Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

No, you don't.

And neither do the Russians.

So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?

As in uses depleted uranium (because of density characteristics) or radioactive waste stuff just for being radioactive?

(Obviously mass of tomahawk is too low for any chain nuclear reaction)

Would you want nuclear-capable missiles deployed on your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city?

Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons.

I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself.

Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

Not true.

> Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?

Yes, true:

https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co...

Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026

>That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad

Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?

>Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?

That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?

Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.

No, not true. Nothing in any of the provided sources says that Tomahawks have ever been given to Eastern Europe nor that there is any intention to. Ukraine has requested them, but your own source says that Ukraine is "unlikely" to receive them.

> Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia

They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region. In worst massacres, more people were killed by Serbs over a single weekend than died in the entire NATO aerial bombardment campaign that lasted several months.

> Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?

Again, nothing you say is true. No-one has given anyone Tomahawks, but Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus: "Putin confirms first nuclear weapons moved to Belarus" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65932700

> That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?

That's the question Russians should ask themselves when they keep pushing westwards with their nukes and attacks on European countries. Do Russians want to die in a thermonuclear blast that they act so recklessly?

You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.

You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another.

The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory.

Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?

Read my words again: the threat was made. Russia responded to that threat, as the notion that nuclear-capable missiles would be deployed on borders within minutes of Moscow was deemed intolerable, and thus the deployment was cancelled.

>They put an end to 10 years of wars in Yugoslavia and brought a lasting peace to the region.

How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded? And, again, the duplicity of your argument is clear: illegal wars are 'okay' as long as they result in peace and quiet afterwards?

That's not working out much for Gaza though, is it?

> No-one has given anyone Tomahawks,

I didn't say they did - I said that the threat to do so was made, and it was made - and as a result, we have war and calamity in Europe where we could have had a real, lasting peace between aligned nations.

If not for that coup.

>Russia has deployed their missiles to Belarus

Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe - so do allies have a right to engage in military agreements, or do they not?

You can't have it both ways. This is the entire point of MAD, which you seem to think doesn't apply to Washington, but does to Moscow.

You are making things up at this point. Eastern Europe has no Tomahawks, and nor has anyone given any indication that this would change, nor does the extreme caution in supplying much weaker weapons give a reason to even speculate about Tomahawks.

However, supplying more advanced weapons to Ukraine would be justified, given that Russia has broken the promises given to Ukraine in exchange for dismantling their nuclear weapons. I hope to see it happen!

> How many years of war occurred between the coup-government of Ukraine and the territory of Donbass before Russia invaded?

Zero. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there were no "separatists" in Donbas except for unmarked members of Russian armed forces and security services, fully under Russian command. And as in Yugoslavia, many lives could've been saved if NATO was more assertive in bombing the aggressor and establishing peace instead of looking the other way.

> Ah, and the USA has deployed their missiles all over Europe

American missiles stand where they stood when Nixon was still in office and countries that have joined alliances since the Cold War host none of them.

There was no coup d'état.

Simply put - it's a false narrative.

Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter:

   You:  NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening.

   They:  But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad.

   You:  But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK.

Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.

Yes, there was.

Indications:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/tomahawk-cruise-missi...

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/11/22/potential-envoy-to-uk...

https://www.politico.eu/article/volodymyr-zelenskyy-confirms...

"“We know the plan is realistic. U.S. own military studied it and said it is realistic,” a Ukrainian official familiar with the matter told POLITICO when granted anonymity to be able to speak about a sensitive foreign policy issue."

Pay attention to the dates.

>American missiles stand where they stood when Nixon was still in office and countries that have joined alliances since the Cold War host none of them.

Why abandon involvement in a treaty designed to prevent proliferation, if not to proliferate?

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/08...

Oh, and about those treaties ..

https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2021/12/the-us-exit-from...

If not, why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does?

Also, your entire position assumes that Europe==USA, when in fact it simply doesn't. The USA is forward-deploying its missile systems in (currently) friendly states - what happens when those states turn against the USA? Does the USA simply invade and retrieve its missile systems?

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40481317

No country has a "right" to apply the Monroe Doctrine, anywhere, of course.

The idea that we should defend or empathize with (or "understand") Russia's current smash-and-grab operation underway in Ukraine, based on a perceived similarity between its actions and whatever bad things other empires have done, way back when -- I find to be really quite bizarre.

Why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does?

I don't think the US has any such right -- and I find it quite strange that pretend to "know" that I would.

US responses in the articles you linked:

1) "the U.S. and NATO are hesitant to endorse due to fears of nuclear escalation."

2) "I don’t see the Biden administration ready to do so yet."

3) "senior U.S. official described the Ukrainian request as totally unfeasible."

Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico

Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.

Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself, and the PLA accepts the invitation, I want and expect my government (i.e., Washington) to stop them -- with organized violence if necessary such as is currently happening in Ukraine.

Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself

And if that invitation happened only after Mexico was invaded by the US (on as grounds as equally stupid and unprovoked as Russia's current invasion of Ukraine) -- then I'm sure we can trust that you will not only unequivocally condemn that aggression, but solidly champion Mexico's right to defend itself against it by whatever means necessary.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42199619

Such dictatorships propped by a foreign power from another side of the planet at the expense of the safety and well-being of people in the Americas looks exactly the kind of thing Monroe Doctrine sought to prevent.

Still, "legitimate" is a weird choice of words to describe unnecessary and provocative WMD deployments in any context.