In 1962, the world watched the Cuban Missile Crisis with terror. The United States declared Soviet missiles in Cuba an existential threat it could not tolerate.
Washington made one thing clear, that no superpower would accept a hostile military presence near its borders. Nuclear war loomed because the US insisted on its right to preemptive defence.
The principle was simple and universal–the security concerns of a great power, especially near its borders, are legitimate. Fast forward six decades.
NATO has steadily expanded eastward, inching closer to Russia’s borders. Military exercises, missile systems, intelligence posts, and political influence now operate in territories that historically served as Russia’s defensive buffer.
Ukraine, the final piece of that puzzle, is increasingly treated as a potential NATO outpost. Moscow issued warnings for years, “This threatens our security. NATO on our borders is unacceptable.”
The West laughed it off. What was once universally recognised as legitimate—security concerns near one’s borders—has now been dismissed as “Russian paranoia.” The principle hasn’t changed, only who is using it has.
Narrative Warfare: The Double Standard of Morality
Western strategic communication has become a masterclass in narrative control. The US reaction in Cuba was framed as self-defence against aggression, while Russia’s reaction in Ukraine is labeled an unprovoked barbaric invasion.
Fundamentally, the events are analogous–a superpower blocking a hostile military presence near its territory. Yet Western media and policymakers weaponise language to flip morality.
When the US acts in its sphere, it is legitimate security. When Russia acts in its sphere, it is imperial expansion. NATO expansion is praised as promoting sovereignty and democracy, while Russian resistance is condemned as a violation of sovereignty. This is not accidental. It is strategic manipulation.
The “Rules-Based Order” Was Never Universal
The so-called rules-based international order was never universal. It was not written by a neutral council but created when Europe and the US ruled the planet through colonies, gunboats, corporations, and banks. These global rules were designed to extract resources, control trade, subordinate nations, justify intervention, and preserve Western dominance.
The same nations that drafted these rules invaded Iraq, Libya, Grenada, Vietnam, and Afghanistan; overthrew governments in Iran, Congo, Latin America, and Africa; and assassinated leaders, funded rebels, and staged coups.
None of these interventions posed a direct military threat, yet they justified action. Meanwhile, when other nations defend their security, they are accused of violating the rules.
International law has often been a fig leaf for Western enforcement, not a shield for the weak. The Cuba–Ukraine double standard exposes this truth in neon.
Europe: Junior Partner in Hypocrisy
Europe plays the role of junior partner in this charade. In 1962, it accepted that US security fears could almost trigger nuclear war. In 2022, it rejects the same logic for Russia and finances the crisis it once feared.
European leaders preach morality while fueling war rhetoric, sacrificing economic stability under sanctions, and passing crushing costs to citizens. Europe claims it is protecting freedom in Ukraine, but in reality, it is safeguarding a hierarchy where the West always sits on top.
Ukraine: From Buffer to Battlefield
Ukraine could have been a neutral bridge, trading peacefully with East and West. Instead, it has been transformed into a forward post for Western strategy. Like Cuba in 1962, Ukraine has become the fuse of a larger conflict.
The difference is that in 1962, diplomacy cut the fuse. Today, it is deliberately kept burning, because war profits power. Ukraine has become a battleground not for its own interests, but for someone else’s strategic ambitions.
The Bottom Line
Cuba taught a universal rule, that no power tolerates a hostile security alliance at its doorstep, geography cannot be rewritten by slogans, and great powers act—even break rules—to survive. Yet in 2022–25, the West claims its fears are legitimate while Russia’s fears are illegitimate, its interventions are moral, and Russian reactions are criminal.
This is not law or ethics. It is blatant double standards. When the US defends itself near its borders, it is justified. When Russia does the same, it is condemned.
The rules-based order survives not on fairness, but on propaganda, hypocrisy, and might. The world, especially the Global South, is finally seeing these rules for what they are, a colonial control in a silk tie.