And yet, the USA did not invade Cuba or press a regime change after the CMC. There was a negotiated settlement where the USA withdrew their missiles from Turkey, left Castro alone and that settled the issue.

NATO never deployed nukes in any of the ex-USSR countries, did not build extensive permanent bases, signed the Russia/NATO founding act and in general tried to accommodate Moscow.

There's a world of difference between deploying offensive nukes in a neighboring country and allowing countries to join a defensive alliance. That's not to say I am a huge fan of US politics of the 1960's, but the comparison is simply lopsided.

edit: Oh, I think I may have misread what you wrote. You were being sarcastic and saying that the US proposed not to expand early on but no agreement was reached, and Russia is trying to hold NATO to that anyway. Sorry!

Could you provide any proof of this? I don't see any evidence of this, are you referring to a verbal agreement?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm#c203

Claim: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War

Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.

The idea of NATO expansion beyond a united Germany was not on the agenda in 1989, particularly as the Warsaw Pact still existed. This was confirmed by Mikhail Gorbachev in an interview in 2014: "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."

Declassified White House transcripts also reveal that, in 1997, Bill Clinton consistently refused Boris Yeltsin's offer of a 'gentlemen's agreement' that no former Soviet Republics would enter NATO: "I can't make commitments on behalf of NATO, and I'm not going to be in the position myself of vetoing NATO expansion with respect to any country, much less letting you or anyone else do so…NATO operates by consensus."

That's obviously where Russia went wrong. The US made stupid mistakes when it comes to Cuba, but with the Soviet missiles they made it stick.

In contrast, Russia thought that could take over a country while Europe and the US would sit still. Then when that didn't happen, Russia didn't figure out that something was going wrong. So they got a complete economic boycott and they are letting Ukraine destroy most of the Russian army.

Soon Russia will be a country with no economy to speak of and no army.

So, uhm, which country in central/eastern Europe hosts NATO nuclear missiles again?

That's just whataboutism.

Russia has been invading it's neighbors for centuries. Eastern Europeans do remember that.

Joining NATO is not only about the conflict today, it's due to pretty much all generations in the area suffering due to their aggressive neighbor further to the east.

Russia has been a prison of people’s for some time. I’m all for countries like Finland wanting to be neutral but Russia’s actions and out right threats of war really force their hands.

There’s a reason Belarus is the only real ally in the region.

Afaik the NATO mission in Yugoslavia and Libya were the two big ones. Both misused NATO and were not defensive in nature.

There is a distinction between an explanation and a justification. There are many ways to explain why some thing happened or might happen. They can not be used to justify said action. I believe Mearsheimer and Pozner, for reasons, confound one for the other. Saying that Russia could not help not to attack, that it is the rational choice for Russia, is like saying that advertisers can not help themselves tracking users, it is the rational choice to track users. Again, explanation is not justification. Explanations are not excuses. That is why I call it bullshit propaganda: He is justifying the war. War is not just. War is never just. War is death and tragedy, even if you can write entire books explaining how it happened and why every party had legitimate interest.

RealPolitik, the realist school of thought, evolutionary psychology, etc. only ever provide explanations. And often they may be good explanations. They are useful when trying to understand events or people or groups of people and when trying to predict behavior or create models.

But to derive justification from those explanations means that you ascribe to the belief that determinism (lack of free will) absolves you of responsibility. It does not. Whether you have free will or not you still have to make choices and still bear the responsibility of those choices. If you believe you have free will you are directly responsible and must assume responsibility for any consequence coming your way. If you believe you do not have free will, than any consequence is simply the system correcting itself. There is no escape from making choices.

But what do I known? So since you are claiming he has more authority I will counter with someone of equal or greater authority, Alexander Stubb, past Prime Minister, Minister Of Finance and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Director and Professor of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlB-pRqdyBg

Turkey apparently didn't get this rubber-stamping message, and used their vote for own gains. To me this still looks pretty much like a state deciding for themselves.