The government of Grenada was in chaos; Americans were in danger; and nearby governments requested our help. So we sent in troops. -Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1983 (obviously paraphrased) The real reason Reagan decided to invade Grenada was because it was relatively close to the U.S., and he was concerned that Cuba and the USSR were increasing their influence there, both militarily and economically. As far as I can tell, there appears to be little evidence that any Americans were actually in direct danger. Hm, this sounds rather familiar. Look, the Cuban (and by extension, Soviet) military presence certainly existed, and Grenadas government was indeed unstable. At the same time, NATOs continued eastward expansion and the EUs attempts to influence Ukraine are real too. So how is Putins thought process and calculus on this particular issue different from Reagan? If you look a bit further back into Russias history, its also clear that they want buffer States between them and other powerful nations, and the first two World Wars certainly didnt give them reason to think otherwise. From an American perspective, were of course benign and do everything for the good of mankind, why would anyone think we have ulterior motives for pulling Ukraine towards the EU? Snark aside, why should the Russians believe so? After all, our track record over the past 20 years (alright, our track record ever since creation) hasnt been particularly peaceful. Of course, you could criticize both Reagan and Putins actions, or approve of both. The point is that Grenada helps us understand how strong regional powers react to real or perceived threats in countries close to them. On a more geeky note, there is a major difference in that Russian military would be taking a significantly larger risk in moving into Ukraine, compared to the U.S. invading Grenada.
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 01:52:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015