airfields that can handle the Backfire strategic bomber. Certain American defense sources predict that the Soviets will eventually move a squadron of these sophisticated planes to Cuba. From Cuban bases, the Soviet Backfire could hit an y target in North America and easily make it back to the Soviet Union In 1978, two squadrons of MIG 23/27 fighter-bombers arrived The THE CONTINUING SOVIET BUILDUP In 1979, just prior to the uproar following Senator. Church's disclosure of a Soviet IIComba t Brigadel' in Cuba, the Soviets sent twenty-four AN-26 transport planes to the island. These aircraft are capable of carrying troops anywhere in the Caribbean region.
The public debate generated-by the apparent prospect of Cuban and/or Soviet troops being used in Central America helped obscure the true purpose of the now infamous brigade. A 1979 article in The Washington Post identified this unit, which had been trans ferred from East Europe as being configured to guard and handle tactical nuclear weapons . This implied that the unit's role was to protect the storage of such weapons as well as other sensitive Soviet installations on the island. For instance, the Soviets maintain a very large communications complex in Cuba, the largest in the world outside t he Soviet Union, which is used both to relay transmissions to Soviet military units around the world and to monitor and collect American military transmissions.
Castro against internal opposition are simply not credible. The security of sensitive listening and intelligence-gathering instal Suggestions that this unit is stationed in Cuba to back up 7 lations on the island and tight Soviet control of the nuclear weapons possibly stored there must surely be of far greater importance to Moscow than Castro's st ability. Elements of the Ilcombat brigade" came from East Germany and Czechoslovakia, where they guarded nuclear weapons depots and mobile missile launchers.
They are now stationed around the Punta Movida complex, a Soviet built facility linked by rail to Cienfuegos, which is now off limits to the Cuban population in the area. Intelligence reports indicate that this facility is being used to service nuclear weapons from Soviet submarines, but weapons for the MIG-27 could also be stored there. The Carter Ad ministration should have been aware of these developments in 1979, but no public announcement was made.
Another aspect of the increasing.Soviet offensive capability in Cuba surfaced in 1979 when batteries of modified SA-2 anti aircraft missiles were identified by air reconnaissance in Cuba.
These large missiles, often equipped with nuclear weapons, can be employed quickly in a surface-to-surface mode by the simple addition of a booster. They have an operational range in excess of 150 miles and could be used against ground targets in Florida.
<End Snip>

 

Do you are saying that Ukraine does have a right to join NATO? IOW, your argument is only a criticism of the past? Since we cannot go back in time, that seems like a moot point, to me (even disregarding @Bob Newhart 's Heritage Foundation source-- which I amply quoted, if you are interested-- showing that the Soviet Union did use Cuba as at least, a permanent Soviet base).

However, this thread is about tanks supplied to assist Ukraine, in defending itself against an ongoing Russian invasion, not about Ukraine membership in NATO. If Ukraine were a member, NATO involvement would look much, much different; in fact, there is no way that the Russian army would still have an inch of Ukrainian soil, long before this point.

 

No I didn't say that.

 

Biden sends the Abrams:



Russia Readies Robotic Response To 'Secret Armor-Less' Abrams Tanks In Donbas

"The shock version of the Marker robot, which will enter the special operation zone in February, will be able to automatically detect and hit Ukrainian equipment, including American Abrams tanks and German Leopard tanks."

'Following the news of NATO-made tanks set to flood Ukraine, the former head of Russia's space agency Dmitry Rogozin told the Russian newspaper Pravda that "Marker," a new robo-tank, will be able to 'destroy Western tanks, including American Abrams and German Leopards.' '

 

Some more explanation to help out.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-rememb...uclear-weapons-cuba-cuban-missile-crisis-coda

Land-based Nuclear Weapons were transferred out of Cuba because Russia considered Castro to be unstable. It had nothing to do with being forced off by the U.S.

 

A misunderstanding although possibly purposeful on your part is that the Warsaw pact was created to defend against NATO.

The real purpose of the Warsaw Pact was to give Russia permission to send in the tanks and crush dissent in those countries, which it did several times. It was a forced contract onto Russia's slave nations. Castro was not a slave and therefore would not want to obtain slave status by joining the Warsaw Pact. Why would he want to sign a contract of indentured servitude?

Castro worked with Russia because he was a true believer of Global Marxism.

 

Maybe you can elaborate on what you are saying?

 

just did see post 264

 

LOL-- What gives you any confidence in Russian military equipment, to think that the Abrams tanks won't blow these robots to smithereens, before the new model, Ruskie technology, can defeat the M1s?

 

I made no such assumption. We'll have real world evidence shortly, I'll wait for that before forming conclusions.

 

The real purpose of the Warsaw Pact was to put a buffer zone between the West and Russia. We can see today Russia’s fears that the West led by the U.S. and NATO would creep closer towards Russia without those buffer countries came to fruition and now we are on the brink of a nuclear war. NATO’s defensive role turned into an offensive role in the 90’s.

 

The Ukrainians will be rookies trying to win a race with a sophisticated formula race car.

 

Good post. Yup the Warsaw PAC countries were called Captive Nations. In fact the Warsaw PAC countries were like adjunct Soviet states. In fact there were many ( maybe still are) lower information people who actually believe(d) that Poland for example was in the USSR. Now Tito of the “country once called Yugoslavia was a Communist ( which is Ungood ) yet he did not want to be a Soviet slave as you put it. Neither did Hoxha of Albania.

 

NATO never invaded nor did it ever threaten the USSR or Russia. Let’s be honest here the Warsaw PAC countries may only in the minds of the Soviets and Pro Soviets or Communists had been a buffer but it was a buffer against nothing since NATO never invaded USSR/Russia and never will unless Russia invades a NATO country. Russia invaded Ukraine twice but NATO has not invaded Russia. There are no NATO boots on Ukrainian soil.

 

We have been on the brink of nuclear war since the Rosenbergs. Nato expansion didn't change that. Since Russia doesn't have slave states to support its nuclear program, the problem has become less.

While you may support the enslavement of nearby countries as buffer states, I do not. The best way to form a buffer state is to have peaceful relations with your neighbor, not threaten to invade and nuke them.

Russia fears not having slaves and not having an empire.

 

Since they are racing against 1970s technology, it will be no problem for them to win.

 

Actually, the delivery of M1s, to this point, is really being overblown. We are only talking about 31 tanks (which have been stripped of their uranium armor, as @Zorro 's article, points out). This is mostly a symbolic gesture, to encourage other countries, to provide their own tanks, primarily the Leopard 2s. The great amount of time we are taking in delivering these M1s-- and maybe the stripping of armor explains part of that delay-- means that they will not even be part of the equation, for Russia's doubtless spring offensive, or the Ukrainian counter-offensive. IOW, there is no reason to think that Ukrainians will be out of their depth, with the tanks they do get, by then. And, according to Ret. General Barry McCafferty, Ukrainian tank crews could be trained to be perfectly competent on even the Abrams tanks, in just one month's time.